Joint Circular No. 02/2017/TTLT-VKSNDTC-TANDTC-BCA-BQP on the coordination among judicial organs in implementing certain provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding returning case files for supplementary investigation.

JOINT CIRCULAR

Regulations on cooperation among judicial organs in implementing

certain provisions of the Criminal Procedure Codeconcerning returning case files for supplementary investigation

Pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Code dated November 27, 2015;

WHEREAS,ứ Law Bregulating the issuance of normative legal documentslAmendment and Supplement to Certain Provisions of the Tobacco Control Law June 22 2015;

The Prosecutor General of the Supreme People's Procuracy, the President of the Supreme People's Court, the Minister of Public Security, and the Minister of National Defense jointly issued this Circular to regulate the cooperation among judicial organs in implementing certain provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code concerning returning case files for supplementary investigation as follows1. This Circular regulates the cooperation in performing tasks, powers, and responsibilities of the Procuracy, the Court, and the Investigative Organs in implementing certain provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code concerning returning case files for supplementary investigation.:

Article 1. Scope of Regulation and Applicability

2. This Circular applies to judicial organs and judicial officers during the investigation, prosecution, and trial of criminal cases.

1. Seriously infringing upon the rights and legitimate interests of parties involved in litigation means directly affecting the legitimate rights and interests of such parties, which may cause them material and spiritual losses;

Article 2. Interpretation of Terms

In this Joint Circular, the following terms shall be understood as follows:

2. Significantly changing the previous investigative conclusion means changing the course of criminal behavior, evidence proving the crime, and the point, clause, or article of law proposed by the Investigative Organ;

3. Changing the indictment content means altering issues that must be proven in criminal cases such as: time, place of the crime; methods, purposes, motives of the crime, consequences of the crime, and other important circumstances; evidence identifying the criminal act of the suspect; aggravating or mitigating factors of criminal responsibility; personal background of the suspect; changing the point, clause, or article of law applied by the Procuracy for prosecution.

Article 3. Cooperation in implementing the return of case files for supplementary investigation in cases stipulated in point a, Clause 1, Article 245 and point a, Clause 1, Article 280 of the Criminal Procedure Code

1. Evidence to prove issues that must be proven in criminal cases stipulated in point a, Clause 1, Article 245, and point a, Clause 1, Article 280 of the Criminal Procedure Code is evidence prescribed in Articles 86 and 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code used to prove one or more issues prescribed in Articles 85 and 441 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which if lacking would prevent the case from being resolved objectively, comprehensively, and in accordance with the law.

2. When there is a lack of evidence in any of the following situations, the Procuracy and the Court shall return the case file for supplementary investigation:

a) Evidence to prove whether "a criminal act has occurred or not" is evidence to determine whether the act committed has all the elements constituting a specific crime as prescribed in the Penal Code or falls under cases that are not criminal acts (civil relations, economic relations, administrative violations, and other cases as prescribed by law);

b) Evidence to prove "the time, place, and other circumstances of the criminal act" is evidence to determine when and where the criminal act occurred if it did occur; the method, means, tools, and means of committing the crime;

c) Evidence to prove "who committed the criminal act" is evidence to determine a specific subject who committed the criminal act;

d) Evidence to prove "whether there was fault or no fault" is evidence to determine whether the subject had fault or no fault when committing a socially dangerous act; if there was fault, then whether it was direct intentional fault or indirect intentional fault or negligent fault due to excessive confidence or negligent fault due to carelessness as prescribed in Articles 10 and 11 of the Penal Code;

