ASSISTANCE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF VIETNAM’S LEGAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TO 2010

“ASSISTANCE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
VIETNAM’S LEGAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
STRATEGY TO 2010”

FINAL PROJECT REPORT
December 2009

1


Programme Title: VIE/02/015 “Assistance of Vietnam’s Legal System Development
Strategy”
Project Award ID: 00015601
Parties to the Project Agreement: The Government of Vietnam, UNDP, SIDA,
DANIDA, Norway and Ireland
Executing Agency: Ministry of Justice (MOJ)
Co-implementing Agencies: Relevant legal and judicial institutions in Viet Nam
Project Start Date: Originally Planned: September, 2003
Project Completion Date:
a. Originally planned: September, 2007
b. Actual: October 31, 2009
Total Allocated Budget: USD 5,278,486
Total Disbursed Amount: USD 5.108,764 USD
Rate of disbursement: 97%.
Note:
- The report cleared by National Project Director: Mr. Hoang The Lien, Vice
Minister, Ministry of Justice

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................................ 7
PART A: PROJECT PERFORMANCE RELATING TO ITS PROJECT OUTCOMES AND ITS
CONTRIBUTION TO THE COUNTRY PROGRAMME OUTCOMES................................................10
PROJECT OUTCOMES.................................................................................................................................. 10
10.1. Outcome One: Positive change: “Finalized Draft LSDS for approval by the competent State
authorities”...............................................................................................................................................10
10.2. Outcome Two: Positive change: “Co-ordinated management of the implementation of LSDS”. . .10
10.3. Outcome Three: Positive change: “A number of high-priority components of the Project and
emerging needs implemented through the Legal System Development Facility (LSDF).”.......................11
Country Programme Outcomes: Positive Change....................................................................................11
PROJECT OUTPUTS..................................................................................................................................... 12
PART B: PROJECT PERFORMANCE – IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES..............................................16
ACTUAL ACHIEVEMENTS AND IMPACTS...................................................................................................... 16
PART C: LESSONS LEARNED......................................................................................................................19
SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS..................................................................................................................................19
WORK PLANNING AND OPERATIONAL MATTERS......................................................................................... 22
PROJECT MANAGEMENT............................................................................................................................ 23
ANNEX A: PROJECT DOCUMENT OBJECTIVE, OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITIES...........................24
ANNEX B: PROJECT RESULTS AND RESOURCES FRAMEWORK FOR 2007 - 2008..................26
ANNEX C: ANNUAL OUTPUT ACHIEVEMENTS...................................................................................30
ANNEX D: REPORT ON IN-COUNTRY TRAINING ACTIVITIES.....................................................90
ANNEX E - CONSULTANTS........................................................................................................................129
ANNEX E - CONSULTANTS........................................................................................................................129
ANNEX F: LIST OF PRODUCTS AND PUBLICATIONS......................................................................179
ANNEX G: FINAL FINANCIAL REPORT................................................................................................200
ANNEX H: OTHER REPORTS....................................................................................................................201

-

Inception Report (2003)
Mid-term report (2006)
Final evaluation report (2008)
Reports of Legal Partnership Forum from 2004 to 2009

ANNEX I: LIST OF NON-EXPENDABLE SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT

3


ABBREVIATIONS
APR

Annual Project Review

APPR

Annual Project Progress Report

COA

Country Office Administrative Cost

CPIAC

Central Party Internal Affairs Committee

DANIDA

Danish International Development Agency

GACA

Government Aid Co-ordinating Agencies

IAWC

Inter-Agency Working Committee

ICD

International Co-operation Department

LNA

Legal Needs Assessment

LND

Legal Normative Document

LSDF

Legal System Development Facility

LSDS

Legal System Development Strategy

MOJ

Ministry of Justice

MPS

Ministry of Public Security

NA

National Assembly

NASC

National Assembly Standing Committee

NEX

National Execution

NPD

National Project Director

NSC

National Steering Committee

PISC

Project Implementation Steering Committee

PMU

Project Management Unit

QR

Quarterly Report

RTA/STA

Resident Technical Advisor

Sida

Swedish International Development Agency

SPC

Supreme People’s Court

SPP

Supreme People’s Procuracy

TOR

Terms of Reference

UNDP

United Nations Development Programme

4


BACKGROUND
1. In 2001, the Government of Vietnam approved a proposal by the Ministry of Justice to
conduct a comprehensive legal needs assessment to help develop a ten year strategy for
strengthening the legal system. The Government did this in order to meet its socioeconomic objectives, which it recognized as directly related to the development of its
legal system. Realizing that this effort could only be effective with the cooperation of all
significant law-related agencies, the Government established, for the first time in its
history, an Inter-Agency Steering Committee (IASC) headed by the Minister of Justice.
The IASC, assisted by international experts from a number of different countries,
assessed the status of Vietnam’s legal system from 1986 to 2001, and made
recommendations to address identified weaknesses in the legal system through a
comprehensive legal needs assessment (LNA).
2. The LNA, completed in 2002, was the foundation for creating long-term co-operation
and partnership between various Vietnamese law-related agencies and ministries and the
international donor community. The LNA also provided the basis for a program of
international assistance to contribute to the Legal System Development Strategy to 2010
(LSDS)
3. The original Project Document for Project VIE/02/015 “Support for Implementation of
Vietnam's Legal System Development Strategy to 2010” between the Government of
Vietnam and UNDP - Sweden - Denmark - Norway - Ireland, was signed in September,
2003. The Project followed on the successful Legal Needs Assessment (LNA) conducted
by the Vietnamese government with the support of the international community during
2001-2002. The three major outcome targets of the Project were:
A. A finalized draft of a Legal System Development Strategy that would be
issued by an authoritative source within the Vietnamese hierarchy. The

issuance of such a Strategy by a highly placed authority would assure that
law related activities would receive high level support and attention
necessary for the law to be effective;
B. Enhancing the capacity of the Government and other relevant agencies,
including a multi agency Steering Committee, similar to the Steering

