Joint Circular No. 02/2000/TTLT-TANDTC-VKSNDTC-BTP-BCA guiding the implementation of Article 7 of the Criminal Code 1999 and Section 2 of Resolution No. 32/1999/QH10 dated December 21, 1999 of the National Assembly.

JOINT CIRCULAR

Guidelines for Implementing Article 7 of the Criminal Code of 1999 and Section 2 of Resolution No. 32/1999/QH10 dated December 21, 1999 of the National Assembly

On December 21, 1999, the National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Session X, adopted the new Criminal Code of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (referred to as the Criminal Code of 1999). The National Assembly also adopted Resolution No. 32/1999/QH10 on the implementation of the Criminal Code (hereinafter referred to as Resolution No. 32).

In order to implement correctly the provisions of Article 7 of the Criminal Code of 1999 regarding the "Effectiveness of the Criminal Code over time" and the provisions of Section 2 of Resolution No. 32 of the National Assembly on the application of the Criminal Code from July 1, 2000, the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme Procuratorate, the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of Public Security have jointly issued the following guidelines:

1. Clause 1 of Article 7 of the Criminal Code of 1999 stipulates: "The criminal law applicable to a criminal act is the law that is in force at the time the criminal act is committed." The implementation of this clause has been specified in point a of Section 2 of Resolution No. 32 of the National Assembly; specifically, it states: "All provisions of the Criminal Code shall be applied for investigation, prosecution, trial, and enforcement of sentences against persons who commit criminal acts from 00:00 hours on July 1, 2000."

2. Clause 2 of Article 7 of the Criminal Code of 1999 stipulates: "A provision defining a new crime, imposing a heavier penalty, introducing a new aggravating circumstance, or limiting the scope of suspended sentences, exemption from criminal responsibility, exemption from punishment, reduction of punishment, or erasure of criminal records, and other provisions not favorable to the offender, shall not be applied to criminal acts committed before the provision comes into effect"; specifically, according to point c of Section 2 of Resolution No. 32 of the National Assembly, these provisions "shall not apply to criminal acts occurring before 00:00 hours on July 1, 2000, but discovered, investigated, prosecuted, or tried thereafter, or to persons whose sentences are being reduced or whose criminal records are being erased; in such cases, the corresponding provisions of previous criminal laws shall be applied." When implementing these provisions, the following points should be noted:

a- A new crime shall be considered if, according to the Criminal Code of 1999, it constitutes a socially dangerous act and the person committing it may be held criminally responsible, but according to the Criminal Code of 1985, it was not a crime and the person committing it was not subject to criminal responsibility; specifically, in the following cases:

a.1- An act not previously defined as a specific crime in a specific article of the Criminal Code of 1985, but now defined as a specific crime in a specific article of the Criminal Code of 1999.

Example: The act of using child labor for heavy, dangerous work or exposure to harmful substances listed by the State, causing serious consequences or having been administratively punished for the same act, but not previously defined as a specific crime in a specific article of the Criminal Code of 1985, is now defined as the crime of "Violating regulations on the use of child labor" under Article 228 of the Criminal Code of 1999; therefore, if this act was committed before 00:00 hours on July 1, 2000, the person committing it will not be held criminally responsible but only subject to administrative penalties; if the act was committed from 00:00 hours on July 1, 2000, the person committing it may be held criminally responsible under Article 228 of the Criminal Code of 1999 for the crime of "Violating regulations on the use of child labor."

a.2- An act not previously defined in the articles of the Criminal Code of 1985 concerning a specific crime, but now added to the corresponding article of the Criminal Code of 1999 defining that specific crime.

Example: The act of infringing upon citizens' right to nominate candidates was not defined in Article 122 of the Criminal Code of 1985, but is now added to Article 126 of the Criminal Code of 1999; therefore, if this act was committed before 00:00 hours on July 1, 2000, the person committing it will not be held criminally responsible but only subject to administrative penalties; if the act was committed from 00:00 hours on July 1, 2000, the person committing it may be held criminally responsible under Article 126 of the Criminal Code of 1999 for the crime of "Infringing upon citizens' rights to vote and nominate candidates."

* It should be noted that an act not previously defined as a specific crime in a specific article of the Criminal Code of 1985, but which, based on practical investigation, prosecution, and trial, still requires criminal responsibility under this Code, even though it is now defined as a specific crime in a specific article of the Criminal Code of 1999 (usually cases where a crime in the Criminal Code of 1985 is divided into several crimes in the Criminal Code of 1999), shall not be considered a new crime.