đ) Evidence to prove "whether there is criminal liability capacity" is evidence to determine whether the person committing the socially dangerous act had reached the age of criminal responsibility at the time of committing the act; whether they suffered from mental illness or another disease that impaired their ability to recognize or control their actions; if so, when and during which stage of the proceedings they suffered from such illness;

e) Evidence to prove "the purpose and motive of the crime" is evidence to determine the purpose and motive of the subject committing the criminal act; whether the purpose and motive of the crime are aggravating factors of criminal responsibility or determining factors of the crime or sentencing range;

g) Evidence to prove "aggravating or mitigating factors of criminal responsibility of the suspect, defendant" is evidence to determine whether the suspect, defendant is subject to mitigating factors of criminal responsibility prescribed in Articles 51 and 84 of the Penal Code or aggravating factors of criminal responsibility prescribed in Articles 52 and 85 of the Penal Code;

h) Evidence to prove "characteristics of the personal background of the suspect, defendant" is evidence to determine the background of the suspect, defendant; if the suspect, defendant is a commercial entity, then evidence must be provided regarding its name, address, and other issues related to its legal status and activities;

i) Evidence to prove "the nature and extent of damage caused by the criminal act" is evidence to assess the nature and extent of damage, material and immaterial consequences caused by the criminal act;

k) Evidence to prove "causes and conditions of the crime" is evidence to determine the subjective and objective causes, specific conditions leading to the subject committing the criminal act;

l) Evidence to prove "other circumstances related to the exclusion of criminal responsibility, exemption from criminal responsibility, exemption from punishment" is evidence to prove issues prescribed in Articles 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 59, 88, and other articles of the Penal Code.

l) Evidence to prove "other circumstances related to the exclusion of criminal liability, exemption from criminal liability, and exemption from punishment" is evidence proving the issues prescribed in Articles 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 59, 88, and other articles of the Criminal Code;

m) Other evidence to prove one or more issues specified in Article 85 of the Criminal Procedure Code, without which there would not be sufficient grounds to resolve the case, such as: evidence to determine the age of the accused or the victim who is under 18 years old; evidence to prove the position and role of each co-defendant in cases of joint offenses or organized crimes; evidence to determine the civil liability of the accused and other issues significant for resolving the case as prescribed by law;

n) In cases where a commercial legal entity commits a crime, in addition to determining evidence in the situations provided for in points a, b, c, d, đ, e, g, h, i, k, l, and m of this clause, it is also necessary to determine evidence to prove the conditions for criminal responsibility of the commercial legal entity as stipulated in Article 75 of the Criminal Code.

3. The Prosecutor's Office shall issue a decision to return the dossier for supplementary investigation when there is a lack of evidence to prove any of the situations prescribed in Clause 2 of this Article that the Prosecutor's Office cannot supplement on its own.

4. The judge assigned to preside over the trial session (during the pre-trial preparation stage), or the Bench (at the trial session) shall issue a decision to return the dossier for supplementary investigation when there is a lack of evidence to prove any of the situations prescribed in Clause 2 of this Article if it is deemed that such evidence cannot be supplemented during the pre-trial preparation stage or at the trial session.

5. There shall be no return of the dossier for supplementary investigation when there is a lack of evidence to prove any of the situations prescribed in Clause 2 of this Article but the prosecution and trial can still proceed or the evidence cannot be collected. Example 1: There are three witnesses but only two can be identified. Example 2: The scene has been changed and cannot be reviewed again or the evidence has been lost and cannot be found.

Article 4. Coordination in returning the dossier for supplementary investigation in the situations prescribed in points b and c of Clause 1 of Article 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code

1. When there is a basis to indict the accused for one or more crimes; there is a co-perpetrator or another perpetrator related to the case but not yet indicted, in any of the following situations, the Prosecutor's Office shall return the dossier for supplementary investigation:

a) Indicting and investigating one or more crimes, but the evidence in the case file shows that the accused's actions have constituted one or more other crimes;

b) Besides the crimes already indicted and investigated, the evidence in the case file shows that there is a basis to indict the accused for one or more other crimes;

c) Besides the accused already indicted and investigated, the evidence in the case file shows that there are other co-perpetrators or other perpetrators related to the case but not yet indicted.

