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 reflects a state’s approach to organizing its criminal justice system. This article examines the complexities of these two procedural mechanisms within the context of Vietnamese criminal procedure, drawing on theoretical research and analyzing the provisions of the 2015 Criminal Procedure Code of Vietnam. Utilizing comparative and contrastive methodologies, the author outlines the fundamental distinctions between appellate review—as a direct re-examination of judgments that have not yet taken legal effect—and cassation review, which scrutinizes legally binding judgments to correct serious legal errors. Furthermore, the article conducts an in-depth legal analysis to identify normative shortcomings and procedural inadequacies in current regulations governing both appellate and cassation reviews. To address these issues, targeted solutions are proposed to refine the legal framework, thereby promoting a more effective and objective administration of justice. The comparative scope extends to international jurisdictions such as Poland, France, and Belgium, where cassation is primarily designed to identify and rectify errors in the application of law rather than re-evaluating factual matters. In these legal systems, cassation courts play a pivotal role in ensuring consistency, uniform interpretation, and coherent application of the law across all judicial levels.