Nong Duc Tai[1], LL.M and Nguyen Hong Son[2], LL.M
 |
| Competent forces of Dong Thap province receive Vietnamese citizens repatriated by Cambodian authorities at the Thuong Phuoc International Border Gate on September 30, 2025__Photo: VNA |
Introduction
Extradition is one of the most significant activities in international cooperation in combating crimes, which is regulated under the 2007 Law on Mutual Legal Assistance. After 16 years of implementation, although the extradition process has yielded positive outcomes, this Law has also revealed shortcomings and limitations. In the modern context, it is necessary for Vietnam’s legal system to institutionalize the guidelines and policies of the Party and the State on judicial reform and international legal integration (as stated in Politburo Resolution 48-NQ/TW dated May 24, 2005, on the Strategy for building and improving Vietnam’s legal system through 2010, with orientations toward 2020, Resolution 49-NQ/TW dated June 2, 2005, on the Strategy for judicial reform through 2020, and Resolution 66-NQ/TW dated April 30, 2025, on reform of law making and enforcement to meet the requirements of the national development in the new period). Therefore, it is essential to promulgate a new Extradition Law.
In practice, the promulgation of the Extradition Law in 2025 is also very timely, as it continues the process of institutionalizing the 2013 Constitution, which emphasizes the respect for, protection and guarantee of, human rights and citizens’ rights. Most recently enacted laws contain new provisions relevant to international cooperation in extradition, such as the 2015 Criminal Procedure Code (as revised in 2021) and the 2019 Law on Execution of Criminal Judgments. Thus, revising the regulations on extradition is necessary to ensure the consistency and uniformity of the legal system.
At present, Vietnam is a party to 22 multilateral treaties, 10 bilateral agreements on mutual legal assistance containing extradition provisions, and 18 bilateral extradition treaties. A legal review reveals that several provisions on extradition under the 2007 Law on Mutual Legal Assistance are not fully aligned with these treaties and agreements (such as those concerning emergency arrest, financial obligations, transit of extradited persons, and the specialty principle). Accordingly, the promulgation of the Extradition Law will help Vietnam fulfill its international commitments and obligations, provide a legal basis for negotiating and signing new extradition treaties, thereby improving the effectiveness of international cooperation in this area.
In addition, international experience shows a prevailing trend among countries to enact dedicated extradition laws for ease of application. Foreign countries such as China, India, the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia, and Malaysia have all adopted specific legislation on extradition. The United Nations in 2004 issued a Model Extradition Law as a reference for the states in developing their own legislation. At the regional level, the ASEAN has adopted the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters and is in the process of drafting an ASEAN Extradition Treaty. The foreign countries that previously signed civil and criminal mutual legal assistance agreements with Vietnam have recently expressed the desire to negotiate and sign separate extradition agreements to facilitate implementation.
Notable features of the new Extradition Law
The 2025 Extradition Law (the Law) was passed on November 26, 2025, and will come into effect on July 1, 2026. It consists of 45 articles arranged in four chapters, including revisions to 27 articles, 23 new articles, and removal of one article compared to the Law on Mutual Legal Assistance regarding extradition.
Chapter I essentially provides the Law’s scope of regulation, stipulating the principles, authority, conditions, procedures and responsibilities of Vietnamese state agencies in the process of extradition between Vietnam and foreign countries. Regarding subjects of application, the Law applies to Vietnamese agencies, organizations and individuals, as well as foreign agencies, organizations and individuals involved in extradition with Vietnam. The Law also provides clear definitions of relevant concepts and terms to ensure consistency with the scope of regulation and to facilitate its application, including definitions of “extradition” and “the person requested to be extradited.” It inherits principles from the Law on Mutual Legal Assistance, with some appropriate adjustments specific to the field of extradition.
In particular, concerning the application of the principle of reciprocity in extradition, the Law adds conditions for applying this principle and transfers the authority to decide on its application from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Ministry of Public Security. In addition, when it comes to cases that are subject to extradition, the Law inherits the previous provisions but adds cases in which the request involves multiple criminal acts, each constituting an offense under both Vietnamese and foreign laws, and where at least one of these acts satisfies the condition of being punishable by imprisonment of one year or more, life imprisonment, or death penalty, or in which the remaining term of imprisonment is at least six months. In such a case, Vietnam may agree to extradite a person for all of these acts. When Vietnam is the requesting party, the Ministry of Public Security may request the competent authority of the foreign country to agree upon similar cases. This supplementary provision is consistent with international practice.
Chapter I also provides the notification related to death penalty in extradition cases, stipulating that if a foreign country requests Vietnam not to impose or execute the death penalty on the person to be extradited, the Ministry of Public Security has to assume the prime responsibility for, and coordinate with related ministries and agencies in, providing detailed guidance on this matter. This is considered a highly important and sensitive issue and is therefore clearly regulated.