2. The Prosecutor's Office shall not return the dossier for supplementary investigation in the following situations:

a) If there is a basis to separate the case as prescribed in Clause 2 of Article 242 of the Criminal Procedure Code;

b) If the decision to return the dossier for supplementary investigation by the Court has a basis and it is deemed unnecessary to return the dossier to the Investigative Agency, then the Prosecutor's Office shall directly conduct some investigative activities to supplement materials and evidence as prescribed in Clause 1 of Article 246 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Article 5. Coordination in returning case files for supplementary investigation in cases provided for in points b and c Clause 1 Article 280 of the Criminal Procedure Code

1. When there are grounds to believe that the suspect or defendant has committed other acts which the Criminal Code stipulates as criminal offenses, or there are other co-offenders or other persons who have committed acts which the Criminal Code stipulates as criminal offenses related to the case but have not been criminally prosecuted or criminally charged, falling under any of the following circumstances, the Judge (during the pre-trial stage) or the Bench (at the trial session) shall return the case file for supplementary investigation:

a) The Public Prosecutor prosecutes one or more crimes, but the evidence in the case file shows that the suspect's or defendant's actions constitute one or more other crimes;

b) In addition to the criminal act that the Public Prosecutor has prosecuted, the evidence in the case file shows that there are grounds to criminally charge the suspect or defendant with one or more other crimes;

c) In addition to the suspects or defendants who have been prosecuted, the evidence in the case file shows that there are other co-offenders or other offenders related to the case, but they have not been criminally prosecuted or criminally charged.

2. The Court shall not return the case file for supplementary investigation when it falls under any of the following circumstances:

a) The circumstance provided for in point a Clause 1 of this Article, but the evidence in the case file shows that the suspect or defendant can be tried for one or more corresponding crimes that are equal to or less severe than those charged by the Public Prosecutor, or can be tried for fewer crimes than those charged by the Public Prosecutor;

b) There is a decision to separate the case or there is no decision to separate the case from the Investigative Agency, the Public Prosecutor, but there are grounds to separate the case according to the provisions of Clause 2 Article 170 and Clause 2 Article 242 of the Criminal Procedure Code;

c) A request has been made to the Public Prosecutor to supplement materials and evidence according to the provisions of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Article 6. Coordination in returning case files for supplementary investigation in cases provided for in point d Clause 1 Article 245 and point d Clause 1 Article 280 of the Criminal Procedure Code

1. When there are serious violations of procedural regulations falling under any of the following circumstances, the Public Prosecutor and the Court shall return the case file for supplementary investigation:

a) Orders or decisions of the Investigative Agency or agencies entrusted with conducting certain investigative activities which, according to the Criminal Procedure Code, must be approved by the Public Prosecutor, but lack such approval or the issuance of procedural orders or decisions is beyond their authority;

b) Failure to appoint, change, or terminate the appointment of defense counsel for the accused person as prescribed in Articles 76 and 77 of the Criminal Procedure Code;

c) Incorrect determination of the status of participants in the proceedings during the investigation, prosecution, and trial, leading to serious infringement of their rights and legitimate interests;

d) Initiation of a criminal case without a request from the victim or the representative of the victim as stipulated in Clause 1 Article 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code;

đ) Merging or separating cases contrary to the provisions of Article 170 or Article 242 of the Criminal Procedure Code;

e) Failure to issue, deliver, transfer, send, post, or notify procedural documents including orders, decisions, requests, investigation conclusions, indictments, judgments to the accused person and other participants in the proceedings as required by law, seriously infringing upon the right to defense, rights, and legitimate interests of the accused person and other participants in the proceedings;

g) Failure to investigate and establish the suspect's record; failure to determine important personal characteristics of the suspect or defendant (age, prior convictions, prior offenses), business activity records of commercial legal entities committing crimes (name, address, other issues related to the legal records of commercial legal entities);

h) Lack of interpreters or translators for participants in the proceedings who cannot use Vietnamese or procedural documents not expressed in Vietnamese; they are deaf, mute, or blind as prescribed in Article 70 of the Criminal Procedure Code;

i) Failure to refuse to conduct or participate in proceedings or change the person conducting or participating in proceedings as prescribed in Articles 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 68, 69, and 70 of the Criminal Procedure Code;

k) Investigation and collection of evidence for the case not conducted in accordance with the procedures and regulations stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Code, thus lacking evidentiary value in criminal cases;

