National Assembly member Nguyen Van Chien talked about the trial of Dr. Hoang Cong Luong
On the sidelines of the 5th Session, the XIV National Assembly, the Electronic People’s Reporter had an interview with National Assembly member Nguyen Van Chien, Vice Chairman of Vietnam Bar Federation, Chairman of Ha Noi City Bar Association. Noi referred to a trial of a case involving a dialysis incident that killed nine people.
Dear lawyer Nguyen Van Chien, the trial of Dr. Hoang Cong Luong is receiving great attention from the public. As a person who is directly present at court hearings, what do you think about this case?
Delegate Nguyen Van Chien: The case involving Dr. Hoang Cong Luong was particularly concerned by public opinion and society, especially doctors, and doctors were also watching every minute of the trial.
From the perspective of defense lawyers, we participated in studying the entire record and attending all interrogations at the trial as well as reviewing the evidence presented in court, we found this to be the case. project to implement judicial reform. In my opinion, on the issue of evidence documents provided for questioning, investigation, the direct presence of the people involved and the witnesses is particularly important.
In the past process, the court summoned but the witnesses were absent, even invited them to court to carry out their responsibilities but they continued to apply for absences. Therefore, the requirement for litigation at the trial through the process of questioning and litigation is not achieved. So the problem of clarifying the truth, the nature of the identified case has not been met.
I would like to ask lawyers to summon a court representative of the Ministry of Health, representatives of the Professional Council, representatives of the examiners, experts who know about dialysis machines, filters The RO for the Trial Panel and the participants in the trial know the technical issues of the medical profession, but the Trial Panel does not accept and deem it unnecessary.
So if the court only hears in the interrogation perspective of those who are present in the trial mainly of the defendants and some of the kidneys, it will not solve the problem of expertise, scientific issues. in dialysis, dialysis as well as criminal legal science.
Reporter: The trial of Dr. Hoang Cong Luong is absent for many important people. According to him, could that affect the trial process?
Delegate Nguyen Van Chien: For people with related interests, absences, the law stipulates that there are no regulations to force them to go to court. Therefore, there are cases when they do not go to court, the court cannot explain. The law only stipulates the interpretation of witnesses.
With the trial in Hoa Binh, there are those who have related rights and obligations present at the trial that answered the Trial Panel, but in the case of the defense, the people asked to leave. Meanwhile, there are no measures to force people to be present at the trial.
In particular, a trial when brought to trial shows the responsibility of the agency conducting the proceedings must clarify the evidence of the accusation but at the same time clarify the evidence of the offense. That role for lawyers is not possible, leading to the trial not guaranteed to clarify the objective truth and the nature of the incident.
Reporter: So how do you assess the proceedings of the trial?
Delegate Nguyen Van Chien: If a court warranted an examination of all witnesses’ testimony at the investigating agency, it was determined at the trial to ensure objectivity. Any testimony that is inconsistent, inconsistent with other evidence documents is not used as evidence.
Any testimony and documents that contain elements that do not comply with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, violate the provisions of the law of the proceedings, the evidence and documents are not legally valid. physical. In principle will not be applied, handling it is an accusatory evidence.
Therefore, at the trial, there are conditions to clarify what evidence is legal evidence, which evidence is illegally collected and which testimony is true, true to the facts and facts of events.
Through the trial of the court over the past few days, through the interrogation sessions, the lawyers have also interrogated and clarified many documents of the evidence of the declaration at the trial that determined the truth that the testimony at the investigation agency was not appropriate other evidence documents. Thus, those evidence documents are hard to believe.
Moreover, if through the relevant person’s presentation about the collection of evidence, the evidence is clearly not consistent with the law, or in other words, a violation of the proceedings. Therefore, it will not be valid to prove. Therefore, for a trial when the evidence of accusation has been annihilated, determined to be a violation, there is no longer a meaning to be an accused base but still accused, it is a trial.
Reporter: During the trial, the former Director of Hoa Binh General Hospital goes abroad. So the authorities have delay in blocking?