Become a Member for $9.99/month

Whether to maintain or abolish mobile trials ( xét xử lưu động ) remains a highly contentious issue in Việt Nam. Mobile trials are a common form of adjudication where, instead of being held at court buildings, trials are organized at public venues in localities—typically in the defendant’s hometown or at the site of the offense. These venues include schools, local People’s Committees, or even areas in front of detention facilities, all with free public attendance.

At present, there are no specific legal provisions governing which criminal cases should be selected for mobile trials. In practice, these are often “exemplary” local cases or those that attract significant public attention. While there are no publicly available statistics on the exact number, estimates suggest that more than 3,000 cases are brought to mobile trials each year. [3]

From the perspective of the procuracy, these trials are considered an effective form of legal education. By attending, citizens have the opportunity to better understand judicial procedures, the roles of the parties involved, and legal regulations, thereby avoiding similar violations in the future. [1] Judges and lawyers, by contrast, argue that mobile trials create numerous difficulties in the adjudication process. These include issues related to venue, timing, physical conditions, crowd pressure, and negative impacts on defendants’ rights. [2]

However, most discussions tend to approach the issue from a policy perspective—focusing on public education or crowd impact—while lacking analyses centered on the accused. Consequently, this analysis focuses on defendants’ rights before, during, and after mobile trials, corresponding respectively to the presumption of innocence, the right to be tried by an independent court, and the right to criminal record expungement and to be “forgotten.”

On Nov. 23, 2012, the National Assembly of Việt Nam adopted Resolution No. 37/2012/QH13 on “crime prevention and control and violations of the law […],” which originally included a provision calling for “increasing the number of mobile trials.” [4]

The National Assembly removed the word "increase" following recommendations from the Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court. [5] Nevertheless, mobile trials continue to be held frequently, particularly in rural and mountainous areas, raising the question of whether certain defendants’ rights are overlooked in the process.

Before the Trial: The Presumption of Innocence

The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of criminal procedure intended to eliminate doubts during investigations and prevent wrongful convictions. It makes sure that there is a balance in criminal cases between the state, which has more power, and the accused, who is in a weaker position. [6]

This right is explicitly articulated in Article 11 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law, …” [7] It is similarly enshrined in Article 13 of the 2015 Criminal Procedure Code of Việt Nam: “A person accused of a crime is considered not guilty until proven guilty according to the procedures prescribed by this Code and until a legally effective conviction judgment of the Court is issued […]”. [8]

However, mobile trials severely violate this principle. Given the objectives of education, deterrence, and crime prevention, once a case is designated for mobile trial, the defendant appears to have already been “sentenced” as guilty. Although no concrete data are available, all cases brought to mobile trial result in guilty verdicts. These are often accompanied by harsher penalties—frequently the maximum sentence—to achieve the desired educational effect.

This dynamic creates a dangerous complacency within investigative bodies. When a trial is virtually guaranteed to end in conviction, investigators have little incentive to pursue the truth. This problem is especially likely in high-profile cases chosen for mobile trials, where investigations must be conducted quickly under intense public pressure. Consequently, the investigative stage, well before the trial begins, compromises the presumption of innocence.

During the Trial: The Right to be Tried by an Independent Court

The right to be tried by an independent court is a cornerstone of fair judicial decision-making. This principle is enshrined in Article 10 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states: “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.” [9]

Furthermore, Article 14 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) affirms: “Everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal established by law, in the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law.” [10]

Domestically, Article 22 of the 2015 Criminal Procedure Code of Việt Nam explicitly states: “Judges and lay assessors adjudicate independently and only in accordance with the law; any interference by agencies, organizations, or individuals in the adjudication of judges and lay assessors is strictly prohibited.” [11]

However, the reality of mobile trials contradicts these safeguards, introducing significant interference through defense limitations and environmental pressure.

Firstly, the format severely compromises the defense. In these settings, the defendant's presumed guilt often reduces the lawyer's role to a performative exercise. Attempts to cite mitigating circumstances are difficult when crowds perceive lawyers as defending criminals rather than fulfilling their professional duty to protect a client's rights. [12]

Secondly, unlike courtroom proceedings, mobile trials are held in locations designed for capacity rather than judicial function, subjecting the process to weather, security issues, and crowd volatility. For instance, a Dec. 17, 2015 mobile trial concerning the 2015 Bình Phước massacre—resulting in two death sentences and one 16-year sentence—lasted 20 hours on an empty field. The judge was forced to read the 20-page verdict under the dim light of a fire truck’s lamps amid clouds of dust.