Example: The act of illegal racing was not defined as the crime of "Illegal Racing" in the Criminal Code of 1985, but is now defined as the crime of "Illegal Racing" (Article 207) in the Criminal Code of 1999, however, based on the provisions of Article 198 of the Criminal Code of 1985, the person engaging in illegal racing may still be held criminally responsible for the crime of "Disrupting public order."

b- "Heavier penalties" prescribed by the Criminal Code of 1999 compared to those prescribed by the Criminal Code of 1985 are determined as follows:

b.1- If, regarding the same crime, the Criminal Code of 1999 prescribes a heavier type of penalty than the heaviest type of penalty prescribed in the corresponding article of the Criminal Code of 1985.

For example, Article 104 of the Criminal Code of 1999 provides for the type of punishment "life imprisonment," which is a more severe form of punishment than the fixed-term imprisonment provided for in Article 109 of the Criminal Code of 1985 (the maximum term of imprisonment under Article 109 of the Criminal Code of 1985 was twenty years); therefore, for the crime of "intentionally causing injury or harm to another person's health," the Criminal Code of 1999 provides for a harsher penalty; thus, for those who commit the crime of "intentionally causing injury or harm to another person's health" before 00:00 on July 1, 2000, but are prosecuted for criminal responsibility after 00:00 on July 1, 2000, Article 109 of the Criminal Code of 1985 shall still be applied.

b.2. If regarding the same criminal offense, the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1999 provide for the same type of punishment as stipulated in the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1985, but the maximum sentence of the most severe punishment framework prescribed in the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1999 is higher than the maximum sentence of the most severe punishment framework prescribed in the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1985.

For example, regarding the crime of "infringing upon copyright," Article 131 of the Criminal Code of 1999 provides for a harsher penalty than Article 126 of the Criminal Code of 1985, because both articles prescribe fixed-term imprisonment, but the maximum sentence of the most severe punishment framework prescribed in Article 131 of the Criminal Code of 1999 is three years' imprisonment, while that in Article 126 of the Criminal Code of 1985 is one year's imprisonment; therefore, for those who commit the crime of "infringing upon copyright" before 00:00 on July 1, 2000, but are prosecuted for criminal responsibility after 00:00 on July 1, 2000, Article 126 of the Criminal Code of 1985 shall still be applied.

b.3. If regarding the same criminal offense, the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1999 provide for the same type of punishment as stipulated in the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1985 and the maximum sentence of the most severe punishment framework prescribed in the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1999 is equal to the maximum sentence of the most severe punishment framework prescribed in the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1985, but the minimum sentence of the least severe punishment framework prescribed in the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1999 is higher than the minimum sentence of the least severe punishment framework prescribed in the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1985.

For example, regarding the crime of "practicing superstition and fortune-telling," Article 247 of the Criminal Code of 1999 provides for a harsher penalty than Article 199 of the Criminal Code of 1985, because both articles prescribe fixed-term imprisonment and the maximum sentence of the most severe punishment framework prescribed in both articles is the same (ten years' imprisonment), but the minimum sentence of Clause 1 of Article 247 of the Criminal Code of 1999 is six months' imprisonment, while that of Clause 1 of Article 199 of the Criminal Code of 1985 is three months' imprisonment; therefore, for those who commit the crime of "practicing superstition and fortune-telling" before 00:00 on July 1, 2000, but are prosecuted for criminal responsibility after 00:00 on July 1, 2000, Article 199 of the Criminal Code of 1985 shall still be applied.

b.4. If regarding the same criminal offense, the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1999 and the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1985 both prescribe the same heaviest principal punishment (regarding the maximum and minimum levels), but in the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1985 there is also a lighter principal punishment prescribed for the court to choose from, which has now been removed in the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1999.

For example, regarding the crime of "possessing, transporting, buying, selling, or appropriating precursor chemicals for illegal drug production," Article 195 of the Criminal Code of 1999 provides for a harsher penalty than Article 185g of the Criminal Code of 1985, because both articles prescribe life imprisonment and fixed-term imprisonment from one year to twenty years, but Article 195 of the Criminal Code of 1999 has removed the lighter punishment prescribed in Article 185g of the Criminal Code of 1985, which is a fine.

b.5. If regarding the same criminal offense, the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1999, in addition to prescribing the types of principal punishments and sentences as in the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1985, also prescribe additional punishments.

