A Comprehensive Analysis of Appellate and Cassation Review in the Context of Vietnamese Criminal Procedure

Abstract

The nature of appellate review and cassation review in criminal procedure is a critical reflection of the state's approach to organizing the adjudication of criminal cases. This article explores the intricacies of these two procedural mechanisms within the context of Vietnam's criminal justice system, drawing on theoretical research and examining specific legal provisions. The authors elucidate the fundamental differences between appellate and cassation reviews through comparative and contrastive methodologies, highlighting their distinct roles in the legal process. Additionally, the article conducts a thorough legal analysis to identify inadequacies in the current appellate review regulations and the procedures for reviewing judgments and decisions that have attained legal finality under cassation review. The authors propose targeted solutions to enhance these legal frameworks, thereby serving justice more effectively. The comparative analysis extends to jurisdictions such as Poland, France, and Belgium, where cassation appeals are primarily utilized to identify and rectify flaws in the application of the law rather than to re-adjudicate cases. In these systems, cassation courts play a pivotal role in ensuring consistency and uniformity in legal interpretation and application.