Similarly, a mobile trial for the Yên Bái massacre was held at Yên Bái stadium with a 3,000-person capacity; thousands of spectators shouted throughout the proceedings, forcing the judge to repeatedly pause to restore order. [13]

In such conditions—amid sweltering heat, falling darkness, or noisy crowds—judges face immense pressure to expedite proceedings and “satisfy” the audience. This environment risks pushing judges to impose harsher sentences than they might in ordinary courts, putting defendants at a greater disadvantage compared to those in standard courtroom settings. [14]

After the Trial: Criminal Record Expungement and the Right to be “Forgotten”

Legally, after serving a sentence and completing a probationary period, an individual is entitled to have their criminal record expunged, facilitating their reintegration into society. However, mobile trials often render this impossible for defendants. Because these trials are typically held in the defendant’s or victim’s hometown to maximize deterrence, the accused become “involuntary KOLs,” permanently marked in the collective memory of their community.

The consequences of this public exposure are severe. In 2013, the trial of two childcare workers in Thủ Đức was held at a local Children’s Cultural House. The 500-seat venue filled immediately, leaving thousands of angry spectators outside who had traveled just to see the defendants' faces. After such a spectacle, reintegration becomes nearly impossible. [15]

In Quảng Nam, a defendant named Nguyễn Thanh Kỳ ingested poison and died upon learning his case would be subject to a mobile trial. [16] These examples demonstrate that while legal records can be erased, the social stigma generated by mobile trials in Việt Nam’s close-knit society cannot.

Despite this, mobile trials are frequently evaluated solely on their policy benefits—education and deterrence—while the rights of the accused are overlooked. It must be remembered that the primary purpose of a trial—whether mobile or held in court—is adjudication, not public theater. By focusing on the crowd rather than the case, the trial's original function has been lost. Any serious discussion on this issue must return the defendant’s rights to the center of the debate.

Minh Nhật wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on August 28, 2023. Đàm Vĩnh Hằng translated it into English for The Vietnamese Magazine.

References: +

1. Khúc Văn Lâm. (2018, May 9). Bàn về xét xử lưu động vụ án hình sự. Kiem Sat Online . https://kiemsat.vn/ban-ve-xet-xu-luu-dong-vu-an-hinh-su-49772.html

2. Dừng xét xử lưu động . (n.d.). Tạp chí Tòa án. https://tapchitoaan.vn/dung-xet-xu-luu-dong

3. Phổ biến, giáo dục pháp luật thông qua phiên tòa xét xử lưu động . (n.d.). Phổ Biến Giáo Dục Pháp Luật tỉnh Bắc Giang. https://pbgdpl.bacgiang.gov.vn/chi-tiet-tin-tuc/-/asset_publisher/ctFINBWOJ3XS/content/pho-bien-giao-duc-phap-luat-thong-qua-xet-xu-cac-vu-an-tai-toa–1

4. Quốc hội. (n.d.). Nghị quyết 37/2012/QH13 công tác phòng chống vi phạm pháp luật và tội phạm . Thư viện pháp luật. https://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/Trach-nhiem-hinh-su/Nghi-quyet-37-2012-QH13-cong-tac-phong-chong-vi-pham-phap-luat-va-toi-pham-152940.aspx

5. See [2].

6. Bàn về nguyên tắc suy đoán vô tội . (n.d.). Tạp chí Tòa án. https://tapchitoaan.vn/ban-ve-nguyen-tac-suy-doan-vo-toi

7. Tuyên ngôn Nhân quyền Phổ quát 1948 . (n.d.). ISEE. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/60910dcc1acfae2fdd25c4aa/t/61478696649ec94660f5e305/1632077507806/tuyen-ngon-nhan-quyen-pho-quat..pdf

8. Quốc hội. (n.d.). Bộ luật tố tụng hình sự 2015 số 101/2015/QH13 mới nhất . Thư viện pháp luật. https://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/Trach-nhiem-hinh-su/Bo-luat-to-tung-hinh-su-2015-296884.aspx

9. See [7].

10. CÔNG ƯỚC QUỐC TẾ VỀ CÁC QUYỀN DÂN SỰ VÀ CHÍNH TRỊ (Được thông qua và để ngỏ cho các quốc gia) . (n.d.). Bộ Tư Pháp. https://moj.gov.vn/tttp/thongbao/Lists/ThongBao/Attachments/15/1.%20Cong%20uoc%20ICCPR%20-%20VN.pdf

11. See [8].

12. Có nên duy trì xét xử lưu động? (2023, August 27). Tạp Chí Điện Tử Luật Sư Việt Nam . https://lsvn.vn/co-nen-duy-tri-xet-xu-luu-dong.html

13. Trung Kiên. (n.d.). Tuyên án tử hình kẻ giết 4 người ở Yên Bái. VietNamNet News . https://vietnamnet.vn/tuyen-an-tu-hinh-ke-giet-4-nguoi-o-yen-bai-270058.html