It is stipulated in this chapter that a person who has been extradited may neither be prosecuted nor be forced to serve a sentence for any offense other than the one stated in the extradition request, nor be extradited to a third country, except in certain law-specified cases. Regarding the transit of extradited persons, the Law is more detailed than the previous law by requiring prior written notification to the Ministry of Public Security when a person is to transit through Vietnam’s territory. The requesting country is responsible for managing the person during the transit period and covering all related expenses, unless otherwise agreed upon. In case Vietnam requests a foreign country to allow transit, the Ministry of Public Security will have to coordinate with the foreign country in carrying out the necessary procedures. The Vietnamese Government will provide detailed guidance on this provision.
This chapter also specifies the extradition request dossier, the language used in extradition, consular legalization, state management of extradition, costs of implementation, and conditional extradition. These are considered new provisions compared to the previous law, aligning with international law and practice, and responding to situations covered under extradition treaties that Vietnam has concluded with foreign countries, thereby contributing to preventing impunity.
Chapter II of the Law regulates the process of extradition from foreign countries to Vietnam, highlighting several key provisions. Article 18 stipulates that the central authority in charge of extradition, procedural authorities, criminal judgment enforcement management agencies, and criminal judgment enforcement agencies are empowered to make extradition requests for criminal prosecution or sentence execution/enforcement. The preparation of extradition request dossiers to be sent from Vietnam to foreign countries must meet formal requirements and be consistent with treaties to which Vietnam is a state party. In addition, the agency preparing the request is responsible for submitting the dossier to the Ministry of Public Security for review, unless the request is made by the central authority in charge of extradition. The Ministry of Public Security is tasked with verifying the validity of the dossier within 30 days from the date of receipt. If the foreign authority requests additional information or documents, the requested agency will provide supplements via the Ministry of Public Security, unless otherwise agreed. After receiving the extradition decision from the foreign authority, the Ministry of Public Security forms a delegation to escort the extradited person from the foreign country to Vietnam.
It can be said that Chapter II provides a solid framework for handling the return of individuals from abroad to Vietnam. This framework not only helps harmonize Vietnam’s legal system with international norms but also enhances the effectiveness of the implementation, addressing shortcomings of the previous legal texts.
Chapter III regulates matters related to extradition from Vietnam to foreign countries through a strict procedural process. Extradition requests from foreign countries to Vietnam must meet requirements equivalent to those for Vietnam’s outbound extradition requests. The process involves receiving and reviewing the foreign extradition dossier and verifying the location of the person to be extradited within Vietnam. These provisions generally follow the Law on Mutual Legal Assistance while adding a new clause assigning the competent public security agency to verify the location of the person subject to extradition. Since such verification is already governed by the Criminal Procedure Code, the Law on the People’s Public Security Forces, and other relevant laws, the Law does not repeat those procedures.
Of note is the regulation on docketing foreign extradition requests. Inheriting provisions of the Law on Mutual Legal Assistance, the Law introduces a new clause stating that “Based on opinions of the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuracy, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of Public Security, the competent people’s court may be requested to annul the decision to accept the extradition case.”
Concerning extradition proceedings, within 60 days after the case is docketed, the competent local people’s court will issue a ruling to consider the extradition request or a ruling to terminate the case. The provincial-level court is responsible for holding a hearing to consider the extradition request within 30 days after issuing the ruling to proceed. Notably, the timeline for ruling on extradition is shortened compared to the previous law.
The Law also revises the provisions on filing of appeals or protests, cassation, and reopening of extradition rulings, aligning with the current institutional structure of state agencies. These revisions are consistent with relevant provisions (Articles 370 and 397) of the current Criminal Procedure Code.
Concerning cases involving multiple extradition requests for the same person from different countries, the Law generally inherits provisions of the Law on Mutual Legal Assistance, but adds a new clause stating that “If a subsequent extradition request is submitted after the local people’s court accepts an earlier one, the Ministry of Public Security shall request the court to abort the previously accepted case in accordance with the procedures specified in Clause 3, Article 28, and return the dossier to the Ministry for further consideration and decision.”
Chapter III also provides preventive measures in extradition cases, such as emergency arrests and procedures for making emergency arrests when Vietnam and the requesting country have not yet concluded an extradition agreement. These additions help address complex scenarios arising from transnational crimes that may be committed anywhere in the world, including Vietnam.
Further improvement of the Extradition Law
The Law perpetuates the provisions of the Law on Mutual Legal Assistance that remain appropriate, while adding new provisions to meet the requirements of extradition activities in the current context. At the same time, it is the product of a comprehensive review and legal incorporation of relevant provisions of treaties to which Vietnam is a contracting party, such as the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, the 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation, the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, the 1979 International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, and the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.
