The Legal Framework of Electronic Evidence in Vietnamese Criminal Procedure: From the Budapest Convention to Domestic Legislation
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.
Abstract
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.
About Authors
Dinh The Hung
PhD (Law), Faculty of Law, Hanoi Open University, Vietnam
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-6700-1353
Corresponding author, solely responsible for the manuscript preparing.
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Disclaimer: The author declares that the opinion and views expressed in this manuscript are free of any impact of any organizations.
RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS
Copyright: © 2025 Dinh The Hung. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
EDITORS
Managing editor – Mag. Bohdana Zahrebelna. English Editor – Julie Bold. Ukrainian language Editor – Lilia Hartman.
References
Avdeeva G and Żywucka-Kozlowska E, ‘Problems of Using Digital Evidence in Criminal Justice of Ukraine and the USA’ (2923) 1(30) Theory and Practice of Forensic Science and Criminalistics 126. doi:10.32353/khrife.1.2023.07
Biasiotti MA and others, ‘Opportunities and Challenges for Electronic Evidence’ in Biasiotti MA and others (eds), Handling and Exchanging Electronic Evidence Across Europe (Springer 2018) 3. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-74872-6_1
Biedermann A and Kotsoglou KN, ‘Digital Evidence Exceptionalism? A Review and Discussion of Conceptual Hurdles in Digital Evidence Transformation’ (2020) 2 Forensic Science International: Synergy 262. doi:10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.08.004
Blahuta R, Movchan A and Movchan M, ‘Use of Electronic Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in Ukraine’ (International Conference on Social Science, Psychology and Legal Regulation (SPL 2021) Kyiv, Ukraine, 22-24 December 2021) 196. doi:10.2991/assehr.k.211218.032
Calderoni F, ‘The European Legal Framework on Cybercrime: Striving for an Effective Implementation’ (2010) 54(5) Crime, Law and Social Change 339. doi:10.1007/s10611-010-9261-6
Carrier BD and Spafford EH, ‘An Event-Based Digital Forensic Investigation Framework’ (DFRWS 2004 Digital Forensic Research Conference, USA, Baltimore, MD, 11-13 August 2004)
Casey E, Digital Evidence and Computer Crime: Forensic Science, Computers, and the Internet (3rd edn, Academic Press 2011)
Custers B and Stevens L, ‘The Use of Data as Evidence in Dutch Criminal Courts’ (2021) 29(1) European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 25. doi:10.1163/15718174-bja10015
Dao TU, ‘Principles of Criminal Procedure Vienam’ (2011) 27(1) Tạp chí Khoa học ĐHQGHN, Luật học 10. [in Vietnamese]
Gebicki M, ‘Cross-border Acquisition of Digital Data in Criminal Proceedings: State of Play and Measures Taken by the European Union and the Council of Europe’ (2024) 1(29) Teisės apžvalga 3. doi:10.7220/2029-4239.29.1
Gia M, ‘Temporarily Suspend Investigation of Miss Phuong Nga Case’ (Tuoi Tre Online, 10 August 2017) <https://tuoitre.vn/tam-dinh-chi-dieu-tra-vu-an-hoa-hau-phuong-nga-1366696.htm> accessed 20 September 2025. [in Vietnamese]
Gillespie J, ‘Towards a Discursive Analysis of Legal Transfers into Developing East Asia’ (2008) 40(3) NYU Journal of International Law and Politics 657.
Goodison SE, Davis RC and Jackson BA, ‘Digital Evidence and the US Criminal Justice System: Identifying Technology and Other Needs to More Effectively Acquire and Utilize Digital Evidence’ (RAND, 20 April 2015) <https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR890.html> accessed 10 August 2025
Insa F, ‘The Admissibility of Electronic Evidence in Court (AEEC): Fighting Against High-Tech Crime–Results of a European Study’ (2007) 1(4) Journal of Digital Forensic Practice 285. doi:10.1080/15567280701418049
Jones N and others, Electronic Evidence Guide: A Basic Guide for Police Officers, Prosecutors and Judges (version 2.1, Council of Europe 2020) <https://rm.coe.int/c-proc-electronic-evidence-guide-2-1-en-june-2020-web2/16809ed4b4> accessed 10 August 2025.
Juszczak A and Sason E, ‘The Use of Electronic Evidence in the European Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice: An Introduction to the New EU Package on E-evidence’ (2023) 2 Eucrim 182.
Kerr OS, ‘Searches and Seizures in a Digital World’ (2005) 119(2) Harvard Law Review 531.