For example, regarding the crime of "slander," Article 122 of the Criminal Code of 1999 provides for a harsher penalty than Article 117 of the Criminal Code of 1985, because although both articles prescribe the same principal punishments such as warning, non-custodial reeducation, and fixed-term imprisonment with the same maximum and minimum levels of the most severe and least severe punishment frameworks (maximum seven years' imprisonment and minimum warning), Article 122 of the Criminal Code of 1999 also prescribes additional punishments: "may be fined, prohibited from holding certain positions, prohibited from practicing certain professions or performing certain jobs for one to five years"; therefore, for those who commit the crime of "slander" before 00:00 on July 1, 2000, but are prosecuted for criminal responsibility after 00:00 on July 1, 2000, Article 117 of the Criminal Code of 1985 shall still be applied.

b.6. For crimes defined in the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1999, but these crimes were separated from a clause of the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1985, the determination of whether the punishment is harsher or lighter is made by comparing the punishment for the crime defined in the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1999 with the punishment for the crime defined in the corresponding clause of the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1985 according to the guidance at points b1, b2, b3, b4, and b5 above.

For example, for the crime of "killing a newborn child," the determination of whether the punishment is harsher or lighter is made by comparing Article 94 of the Criminal Code of 1999 with Clause 4 of Article 101 of the Criminal Code of 1985.

b.7. In cases where, according to the method prescribed in points b1 through b6 above, it is found that the penalty stipulated by the Criminal Code of 1999 is harsher than the penalty stipulated by the Criminal Code of 1985, but the Criminal Code of 1999 contains a "more favorable provision" for the offender, then although the Criminal Code of 1985 shall still be applied to pursue criminal responsibility for acts committed before 00:00 on July 1, 2000, the spirit of the "more favorable provision" for the offender in the Criminal Code of 1999 must also be applied in pursuing criminal responsibility.

Example: Regarding the crime of "Murder," Article 100 of the Criminal Code of 1999 stipulates a harsher penalty than Article 105 of the Criminal Code of 1985, because both articles prescribe imprisonment with a term, but the maximum of the heaviest penalty range and the minimum of the lightest penalty range specified in Article 100 of the Criminal Code of 1999 are twelve years and two years respectively, while in Article 105 of the Criminal Code of 1985 they are seven years and one year respectively. However, Article 105 of the Criminal Code of 1985 provides for an additional penalty: may be prohibited from holding certain positions, engaging in certain occupations or performing certain jobs for a period of two to five years, whereas Article 100 of the Criminal Code of 1999 does not provide for this additional penalty; therefore, for offenders who commit the crime of "Murder" before 00:00 on July 1, 2000 and are pursued for criminal responsibility after 00:00 on July 1, 2000, Article 105 of the Criminal Code of 1985 shall be applied, but the spirit of Article 100 of the Criminal Code of 1999 must be applied, which means that regardless of any circumstances, the additional penalty shall not be applied to the offender.

c- "New aggravating circumstance" refers to a circumstance that was not provided for in Article 39 or was not defined as an aggravating circumstance determining the penalty range in a specific article stipulating a specific crime in the Criminal Code of 1985, but is now provided for in Article 48 or is defined as an aggravating circumstance determining the penalty range in a specific article stipulating a specific crime in the Criminal Code of 1999. Therefore, it should be noted that this new aggravating circumstance shall not be applied to those who commit criminal acts before 00:00 on July 1, 2000 and are pursued for criminal responsibility after 00:00 on July 1, 2000.

d- "Less favorable provision for the offender" refers to a new provision amended and supplemented in the Criminal Code of 1999, and if this new provision is applied, it restricts the scope of suspended sentences, exemption from criminal liability, exemption from punishment, erasure of criminal records, or causes other disadvantages for the offender compared to applying the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1985.

Example 1: The provision regarding the determination of penalties in cases of multiple offenses at point a, Clause 1, Article 50 of the Criminal Code of 1999 is less favorable for the offender compared to the provision at Article 41 of the Criminal Code of 1985, because according to Article 41 of the Criminal Code of 1985, the combined punishment for non-custodial reeducation must ensure that the total punishment does not exceed two years, and the combined punishment for fixed-term imprisonment must ensure that the total punishment does not exceed twenty years; now, according to Article 50 of the Criminal Code of 1999, the total punishment for non-custodial reeducation cannot exceed three years, and for fixed-term imprisonment, it cannot exceed thirty years; therefore, for those who commit multiple offenses before 00:00 on July 1, 2000 and are tried after 00:00 on July 1, 2000, the combined punishment declared must still apply Article 41 of the Criminal Code of 1985.