l) Records of investigative activities, collection, receipt of documents related to the case not transferred to the Public Prosecutor as prescribed in Clause 5 Article 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code;

m) Evidence collected during the investigation and prosecution process not included in the case file or altered, added to, or subtracted from, leading to distortion of the case file;

n) Investigation and prosecution not conducted within the jurisdiction as prescribed by law;

o) Grounds exist to determine that torture or cruel treatment occurred during the proceedings, causing the suspect's confession to be untrue;

p) Complaints and denunciations of the suspect, defendant, and other participants in the proceedings not resolved in accordance with the law, seriously infringing upon their rights and legitimate interests;

q) Other circumstances must be clearly stated in the decision to return the case file for supplementary investigation.

2. The Public Prosecutor and the Court shall not return the case file for supplementary investigation as prescribed in Clause 1 of this Article when it falls under any of the following circumstances:

a) Serious violations of procedural regulations, but not seriously infringing upon the rights and legitimate interests of participants in the proceedings;

b) The accused person, victim, or witness is under 18 years old, but when conducting investigative, prosecution, and trial activities, they have reached 18 years of age.

Article 7. Coordination in Implementing the Return of Case Files for Supplementary Investigation in Cases Specified in Clause 3 of Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Code

In cases where the Court returns the case file for supplementary investigation on the grounds that the suspect or defendant has committed a more serious offense than the charge brought by the Prosecutor, it shall be implemented as follows:

1. Where it is necessary to change the decision to initiate criminal proceedings and the decision to indict for a more serious offense, the Prosecutor shall return the case file to the Investigative Agency for supplementary investigation to change the charge and issue a supplementary investigation report on the more serious offense.

2. Where the Investigative Agency fails to implement despite the Prosecutor's request, the Prosecutor shall issue a decision to change the decision to initiate criminal proceedings and the decision to indict for a more serious offense, and request the Investigative Agency to implement according to Articles 156 and 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Article 8. Coordination in Implementing the Return of Case Files for Supplementary Investigation

Within the time limit for prosecution decisions or pre-trial preparation, the Prosecutor and the Court must thoroughly review the case file to promptly identify cases requiring the return of the case file for supplementary investigation and immediately issue a decision to return the case file for supplementary investigation.

Article 9. Decision to Return Case File for Supplementary Investigation

1. The decision to return the case file for supplementary investigation must be made in writing and signed by the authorized person as stipulated in Articles 41, 44, and 45 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. In the decision to return the case file for supplementary investigation, the number, date, month, year, and the first or second time the case file is returned must be recorded. In the content section, specific issues requiring supplementary investigation, serious violations of procedural law that need to be rectified, and the applicable legal basis must be clearly stated.

3. Where it is necessary to continue returning the case file for supplementary investigation, the decision must clearly state the issues requested for supplementary investigation previously but not yet addressed, or those already investigated but not meeting requirements, or new issues arising from the results of supplementary investigation.

4. Where the Court decides to return the case file to the Prosecutor for re-prosecution under Clause 3 of Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the decision to return the case file must specify the more serious charge proposed by the Court for the Prosecutor to re-prosecute.

Article 10. Coordination in Implementing the Decision to Return Case File for Supplementary Investigation

1. The Investigative Agency is responsible for fully implementing the requirements set out in the Prosecutor’s decision to return the case file for supplementary investigation as stipulated in Articles 167 and 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code; if the Prosecutor’s decision to return the case file for supplementary investigation lacks grounds as specified in Articles 3, 4, and 6 of this Circular, then upon receiving the case file, the Investigative Agency must issue a document stating the reasons for maintaining the original investigation conclusion and return the case file to the Prosecutor.

