Update: 25.03.2025
In the era of digital transformation, integrating modern technology into judicial activities has garnered significant attention globally, and Vietnam is steadily advancing to align with this trend. Remote court hearings, an increasingly common practice, promise to usher in a new chapter in the judicial reform journey of Vietnam. However, alongside the positive outcomes, several legal issues must be addressed to ensure these hearings are conducted efficiently, fairly, and transparently. So, how are remote court hearings currently regulated, and how are they implemented in practice?
I. Overview of remote court hearings
I.1 Definition of remote court hearings
As stipulated in Article 1.2 of Resolution No. 33/2021/QH15 on the organization of remote court hearings, adopted by the National Assembly on November 12, 2021, and effective from January 1, 2022 (“Resolution 33”), a remote court hearings is defined as a trial held in a courtroom where judicial officers are physically present, as required by law. However, there is electronic connectivity over the internet, enabling defendants, victims, litigants, and other participants to attend from remote locations outside the courtroom. This setup ensures real-time participation with full audio and video capabilities and adherence to public, continuous, and synchronous trial procedures.
This definition underscores that remote court hearings retain the essence of traditional trials, including courtroom settings and the presence of judicial officers. The key difference lies in allowing litigants, defendants, and other participants to join from remote locations via electronic devices, provided they are connected online. This approach enhances organizational flexibility while ensuring full, transparent, and accurate procedural compliance.
I.2 Implementation of remote court hearings in Vietnam
Since the legal framework for remote court hearings was established, Vietnam has seen remarkable progress in organizing these remote hearings, yielding clear benefits in cost and time savings while ensuring uninterrupted judicial operations. Specifically, in cases where the litigants, people with related rights and obligations are geographically unfavorable to the Court handling the case, or other objective obstacles such as natural disasters and epidemics that prevent them from coming to Court to participate in direct trials, organizing remote hearings is an effective solution, both minimizing travel costs and ensuring timely resolution of the case, while avoiding the situation of adjourning the trial due to failure to summon all the litigants. For criminal cases, it saves costs for using means to escort suspects and defendants to Court.
According to statistics presented at the Conference on successful digital transformation models at the ministerial level on June 16, 2024,, nearly 20,000 cases nationwide were adjudicated remote from January 1, 2022, to June 2024. These promising numbers reflect the efforts and timely adaptation of judicial officers and agencies, along with strong societal support.
II. Significant legal issues
II.1 Cases eligible for remote court hearings
Under Article 1 of Resolution 33, courts may organize remote hearings for first-instance and appellate trials in criminal, civil, and administrative cases.
However, remote hearings are not applicable in the following instances: (i) Cases involving state secrets; (ii) Criminal cases concerning national security offenses (Chapter XIII of the Penal Code); and (iii) Criminal cases related to peace violations, crimes against humanity, or war crimes (Chapter XXVI of the Penal Code).
Additionally, remote hearings are only permissible for cases that are: (i) Simple in details and nature; and (ii) Supported by clear and transparent evidence in the case file.
Specific procedures for remote court hearings
Remote court hearings processes and procedures
In addition to adhering to the general requirements under the Criminal Procedure Code, Civil Procedure Code, and Law on Administrative Procedures, remote hearings must meet the following specific requirements:
Firstly, regarding identity verification and attendance at the auxiliary locations, the court verifies the identity of participants by comparing their identification documents online or through the national population database. For criminal trials at auxiliary locations, court officials or staff at detention facilities check the presence of those summoned and report to the court clerk.
Secondly, concerning the commencement of remote court hearings, the presiding judge must clarify that online proceedings ensure the full adherence to procedural rules and the lawful rights of all parties involved, including defendants, victims, and litigants, in compliance with legal regulations.
Thirdly, regarding the submission of documents and evidence in remote court hearings:
For criminal cases: The judge receives documents and evidence in electronic data form, instructs court clerks or officers at detention facilities to reproduce and display them during the hearing, and prepares records in accordance with Articles 133 and 305 of the Criminal Procedure Code. After the hearing, the records and accompanying documents must be promptly forwarded to the presiding judge.
For civil and administrative cases: Litigants themselves reproduce documents and evidence in electronic form and submit them to the Trial Panel in accordance with Article 96 of the Civil Procedure Code and Article 83 of the Administrative Procedure Law.
Fourthly, remote court hearings must be audio and video recorded in electronic data format to serve as evidence.
Fifthly, minutes of remote court hearings must comply with legal templates, clearly noting the connection points and the names of prosecutors, court clerks, or officers and soldiers present at the remote sites. If there is a request to review the minutes, the court clerk will present them and conduct the necessary related procedures.
Sixthly, judgments and decisions must adhere to legal templates. The introduction section must specify the connection points, and the names of prosecutors, court clerks, and officers or soldiers participating at each site.
II.2 Timeframe for initiating remote court hearings
Regarding the preparation period for conducting remote court hearings in standard cases: Within no later than 07 days before issuing a decision to bring the case to trial, the presiding judge must:
Assess whether the case falls under the scope for organizing an remote court hearing as stipulated in Clause 1, Article 1 of Resolution No. 33, and evaluate the availability of necessary physical and technical infrastructure.
For criminal cases, provide written notice to the competent Procuracy to seek its opinion on conducting the remote court hearing.