Example 2: The provision regarding fines at Article 72 of the Criminal Code of 1999 is less favorable for the offender because it was newly added to this code; therefore, for offenders who were under sixteen years old but over fourteen years old and had income or personal property before 00:00 on July 1, 2000, if they are tried after 00:00 on July 1, 2000, the court shall not apply a fine.

3. Clause 3, Article 7 of the Criminal Code of 1999 stipulates: "A provision abolishing a crime, a penalty, an aggravating circumstance, providing a lighter penalty, a new mitigating circumstance, or expanding the scope of suspended sentences, exemption from criminal liability, exemption from punishment, reduction of punishment, erasure of criminal records, and other more favorable provisions for the offender, shall be applied to criminal acts committed before the effective date of such provision."

a- Regarding the provision "a provision abolishing a crime" means that an act which was defined as a crime in the Criminal Code of 1985 but is not defined as a crime in the Criminal Code of 1999, according to the provisions of Item 3 of Decree No. 32 of the National Assembly, which took effect from the date of promulgation of the Criminal Code of 1999 (January 4, 2000), and has been guided by Item 3 of Circular Joint Circular No. 01/2000/TTLT-TANDTC-VKSNDTC-BTP-BCA dated June 12, 2000 of the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuracy, the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of Public Security "Guidelines for Implementing Item 3 of Resolution No. 32/1999/QH10 dated December 21, 1999 of the National Assembly and Resolution No. 229/2000/NQ-UBTVQH10 dated January 28, 2000 of the Standing Committee of the National Assembly."

b- "Eliminating a penalty" refers to a penalty prescribed in the Criminal Code of 1985 that is no longer provided for in the Criminal Code of 1999, specifically the penalty of "reform in military disciplinary units" (principal penalty) and the penalty of "stripping military rank" (additional penalty). Therefore, it should be noted that courts shall not apply the penalty of "reform in military disciplinary units" as the principal penalty and the penalty of "stripping military rank" as the additional penalty for military personnel who commit criminal acts before 00:00 on July 1, 2000 but are tried after 00:00 on July 1, 2000. In this case, if according to the Criminal Code of 1985 the penalty of "reform in military disciplinary units" could be applied, now the penalty of non-custodial reformatory detention prescribed in Article 24 of the Criminal Code of 1985 must be applied (the penalty of non-custodial reformatory detention prescribed in Article 24 of the Criminal Code of 1985 is less severe than that prescribed in Article 31 of the Criminal Code of 1999).

c- "Eliminating an aggravating circumstance" refers to an aggravating circumstance specified in Article 39 or specified as an aggravating circumstance determining the sentencing range in a specific article defining a specific crime in the Criminal Code of 1985, which is no longer provided for in Article 48 or is no longer specified as an aggravating circumstance determining the sentencing range in a specific article defining a specific crime in the Criminal Code of 1999.

Example: The aggravating circumstance determining the sentencing range "having multiple circumstances stipulated in Clause 2 (or Clause 3) of this Article" was provided for in some articles (Articles 185b, 185c...) of the Criminal Code of 1985, but is no longer provided for in any article of the Criminal Code of 1999; therefore, from 00:00 on July 1, 2000, this aggravating circumstance shall not be applied in the prosecution of criminal responsibility against offenders.

d- A lighter penalty prescribed in the Criminal Code of 1999 compared to that prescribed in the Criminal Code of 1985 is determined as follows:

d1. If regarding the same offense, the Criminal Code of 1999 has eliminated the heaviest penalty prescribed in the corresponding article of the Criminal Code of 1985.

Example: For the crime of smuggling goods and currency across borders, Article 154 of the Criminal Code of 1999 eliminates the death penalty and life imprisonment, which were two types of penalties prescribed in Article 97 of the Criminal Code of 1985; therefore, for those who commit the crime of smuggling goods and currency across borders before 00:00 on July 1, 2000 but are prosecuted for criminal responsibility after 00:00 on July 1, 2000, Article 154 of the Criminal Code of 1999 shall be applied.

d2. If regarding the same offense, the Criminal Code of 1999 provides the same type of penalty as prescribed in the Criminal Code of 1985, and the maximum sentence of the heaviest sentencing range prescribed in the Criminal Code of 1999 is lower than the maximum sentence of the heaviest sentencing range prescribed in the Criminal Code of 1985.