Kissel R (ed), Glossary of Key Information Security Terms (Diane Publishing 2011)
Koops BJ and Oerlemans JJ, ‘Formeel strafrecht en ICT‘ in Koops BJ and Oerlemans JJ (eds), Strafrecht en ICT (Monografieën recht en informatietechnologie, SDU 2019) 117
Le TQ, ‘Difficulties in Determining the Properties of Electronic Evidence’ (2024) 15 Tạp chí Kiểm sát 10. [in Vietnamese]
Lewulis P, ‘Collecting Digital Evidence from Online Sources: Deficiencies in Current Polish Criminal Law’ (2022) 33(1) Criminal Law Forum 39. doi:10.1007/s10609-021-09430-4
Lewulis P, ‘Digital Forensic Standards and Digital Evidence in Polish Criminal Proceedings: An Updated Definition of Digital Evidence in Forensic Science’ (2021) 13(4) International Journal of Electronic Security and Digital Forensics 403. doi:10.1504/IJESDF.2021.10034988
Lewulis P, Dowody cyfrowe: teoria i praktyka kryminalistyczna w polskim postępowaniu karnym (Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego 2021)
Mason S and Seng D (eds), Electronic Evidence (University of London Press 2017). doi:10.14296/517.9781911507079
Mifsud Bonnici JP, Tudorica M and Cannataci JA, ‘The European Legal Framework on Electronic Evidence’ in Maria Angela Biasiotti and others, Handling and Exchanging Electronic Evidence Across Europe (Springer 2018) 189. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-74872-6_11
Nemes LL, ‘Hungarian Law of Criminal Procedure In the Light of the Mindzenti Trial’ (1957) 17 Jurist 157
Nguyen BT, ‘Improving Vietnam’s Electronic Evidence Law in the Industry 4.0 Era: Experience from China’ (2024) 16(1) Revista de Direito 1. doi:10.32361/2024160117322
Nguyen NC and Le LC (eds), Criminal Procedure Law Textbook (Hanoi National University Press 2018) [in Vietnamese]
Nguyen NK, ‘Source of Evidence is Electronic Data in Criminal Proceedings in Vietnam and Some Countries in the World’ (Master’s thesis, Vietnam National University 2024) [in Vietnamese]
Nguyen TT, ‘Vietnam’s Criminal Procedure Model and the Possibility of Applying the Adversarial Procedure Model’ (PhD thesis, Vietnam National University 2014) [in Vietnamese]
Onţanu EA, Normalising the Use of Electronic Evidence: Bringing Technology Use into a familiar Normative Path in Civil Procedure’ (2022) 12(3) Oñati Socio-Legal Series 582. doi:10.35295/osls.Iisl/0000-0000-0000-1304
Pollitt M, ‘A History of Digital Forensics’ (6th IFIP WG 11.9 International Conference on Digital Forensics (DF), Hong Kong, China, Jan 2010) 3. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15506-2_1
Snee JM and Pye AK, ‘Due Process in Criminal Procedure: A Comparison of Two Systems’ (1960) 21(4) Ohio State Law journal 467
Snee JM and Pye AK, Status of Forces Agreements and Criminal Jurisdiction (Literary Licensing LLC 2013)
Tran QT, Evidence Regulation in Vietnamese Criminal Procedure Law (National Political Publishing House 2011) [in Vietnamese]
Tran VH, ‘The Issue of Electronic Traces and Evidence in the Amended Criminal Procedure Code’ (2014) 12 Tạp chí Khoa học và Chiến lược. [in Vietnamese]
Tsekhan DM, ‘Digital Evidence: Concept, Features and Place in the Evidence System’ (2013) 5 Scientific Bulletin of the International Humanities University, Series: Jurisprudence 256. [in Ukrainian]
Vazquez Maymir S, ‘Anchoring the Need to Revise Cross-Border Access to eEvidence’ (2019) 9(3) Internet Policy Review 1. doi:10.14763/2020.3.1495
Wahl T, ‘E-evidence Regulation and Directive Published’ (2023) 2 Eucrim 165
Wang W and Daniels TE, ‘Building Evidence Graphs for Network Forensics Analysis’ (21st Annual Computer Security Applications Conference ACSAC 2005). doi:10.1109/CSAC.2005.14
Xuan N, ‘The Suitcase is Not the Only Evidence to Charge the Former Head of the Ministry of Public Security’s Investigation Security Agency’ Báo điện tử Bảo vệ pháp luật (Hanoi, 24 July 2023) <https://baovephapluat.vn/phap-dinh/cau-chuyen-phap-luat/chiec-vali-khong-phai-chung-cu-duy-nhat-de-buoc-toi-cuu-truong-phong-thuoc-co-quan-an-ninh-dieu-tra-bo-cong-an-143192.html> accessed 10 August 2025. [in Vietnamese]
Zatyko K and Bay J, ‘The Digital Forensics Cyber Exchange Principle’ (Villanova University, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, 22 April 2013) <http://www.csc.villanova.edu/~dprice/9010sp14/extra_handouts/The_Digital_Forensics_Cyber_Exchange_Principle_-_2013-04-22.pdf> accessed 5 August 2025