2. Upon receipt of the case file and the Court’s decision to return the case file for supplementary investigation, the Prosecutor shall handle as follows:

a) If the Court’s decision to return the case file for supplementary investigation has grounds and the Prosecutor can supplement independently, the Prosecutor shall conduct the investigation according to Clause 2 and Clause 3 of Article 236 and Clause 1 of Article 246 of the Criminal Procedure Code; if unable to supplement independently, the Prosecutor shall issue a decision to return the case file for supplementary investigation and immediately transfer the case file to the Investigative Agency for further investigation.

b) If the Court’s decision to return the case file for supplementary investigation lacks grounds as specified in Articles 3, 5, and 6 of this Circular, the Prosecutor shall issue a document stating the reasons for maintaining the indictment decision and return the case file to the Court for trial according to Article 246 and Clause 3 of Article 280 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

3. After completing supplementary investigation, the Investigative Agency must issue a supplementary investigation conclusion, clearly concluding each issue of supplementary investigation, the approach to resolving the case, and handling accordingly as follows:

a) If the results of supplementary investigation fundamentally alter the previous investigation conclusion, the Investigative Agency must issue a new investigation conclusion to replace it according to Clause 3 of Article 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

b) If the results of supplementary investigation lead to the termination of the investigation, the Investigative Agency shall issue a decision to terminate the investigation according to Article 230 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

4. After obtaining the results of supplementary investigation, the Prosecutor shall handle as follows:

a) If the results of supplementary investigation do not alter the previous indictment content, the Prosecutor shall issue a document stating the reasons for maintaining the indictment decision and transfer the case file to the Court.

b) If the results of supplementary investigation fundamentally alter the previous indictment content, the Prosecutor shall issue a new indictment to replace it and transfer the case file to the Court.

c) If the results of supplementary investigation lead to the termination of the case, the Prosecutor shall issue a decision to terminate the case and notify the Investigative Agency and the Court according to Article 248 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Article 11. Coordination between the Prosecution and the Investigative Agency to limit the return of case files for supplementary investigation

1. The Prosecution and the Investigative Agency must closely coordinate from the time of receiving and handling information about criminal offenses and throughout the entire investigation process. Investigators must proactively submit all collected evidence and materials in full and on time to the Prosecutor handling the case and fully implement investigative requirements of the Prosecution. Prosecutors must continuously monitor and keep track of the progress of the case investigation, carefully study the evidence and materials collected by the Investigators; promptly propose investigative requirements, actively coordinate with Investigators to clarify issues that need proof immediately during the investigation phase; while strictly supervising the investigative activities and the case file establishment of the Investigative Agency, ensuring the objectivity and comprehensiveness of the case investigation according to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. At least ten days before concluding the case investigation, Investigators and Prosecutors must cooperate to evaluate the collected evidence and materials, ensuring their completeness and legality; if any of the bases stipulated in Articles 3, 4, 5, and 6 of this Joint Circular are found, they must be supplemented and rectified immediately during the investigation phase; for particularly serious and complex cases, the Investigative Agency and the Prosecution must conduct a comprehensive review and evaluation of the investigation results, directing the resolution of any conflicting or unresolved issues and deciding on the conclusion of the investigation and the direction of case handling according to the law.

Article 12. Coordination between the Investigative Agency, the Prosecution, and the Court during the prosecution phase to limit the return of case files for supplementary investigation

1. After receiving the case file and the investigation conclusion, the Prosecutor must thoroughly examine the file, check compliance with procedural regulations, and the completeness and legality of the evidence and materials in the case file. The Prosecutor must directly interrogate the suspect in the cases specified in Clause 4 of Article 183 of the Criminal Procedure Code; if additional evidence or materials are needed or procedural violations are identified that can be supplemented, the Prosecutor must coordinate with the Investigator to promptly supplement and rectify; if supplementation is not possible, the Prosecutor must report to the Prosecution leadership for consideration and decision.

2. Within the deadline for deciding on prosecution, if the case involves complex issues regarding evidence, charges, or other necessary circumstances, the Prosecutor must report to the Prosecution leadership to discuss with the Investigative Agency and Court leadership on the direction of case resolution.

3. In cases where complex issues arise, the Prosecution must proactively organize inter-agency meetings to clarify issues requiring supplementary investigation to ensure that the return of case files for supplementary investigation is focused, thorough, and timely.