Example: Regarding the crime of "Speculation," Article 160 of the Criminal Code of 1999 provides a lighter penalty than Article 165 of the Criminal Code of 1985, because the maximum sentence of the heaviest sentencing range prescribed in Article 160 of the Criminal Code of 1999 is fifteen years' imprisonment, while in Article 165 of the Criminal Code of 1985 it is life imprisonment; therefore, for those who commit the crime of speculation before 00:00 on July 1, 2000 but are prosecuted for criminal responsibility after 00:00 on July 1, 2000, Article 160 of the Criminal Code of 1999 shall be applied.

d3. If regarding the same offense, the Criminal Code of 1999 provides the same type of penalty as prescribed in the Criminal Code of 1985, and the maximum sentence of the heaviest sentencing range prescribed in the Criminal Code of 1999 is equal to the maximum sentence of the heaviest sentencing range prescribed in the Criminal Code of 1985, but the minimum sentence of the lightest sentencing range prescribed in the Criminal Code of 1999 is lower than the minimum sentence of the lightest sentencing range prescribed in the Criminal Code of 1985.

Example: Regarding the crime of "Smuggling," Article 153 of the Criminal Code of 1999 provides a lighter penalty than Article 97 of the Criminal Code of 1985, because the maximum sentence of the heaviest sentencing range prescribed in both articles is the same (both death penalty), but the minimum sentence of Clause 1 of Article 153 of the Criminal Code of 1999 is a fine of ten million dong or imprisonment for six months, while the minimum sentence of Clause 1 of Article 97 of the Criminal Code of 1985 is imprisonment for two years; therefore, for those who commit the crime of smuggling before 00:00 on July 1, 2000 but are prosecuted for criminal responsibility after 00:00 on July 1, 2000, Article 153 of the Criminal Code of 1999 shall be applied.

d4. If regarding the same offense, the Criminal Code of 1999 and the Criminal Code of 1985 both prescribe the heaviest principal penalty with the same maximum and minimum sentences, but the Criminal Code of 1999 also prescribes a lighter principal penalty for the court to choose from, while the Criminal Code of 1985 does not prescribe such a lighter principal penalty.

d5. If regarding the same offense, the Criminal Code of 1999 only prescribes the types of principal penalties and sentences as in the Criminal Code of 1985, but eliminates the additional penalties prescribed in the Criminal Code of 1985.

d6. For offenses prescribed in the Criminal Code of 1999 that have been separated from a clause of the Criminal Code of 1985, the lighter penalty is determined by comparing the penalty for the offense prescribed in the Criminal Code of 1999 with the penalty for the offense prescribed in the corresponding clause of the Criminal Code of 1985, following the guidance provided in points d1, d2, d3, d4, and d5 above.

d7. In cases where, according to the method of determination provided for in points d1 to d6 above, it is shown that the penalty prescribed by the Criminal Code of 1999 is lighter than the penalty prescribed by the Criminal Code of 1985, but the Criminal Code of 1999 contains a "less favorable provision" for the offender, then although the Criminal Code of 1999 shall be applied to pursue criminal responsibility for acts committed before 00:00 on July 1, 2000, the "less favorable provision" for the offender contained in the Criminal Code of 1999 shall not be applied in pursuing criminal responsibility. In this case, the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1985 which are more favorable to the offender shall still be applied.

đ- "A more favorable provision for the offender" means a new provision amended and supplemented in the Criminal Code of 1999, and if applying this new provision would expand the scope of suspended sentences, exempt criminal liability, exempt punishment, reduce punishment, erase criminal records, or provide other benefits to the offender compared to continuing to apply the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1985.

Example 1: The provision regarding the determination of punishment in cases of committing multiple offenses at point b Clause 1 Article 50 of the Criminal Code of 1999 is more favorable to the offender than the provision at paragraph 2 Clause 1 Article 43 of the Criminal Code of 1985, because according to the provision at paragraph 2 Clause 1 Article 43 of the Criminal Code of 1985, when combining non-custodial reeducation penalties with fixed-term imprisonment penalties, the non-custodial reeducation penalty is converted into a fixed-term imprisonment penalty for determining the combined penalty; one day of non-custodial reeducation equals one day of imprisonment. Now, according to the provision at point b Clause 1 Article 50 of the Criminal Code of 1999, the conversion of non-custodial reeducation penalties into imprisonment penalties is done at a ratio of three days of non-custodial reeducation converted into one day of imprisonment for determining the combined penalty; therefore, for offenders who commit multiple offenses before 00:00 on July 1, 2000, and are tried after 00:00 on July 1, 2000, the combination of non-custodial reeducation penalties with fixed-term imprisonment penalties will be carried out according to the provision at point b Clause 1 Article 50 of the Criminal Code of 1999.