Zozulia N, ‘Electronic or Digital Evidence: Improving Amendments in Procedural Legislation’ (Ukrainian Law, 8 May 2018) <https://www.bitlex.ua/uk/blog/news/post/elektronni_chy_tsyfrovi_dokazy__udoskonalennya_zmin_do_protsesualnogo_zakonodavstva> accessed 10 August 2025. [in Ukrainian]
Reviews for article
Add a Review
АНОТАЦІЯ УКРАЇНСЬКОЮ МОВОЮ
Дослідницька стаття
ПРАВОВЕ РЕГУЛЮВАННЯ ЕЛЕКТРОННИХ ДОКАЗІВ У КРИМІНАЛЬНОМУ ПРОЦЕСІ ВʼЄТНАМУ: ВІД БУДАПЕШТСЬКОЇ КОНВЕНЦІЇ ДО НАЦІОНАЛЬНОГО ЗАКОНОДАВСТВА
Дінь Тхе Хунг
АНОТАЦІЯ
Вступ. Електронні докази є критично важливою та делікатною темою, що розглядається в міжнародних документах щодо запобігання злочинам, зокрема в Будапештській конвенції та Договорі Організації Об'єднаних Націй про кіберзлочинність (Ханойська конвенція), що був нещодавно підписаний у Ханої, В’єтнам, у жовтні 2025 року. Правове регулювання електронних доказів стало однією з найбільш обговорюваних тем в академічних колах, особливо в дискусіях щодо інкорпорації зобов'язань за міжнародними договорами всередині країни.
Кримінально-процесуальний кодекс В'єтнаму 2015 року зробив значний крок вперед, офіційно визнавши електронні дані як законну форму доказів, еквівалентну за доказовою силою іншим традиційним джерелам доказів. Оскільки електронні докази стають дедалі поширенішими в спектрі кримінальних правопорушень, це визнання є своєчасним. Однак, зі зростанням кіберзлочинності, чинне законодавство В'єтнаму виявляє значні обмеження порівняно з європейськими стандартами, особливо, що стосується концептуальної ясності, процесуальних гарантій збору та оцінки електронних доказів, захисту прав людини та забезпечення дотримання принципів змагальності.
Таким чином, ця стаття має на меті уточнити теоретичну та правову базу для електронних доказів згідно з європейськими стандартами, порівняти її з підходом В'єтнаму та визначити теоретичні та правові прогалини, які необхідно усунути, такі як: потреба в чіткіших визначеннях, сильніших процесуальних гарантіях збору та оцінки доказів, потреба в захисті прав людини та посиленні принципів змагальності.
Методи. Для проведення порівняльного аналізу електронних доказів у рамках кримінально-процесуального права В'єтнаму та міжнародно-правового регулювання автор статті використовує методологію, що ґрунтуються на порівняльно-правових дослідженнях. Аналіз зосереджений на порівняльному вивченні міжнародних та національних правових положень щодо електронних доказів. Відповідно, автор широко використовує порівняльно-правові методи, зокрема нормативне порівняння та функціональне порівняння, для виявлення як подібностей, так і відмінностей між нормативними актами В'єтнаму щодо джерел доказів у кримінальному процесі та тими, що містяться в міжнародних документах та правових системах інших юрисдикцій.
Результати та висновки. У статті було зроблено висновок, що правові положення В'єтнаму та їх практичне впровадження щодо електронних доказів повинні ґрунтуватися на міжнародному досвіді у кількох ключових аспектах: точна концептуалізація електронних доказів, розробка стандартизованих процедур їх збору та вдосконалення правових механізмів, що регулюють обов'язок подання доказів, судово-медичну експертизу та застосування спеціальних слідчих заходів. Такі реформи є важливими для забезпечення автентичності та законності електронних доказів, одночасно захищаючи права людини в рамках кримінального судочинства.
Ключові слова: кіберзлочинність, електронні докази, кримінальне провадження, електронні дані, законність електронних доказів, автентичність.
Publication history
-
DETAILS FOR PUBLICATION
Date of submission: 10 Aug 2025
Date of acceptance: 08 Oct 2025
Publication: 18 Nov 2025
Whether the manuscript was fast tracked? - No
Number of reviewer report submitted in first round: 2 reports
Number of revision rounds: 2 rounds with major revisions
TECHNICAL TOOLS WERE USED IN THE EDITORIAL PROCESS:
Plagiarism checks - Turnitin from iThenticate https://www.turnitin.com/products/ithenticate/
Scholastica for Peer Review https://scholasticahq.com/law-reviews
AI DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author declares that no artificial intelligence tools were used in the writing, translation, or editing of this manuscript. The research and the content of the article represent the authors’ own original work.
How to cite it?
-
Dinh TH, ‘The Legal Framework of Electronic Evidence in Vietnamese Criminal Procedure: From the Budapest Convention to Domestic Legislation’ (2025) 8(4) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 301-39 <https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-8.4-a000142>