If litigants or victims are entitled to legal aid but lack the technical means to participate, the court must explain their right to request legal aid and notify the State Legal Aid Center to provide assistance.
Regarding the preparation period for conducting remote court hearings in simplified cases: No later than 02 days before issuing a decision to bring the case to trial, The presiding judge must perform similar steps, including assessing the conditions for conducting the remote court hearing under Resolution 33, evaluating the state of physical and technical infrastructure, and notifying the Procuracy to seek its opinion (for criminal cases).
III. Challenges and limitations
III.1 Criteria for simple cases
Currently, the law lacks specific guidelines defining what constitutes a “case with simple details and nature”. This gap creates difficulties in applying the regulations, leading to inconsistencies among procedural agencies when evaluating and selecting cases eligible for remote court hearings.
Based on the training materials on remote court hearings from the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City, the selection criteria can be temporarily understood as follows:
For criminal cases: Cases where the defendants are being prosecuted for less serious, serious, or very serious offenses, with clear evidence, and the defendants are either in pre-trial detention or serving their sentence at a detention facility, all located at the same site or a maximum of two sites within the same locality.
For civil and administrative cases: Cases with a simple nature, where the parties have a clear residential or business address. The simplicity of the case is demonstrated by having few disputed issues to resolve, a manageable number of participants, sufficient and clear evidence provided by the parties, and a specific legal basis for evaluation without the need for additional evidence collection.
However, the above criteria are only for reference and have not been codified in legal documents. Therefore, their consideration and application in practice still present many shortcomings, requiring the Supreme People’s Court to issue detailed and consistent guidelines to ensure transparency and effectiveness in the process of organizing remote court hearings
III.2 Information security and ensuring evidence integrity in remote court hearings
One of the key issues when organizing remote court hearings is ensuring the security of information and the clarity of evidence throughout the trial process. While remote hearings offer significant benefits in terms of time and cost, they also pose risks related to the protection of personal information and confidentiality for the parties involved in the proceedings. The question is how to safeguard the confidentiality of information during transmission over networks, preventing data leaks or unauthorized access from external sources.
Moreover, ensuring clear evidence in remote court hearings is also a major challenge. Evidence in cases must be presented transparently, clearly, and without disruption during the online transmission. This requires the Court’s IT infrastructure to be capable of delivering smooth audio and video transmission without technical issues, while ensuring that all evidence and related documents are stored, protected, and managed in compliance with legal regulations.
IV. Recommendations
Recognizing the challenges and limitations in the process of organizing remote court hearings, the Draft Circular of the Supreme People’s Court on the regulations for organizing remote hearings (“Draft”) has been developed to address the current limitations. This draft provides specific and detailed provisions, establishing a solid legal framework to ensure fairness and effectiveness in the trial process.
Specifically, in Article 6 of the Draft, the conditions for organizing remote hearings are clarified, including requirements for criminal cases and administrative and civil cases. For criminal cases, the regulation stipulates that remote hearings may only be conducted upon request from the defendant and the detention facility, as well as with the approval of the Procuracy Office. This provision facilitates detained defendants’ participation in hearings without the need to be transported to the court, saving time and costs while ensuring safety, especially during pandemics or emergency situations. For appellate cases, the appeal or petition of the parties must also include a request for remote hearings, to enable prompt and efficient trial proceedings.
In addition, for administrative and civil cases, the parties may request the organization of remote hearings if they meet the prescribed conditions, including the consent of the Procuracy Office and ensuring adequate facilities and technical infrastructure. The regulation of specific requirements for requests and the oversight of the Procuracy Office is essential to protect the lawful rights of the parties involved and ensure the legality of the remote hearings process.
However, an important issue that the Draft has not yet fully addressed is the protection of information and the integrity of evidence in remote hearings. Although provisions for the facilities and technical infrastructure are included, the measures to safeguard information and evidence during remote hearings have not been clearly defined. This could raise concerns about the risk of information leakage, falsification, or manipulation of evidence throughout the trial.
The protection of network security, connection software, and the safeguarding of personal data of the parties, witnesses, and other stakeholders is crucial, especially as cases become more complex and criminal tactics grow increasingly sophisticated and professional. Furthermore, the regulation of control and supervision measures in the handling and storage of electronic evidence needs to be clearly defined to ensure the integrity of evidence and prevent any form of tampering or loss.
Therefore, for remote hearings to truly be effective and safeguard the lawful rights of the parties involved, there must be specific, detailed regulations concerning the security of information and evidence during the remote hearings process. This will not only ensure fairness and objectivity in the trial but also enhance the confidence of the parties in the judicial system and promote the sustainable development of judicial work in the digital age.
V. Conclusion
Currently, remote court hearings are being actively implemented and developed in Vietnam. Particularly, in the context of the global pandemic, including in Vietnam, where the COVID-19 crisis caused widespread lockdowns, disrupting direct court proceedings and posing significant practical challenges. With the foundational regulations discussed above, the organization of remote court hearings in Vietnam has achieved positive results in its initial stages, demonstrating its high applicability and ability to meet societal demands. However, there remain some issues and challenges in the actual implementation of remote court hearings. Therefore, it is crucial to complete the legal framework, clarify existing issues, and resolve limitations related to remote court hearings in order to enhance the efficiency of the judicial process, ensure objectivity, and ensure that cases are resolved fairly, transparently, and in a timely manner.
ADK VIETNAM LAWYERS