Example 2: The provision allowing supplementary punishments in some articles of the Criminal Code of 1999 is more beneficial to the offender than the provision making the application of supplementary punishments mandatory in corresponding articles of the Criminal Code of 1985.

4. For crimes that have been stipulated in an article of the Criminal Code of 1985, now, according to the comparison at points b1 to b6 Section 2 and at points d1 to d6 Section 3 of this Circular, which remain unchanged in the corresponding article of the Criminal Code of 1999, the Criminal Code of 1999 shall be applied to pursue criminal responsibility.

It should be noted that if comparing the levels of punishment within the corresponding increased penalty ranges shows that the Criminal Code of 1999 prescribes a higher minimum level of punishment or a higher maximum level of punishment, then although the Criminal Code of 1999 shall still be applied to pursue criminal responsibility for acts committed before 00:00 on July 1, 2000, they can only be punished with the level of punishment within the corresponding increased penalty range prescribed by the Criminal Code of 1985.

5. In cases where a person is pursued for criminal responsibility for a crime involving multiple acts, including acts committed before 00:00 on July 1, 2000, and acts committed from 00:00 on July 1, 2000 onwards, and the Criminal Code of 1999 prescribes a heavier penalty, then the Criminal Code of 1999 shall still be applied to pursue criminal responsibility, but when determining the penalty, consideration must be given to the number and nature of the acts committed before as well as the acts committed from 00:00 on July 1, 2000 onwards to determine an appropriate level of punishment for all such acts.

6. In cases where a person is pursued for criminal responsibility for multiple crimes, including crimes committed before 00:00 on July 1, 2000, and crimes committed from 00:00 on July 1, 2000 onwards, the pursuit of criminal responsibility shall be carried out according to the guidelines provided in Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this Circular, and the consolidation of penalties shall be carried out according to the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1999; however, attention should be paid to:

a- If the penalties pronounced are all non-custodial reeducation penalties and the total of the penalties pronounced for crimes committed from 00:00 on July 1, 2000 onwards exceeds two years, then the total penalty for all crimes shall be equal to the total of the penalties pronounced for crimes committed from 00:00 on July 1, 2000 onwards (but not exceeding three years); if the total of the penalties pronounced for crimes committed from 00:00 on July 1, 2000 onwards does not exceed two years, then the total penalty for all crimes shall not exceed two years.

b- If the penalties pronounced are all imprisonment penalties, and the total of the penalties pronounced for crimes committed from 00:00 on July 1, 2000 onwards exceeds twenty years, then the total penalty for all crimes shall be equal to the total of the penalties pronounced for crimes committed from 00:00 on July 1, 2000 onwards (but not exceeding thirty years); if the total of the penalties pronounced for crimes committed from 00:00 on July 1, 2000 onwards does not exceed twenty years, then the total penalty for all crimes shall not exceed twenty years.

c- If the declared punishments are suspended imprisonment or fixed-term imprisonment and the total of such declared punishments for offenses committed from 00:00 on July 1, 2000 onwards (as provided in point b, Clause 1, Article 50 of the Criminal Code 1999) exceeds twenty years, then the combined punishment for all offenses shall be the sum of the declared punishments for offenses committed from 00:00 on July 1, 2000 onwards (but not exceeding thirty years); if the total of such declared punishments does not exceed twenty years, then the combined punishment for all offenses shall not exceed twenty years.

7. For criminal acts committed and tried before 00:00 on July 1, 2000 where the judgments and decisions of the Court have become legally effective, they shall not be based on provisions of the Criminal Code 1999 that differ from the provisions of the Criminal Code 1985 applied at the time of sentencing to file a cassation protest; in cases where the protest is based on other grounds or filed before 00:00 on July 1, 2000, the cassation trial must comply with the provisions of Article 7 of the Criminal Code 1999, points b and c of Section 2 of Resolution No. 32 of the National Assembly, and the guidelines set out in this Circular.

8. This Circular takes effect from July 20, 2000 and replaces previous documents of the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuracy, the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of Public Security guiding the implementation of provisions of previous criminal laws regarding the effectiveness of the Criminal Code over time.

During implementation, if there are any difficulties or lack of guidance requiring further explanation or supplementary guidance, please report to the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuracy, the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of Public Security for timely clarification or supplementary guidance.