Summary: 1. Introduction. – 2. Methodology and Research Methods. – 3. Theoretical Framework on Electronic Evidence. – 3.1. Concept of Electronic Evidence. – 3.2. Fundamental Principles Governing Electronic Evidence. – 4. European and Vietnamese Legal Frameworks for Electronic Evidence. – 4.1. The European Regulatory Framework on Electronic Evidence. – 4.2. Shared Procedural Aspects of Investigating and Using Electronic Evidence. – 4.2.1. European Legal Framework. – 4.2.2. Vietnam’s Framework on Investigation of Electronic Evidence. – 5. Legal Gaps in Electronic Evidence Regulation in Vietnam Compared to the Budapest Convention. – 6. Conclusions.
Background: Electronic evidence constitutes a critical and sensitive subject addressed in international instruments on crime prevention, most notably the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, and the Treaty on Cybercrime – UN (the Hanoi Convention), which was newly signed in Hanoi, Vietnam, in October 2025. The legal treatment of electronic evidence has emerged as one of the most vigorously debated topics within academic circles, particularly in discussions concerning the domestic incorporation of international treaty obligations.
Vietnam’s Criminal Procedure Code of 2015 represents a significant development by formally recognising electronic data as a legitimate form of evidence, equivalent in probative value to other traditional sources. As electronic evidence is becoming increasingly prevalent across a wide spectrum of criminal offences, this recognition is timely. However, with the rise of cybercrime, Vietnam’s current legal framework falls short of European standards, particularly in terms of conceptual clarity, procedural safeguards for the collection and evaluation of electronic evidence, protection of human rights, and adherence to adversarial principles.
Accordingly, this article aims to clarify the theoretical and legal framework for electronic evidence under European standards, compare it with Vietnam’s approach, and identify the theoretical and legal gaps that must be addressed—such as the need for clearer definitions, stronger procedural guarantees in evidence collection and assessment, human rights protections, and the reinforcement of adversarial principles.
Methods: To conduct a comparative analysis of electronic evidence within Vietnam’s criminal procedure law and international legal frameworks, the study draws on methodologies rooted in comparative legal studies. The analysis focuses on the comparative examination of international and domestic legal provisions concerning electronic evidence. Accordingly, the author makes extensive use of comparative legal methods, including normative comparison and functional comparison, to identify both similarities and differences between Vietnam’s regulations on sources of evidence in criminal procedure and those found in international instruments and the legal systems of other jurisdictions.
Results and conclusions: The article concludes that Vietnam’s legal provisions and practical implementation regarding electronic evidence must draw upon international experience in several key respects: the accurate conceptualisation of electronic evidence, the development of standardised procedures for its collection, and the refinement of legal mechanisms governing the duty to produce evidence, forensic examination, and the application of special investigative measures. Such reforms are essential to ensure the authenticity and legality of electronic evidence while safeguarding human rights within the criminal justice process.