To improve the domestic legal framework and achieve greater harmonization with the global context and international standards, competent authorities should consider the following recommendations:
Firstly, the mechanism for protecting the human rights of individuals subject to extradition requests should be further improved
Although Article 41.1.d provides for the refusal of extradition if the requested person is at risk of persecution, torture, or inhumane treatment, the Law does not fully address other fundamental rights, for instance, the right to access a legal counsel, which should include specific provisions on the right to free legal counsel if the person is unable to afford one, the right to interpretation throughout the proceedings, and the right to be notified of the extradition request within 48 hours of detention. This falls short of international standards, particularly the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, to which Vietnam is a state party.
Secondly, the principle of reciprocity, which requires specific criteria and a strict monitoring mechanism in the absence of a general treaty between Vietnam and a foreign country, should be adhered to.
Article 5 sets out the principle of reciprocity in extradition when there is no relevant treaty, but the conditions for its application, especially the notion of “practice and necessity of cooperation” in Clause 1, remain vague and lack clear criteria. Therefore, the Ministry of Public Security should issue guidelines on seeking opinions of relevant agencies when necessary to enhance transparency in applying this principle. Additionally, the Law should include clearer provisions on the mechanism for monitoring or evaluating the application of this principle. Specific criteria should be added to assess “practice and necessity of cooperation,” such as bilateral cooperation history, the severity of the offense, or reciprocal commitments from the requesting country. The roles of relevant agencies such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, and the Supreme People’s Procuracy should be clarified before the Ministry of Public Security decides to apply the reciprocity principle. Furthermore, an inter-agency council or independent oversight body should be established to assess and publicly report on the application of this principle.
Thirdly, clearer criteria should be set to assess the international compatibility of extradition requests.
According to Article 27, the review of extradition requests primarily focuses on procedural validity (form, language, consular legalization), with no provision on evaluating the judicial system of the requesting country, particularly its adherence to the rule of law and respect for human rights. This is essential to ensure extradition only to countries with judicial systems that guarantee fair trials. Although the Ministry of Public Security’s report to the National Assembly presents relevant solutions, a clearer regulation should be considered requiring the Ministry of Public Security or a regional people’s court to assess the requesting country based on criteria such as: commitments to implementing international conventions, human rights reports from reputable organizations (e.g., the United Nations), and practical records of fair trials. Implementing this would require Vietnam to enhance cooperation with international organizations such as Interpol or the United Nations Human Rights Committee to verify information about the requesting country’s judicial system.
Fourthly, more specific provisions on extradition in cybercrime-related cases should be added.
The Law does not address specific issues related to extradition in cases involving cybercrimes such as online fraud or cross-border data violations. The processes for collecting, verifying and transferring electronic evidences are not clearly regulated, despite these crimes becoming increasingly prevalent and complex in a globalized context. This gap makes the Law insufficient for practical demands and complicates investigative cooperation with the countries that experience high rates of cybercrime, such as the United States, the EU or Singapore. As Vietnam is now a member of the United Nations Convention against Cybercrime, it is crucial to add a specific article or chapter on extradition related to cybercrimes. For example, given the volatile nature of digital evidences (e.g., digital data, online transaction records), it should regulate how to collect and authenticate these evidences properly, and provide technical standards to guarantee the legality and admissibility of such evidences in proceedings in requesting countries.
Fifthly, the provisions on processing timeframes should be more flexible.
The specified deadlines for processing extradition files (e.g., 30 days for dossier examination and 60 days for issuing an extradition decision under Articles 27 and 29) may be unfeasible in some complex cases, especially for verification of information from abroad or handling of multiple extradition requests (Article 31). The Law also lacks provisions on extension of deadlines, posing a risk of rejecting requests solely due to time constraints or making hasty or premature decisions. As a result, a provision should be added to allow extension of the processing timeframe in special circumstances, such as an additional 30 days when supplementary documents are required from abroad or there are disputes among requesting countries. A mechanism for suspending the deadline should also be included, in cases where clarification is needed, with a requirement to notify the requesting country in advance to ensure transparency. The use of information technology (e.g., online data exchange systems via Interpol) should be promoted to shorten verification and processing times.
Sixthly, there should be clear provisions on the extradition of Vietnamese nationals and individuals with dual nationality.
Article 41.1.b mandates the refusal to extradite Vietnamese citizens, while Article 42 allows for the criminal prosecution or enforcement of sentences against Vietnamese nationals at the request of foreign countries. This could result in potential inconsistencies. Moreover, the Law does not mention the case of extradition of Vietnamese citizens with dual citizenship, which could lead to legal disputes with countries that do not recognize dual nationality. The lack of clarity could lead to legal conflicts with partner countries, especially in the absence of a general treaty, thereby complicating the extradition process.
The procedures for prosecuting or executing criminal sentences against Vietnamese nationals instead of extraditing them should also be clarified, including mechanisms for coordination with requesting countries to ensure fairness. Alternatively, the possibility of allowing the extradition of Vietnamese citizens in exceptional cases (such as serious crimes under treaties) could be considered, provided that requesting countries commit to protecting the rights of Vietnamese nationals.-
[1] The People’s Security Academy.
[2] The Judicial Academy.