4. If the procedural agencies at the same level cannot reach agreement on issues requiring supplementary investigation, the procedural agency currently handling the case file must take the lead in preparing a report from the procedural agencies at the same level to report to the higher-level inter-agency leadership for consideration and opinion on the resolution of the case.

Article 13. Coordination between the Prosecutor's Office and the Court during the trial phase to limit the return of case files for supplementary investigation

1. Within the preparation period for the trial, after reviewing the file, if the Presiding Judge finds any of the grounds for returning the file for supplementary investigation as stipulated in Articles 3, 4, 5, and 6 of this Joint Circular, the Presiding Judge shall discuss with the Prosecutor to take timely measures to remedy the situation or supplement the matter at the trial without having to return the file for supplementary investigation. If the Prosecutor and the Judge do not reach an agreement, they shall report to the leadership of the inter-sectoral body for consideration and opinion on the resolution of the case. In cases where the Prosecutor discovers grounds for returning the file for supplementary investigation, the Prosecutor shall issue a document requesting the Court to return the file for supplementary investigation in accordance with Clause 2, Article 280 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. At the trial, the Prosecutor shall actively coordinate with the Bench to clarify evidence related to the proper resolution of criminal cases. If there are any of the grounds for returning the file for supplementary investigation as stipulated in Articles 3, 4, 5, and 6 of this Joint Circular, or new and complex issues that cannot be resolved immediately at the trial, the Bench shall decide to return the file for supplementary investigation either on its own initiative or upon the request of the Prosecutor.

3. For cases where the higher-level Prosecutor's Office exercises public prosecution rights, supervises investigations, and assigns the lower-level Prosecutor's Office to exercise public prosecution rights and supervise first-instance trials, if grounds for returning the file for supplementary investigation are discovered, the first-instance court shall discuss with the same-level Prosecutor's Office to clarify the issues of supplementary investigation. Before the Court makes a decision to return the file for supplementary investigation, the lower-level Prosecutor's Office shall report to the higher-level Prosecutor's Office for review and discussion with the Court. In cases where the Court still decides to return the file for supplementary investigation, it shall be handled as follows:

a) If the Court's decision to return the file for supplementary investigation has grounds, the lower-level Prosecutor's Office shall prepare a document detailing the reasons and transfer the case file to the higher-level Prosecutor's Office to conduct supplementary investigation within its authority;

b) If the Court's decision to return the file for supplementary investigation lacks grounds, the lower-level Prosecutor's Office shall prepare a document detailing the reasons for maintaining the indictment decision and return the file to the Court for trial while reporting to the higher-level Prosecutor's Office.

4. In cases where the accused is under temporary detention and it is deemed necessary to return the file for supplementary investigation, at least seven days before the end of the temporary detention period, the Court shall notify the Prosecutor's Office to consider and decide on the temporary detention of the accused when receiving the case file.

Article 14. Coordination in managing the return of case files for supplementary investigation

1. Investigative agencies have the responsibility to manage the return of case files for supplementary investigation at their level. The Prosecutor's Office is responsible for managing the number of cases and instances of returning files for supplementary investigation by investigative agencies at the same level. The provincial-level Prosecutor's Office is responsible for compiling and evaluating the situation of returning files for supplementary investigation by investigative agencies at the provincial and district levels under its management.

2. Regularly (monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, annually), each investigative agency must prepare a report on the return of case files for supplementary investigation; in which, the situation must be evaluated, the number of cases/accused persons must be determined, the reasons for returning the file for supplementary investigation must be analyzed, the number of cases returned with grounds, the number of cases returned without grounds, the causes and responsibilities of each agency and person involved in the return of the file for supplementary investigation must be identified.

