Current status of handling evidence of wild animals under the Vietnamese criminal procedure law

Abstract

The handling of wildlife exhibits in criminal cases plays a key role, not only contributing to protecting the ecosystem and maintaining biodiversity but also demonstrating Vietnam’s dedication to implementing international commitments in the prevention and fight against wildlife crimes. The handling of material evidence requires close and synchronous coordination between procedural agencies, including investigating agencies, agencies tasked with conducting a number of investigative activities, procuracies, and courts, together with specialized wildlife management agencies. Although Vietnam’s criminal law and criminal procedures prescribe sanctions to punish and deter violations of regulations on the protection of wild animals and endangered, precious, and rare species, the current regulations lack detailed guidance on the conditions and procedures for classifying objects (such as live animals, dead specimens, animal parts, and prohibited products) and for prioritizing measures (including release into the wild, rescue, transfer, and destruction). Practice shows that the handling of physical evidence of wild animals still reflects many divergent views: some localities prioritize rapid release back into natural habitats, while others focus on rescue and rehabilitation; some agencies emphasize the scientific or educational value of specimens, but others destroy them swiftly to avoid incurring storage costs. In addition, responsibilities betwxfeen procedural bodies and specialized management authorities have not been clearly defined, leading to overlap, causing delays, and sometimes resulting in the loss or compromise of important evidence. Furthermore, it is indispensable to ensure timely, scientific, and transparent handling procedures, with clear accountability mechanisms and strengthened capacity-building efforts across all relevant agencies. The article focuses on analyzing current criminal procedure law provisions, pointing out practical difficulties and legal obstacles, and proposing targeted solutions to improve the criminal procedure framework on the handling of material evidence involving wild animals.