3. The calculation of the rate of returning case files for supplementary investigation by the Prosecutor's Office and the Court is as follows:

a) The rate of returning case files for supplementary investigation by the Prosecutor's Office equals the number of cases decided by the Prosecutor's Office to return for supplementary investigation with grounds divided by the total number of cases concluded by the Investigation Agency and transferred to the Prosecutor's Office for indictment (including both old unresolved cases and new cases); Example: In 2018, the Provincial Prosecutor's Office H decided to return 9 cases for supplementary investigation accepted by the Investigation Agency out of a total of 150 cases (10 old cases, 140 new cases) concluded by the Investigation Agency and transferred to the Prosecutor's Office for indictment, then the rate of returning files for supplementary investigation by the Prosecutor's Office relative to the Investigation Agency is 6% (9 cases/150 cases x 100%).

b) The rate of returning case files for supplementary investigation by the Court equals the number of cases decided by the Court to return for supplementary investigation with grounds divided by the total number of cases indicted by the Prosecutor's Office and transferred to the Court for trial (including both old unresolved indictments and new indictments); Example: In 2018, the Court decided to return 5 cases for supplementary investigation accepted by the Prosecutor's Office out of a total of 100 cases (10 old cases, 90 new cases) indicted by the Prosecutor's Office and transferred to the Court for trial, then the rate of returning files for supplementary investigation by the Court relative to the Prosecutor's Office is 5% (5 cases/100 cases x 100%).

c) In cases where the same case is returned for supplementary investigation multiple times by both the Prosecutor's Office and the Court, it shall be counted as one case and analyzed as being returned multiple times;

d) In cases where the Court returns the file for supplementary investigation, and subsequently the Prosecutor's Office requests the Investigation Agency to supplement the investigation based on the Court's requirements, it shall be counted as one case and analyzed as being returned once (the case is counted due to the Court's decision to return the file for supplementary investigation).

Article 15. Coordination in Determining Responsibility for Returning Case Files for Supplementary Investigation

1. The investigative agency and Investigator shall be responsible for returning case files for supplementary investigation in the following cases:

a) Failing to implement or implementing incorrectly, incompletely, or untimely the investigation requirements or decisions to return case files for supplementary investigation issued by the Prosecutor, leading to the case file being returned for supplementary investigation on issues that the Prosecutor had requested to investigate;

b) Failing to provide timely and complete evidence and materials related to the case as required by law during the investigation process, causing the Prosecutor not to grasp the content of the case in time to propose investigation requirements, resulting in the Prosecutor's Office or Court having to return the case file for supplementary investigation.

2. The Prosecutor's Office and Prosecutor shall be responsible for returning case files for supplementary investigation in the following cases:

a) Failing to propose investigation requirements or failing to return the case file for supplementary investigation for issues that could have been discovered, leading to the Court having to return the case file for supplementary investigation;

b) Deciding to return the case file for supplementary investigation without basis, and the investigative agency retains its original investigation conclusion in writing, subsequently the Prosecutor's Office decides to prosecute as proposed by the investigative agency.

3. The Judge assigned to preside over the trial session or the Bench shall be responsible for returning the case file for supplementary investigation if the decision to return the case file for supplementary investigation lacks basis, and the Prosecutor's Office retains its original prosecution decision in writing, subsequently the Court adjudicates the case according to the prosecution decision of the Prosecutor's Office.

4. In cases stipulated in Clauses 1, 2, and 3 of this Article, the leadership of the litigation agencies shall organize reviews to determine the specific responsibility of each litigator at each level involved in returning the case file for supplementary investigation, for examination and handling in accordance with the provisions of the law.

Article 16. Implementation Provisions

1. This Circular takes effect from February 6, 2018, replacing Circular Jointly Issued No. 01/2010/TTLT-VKSTC-BCA-TATC dated August 27, 2010, jointly issued by the Supreme People's Procuracy, Ministry of Public Security, and Supreme People's Court guiding the implementation of the Criminal Procedure Code provisions on returning case files for supplementary investigation. Previous guidance from the Supreme People's Procuracy, Supreme People's Court, Ministry of Public Security, and Ministry of National Defense contrary to the provisions of this Circular shall be abolished.

2. The Supreme People's Procuracy, Supreme People's Court, Ministry of Public Security, and Ministry of National Defense shall be responsible for organizing the implementation of this Circular.

3. During the implementation of this Circular, if there are difficulties, agencies, units, and localities shall report to the Supreme People's Procuracy, Supreme People's Court, Ministry of Public Security, and Ministry of National Defense for timely guidance./.