5


Committee that had led the LNA its a successful result to coordinate and
manage implementation of the LSDS ; and
C. Implementation of a number of high priority components through a "Legal
System Development Facility” that would offer a coordinated means of
continued support to the LSDS.
4. The Outputs, Outcomes and Activities for the Project as described in the Project
Document are set forth in Annex A.
5. Issues that faced the Project during its implementation have included:
A. A change in personnel at Government, Project and UNDP levels, including
the departure of the former Project Advisor in April, 2006;
B. Issues of national project execution through a single ministry, which is
dealing with a number of other ministries and agencies (SPC, SPP, ONA
and MPS, as well as local level Departments of Justice). The substantive
coordination of the Project by the PMU, located in the MOJ, was
successful in engaging the first major law development effort with a broad
participation by key law-related ministries and agencies. Requiring the
PMU to coordinate all financial aspects as well, however, resulted in both
administrative complexities and a certain reduction in ownership by
participating ministries and agencies (See Paragraphs 48-50 of this report).
6. An independent mid term review of the Project was conducted in June, 2006, and
recommended extension of the Project and the establishing of a clear work plan for the

remainder of the Project;
7. Because of the slow pace of implementation of certain Project activities, all of the
stakeholders in the project had attempted in good faith to resolve any differences and
make progress based on a stakeholder workshop organized in November 2006. This
workshop had produced a draft resources and results framework (RRF) for 2007-08 and a
draft annual work plan for 2007, along with a joint donor statement for that workshop;
8. A revised set of project outcomes and outputs was developed in 2007 and reoriented
certain of the objectives of the project towards strengthening consistency of legal
regulations and a greater focus on access to justice and enforcement of law. The RRF also
drew in more partners (SPP and SPC as part of making a link to the Judicial reform
6


Strategy “JRS”) and sought to strengthen government and donor collaboration and
information sharing.
9. The final Work Plan for the Project was established and agreed to by all relevant
parties following the international consultancy referred to in Paragraph 7 above. A copy
of the RRF and final Plan is attached as Annex B. From mid-2007 to its completion, the
Project completed every activity listed in the Work Plan, with the exception of two sub
component activities [The National Agency for Legal Aid and the Vietnam Lawyers’
Association] that the designated agency decided to cancel, and one activity that had been
rendered unnecessary because of duplicative activities supported by another project.

7


PART A: PROJECT PERFORMANCE RELATING TO ITS
PROJECT OUTCOMES AND ITS CONTRIBUTION TO
THE COUNTRY PROGRAMME OUTCOMES
Project outcomes

10. The Project had major accomplishments with each of its three original targeted
outcomes:(i) legal and judicial development strategies have been adopted at the highest
policy levels; (ii) a series of high priority activities were carried out, and (iii) the Project’s
PMU has been able to demonstrate the coordination of planned action by law-related
agencies, and how the international community can assist this action.
10.1. Outcome One: Positive change: “Finalized Draft LSDS for approval by the
competent State authorities”
While the issuance of the LSDS was delayed until 2005, the Project very effectively
assisted the development of that strategy, which emerged as Politburo Resolutions No.
48-NQ/TW (Legal System Development Strategy) and 49 (Judicial Reform Strategy).
Elements of the LSDS are also to be found in the general action plan issued by the
Standing Committee of the National Assembly as Directive 900 in 2006. These three
documents contain much of the substance of the ideas and activities suggested in the
original LNA report, and are evidence of the support of Vietnam’s highest authorities to
legal/judicial reform.
Therefore, Outcome One was achieved in full.
10.2. Outcome Two: Positive change:
implementation of LSDS”

“Co-ordinated management of the

In 2005, the Project established the Legal Sector Development Facility (LSDF), a funding
mechanism under the Project for “emerging needs” in the field of legal reform. Since its
establishment, the Project has implemented activities by 22 sub-components, i.e. smallscale projects financed under the LSDF 1. This has required the Project’s PMU to engage
1

Subcomponents included:

1. Party Central Internal Affairs Committee (Legal Department); 2. Ministry of Pubic Security (Legal
Department); 3. Government Inspectorate; 4. Ministry of Foreign Affairs; 5. Vietnamese Lawyers’

Association; 6. Supreme People’s Procuracy; 7. Supreme People’s Court; 8. Legal Aid Agency - MOJ; 9.

8


both substantively and as a matter of administration and financial
supervision/management, a number of law-related agencies and ministries, e.g. Internal
Affairs of the Central Committee of the Party, Ministry of Public Security, Vietnam
Lawyers' Association, Office of the National Assembly, Government Inspectorate,
Supreme Peoples Procuracy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and local departments of justice.
During the course of the Project, the PMU was in frequent contact with staff of all of
these agencies, and was able at least to some degree to encourage a coordinated approach
to the LSDS.
Outcome Two was achieved, but the placing of financial management on the PMU may
have reduced the ownership of activity results by certain of the Project subcomponents
(See Paragraphs 47-49 of this report).
10.3. Outcome Three: Positive change: “A number of high-priority components of
the Project and emerging needs implemented through the Legal System
Development Facility (LSDF).”
The Project completed over one hundred separate activities by its 22 subcomponents. See
Paragraph 12. These activities dealt directly with important aspects of Vietnam’s legal
and judicial development strategies, and did so with a broader cross section of law-related
agencies and ministries than had ever been attempted.
Outcome Three was achieved.
Country Programme Outcomes: Positive Change
11. A key Programme Outcome set forth in the UNDP Country Programme for Viet Nam
(2006-2010) is: "A system of governance based on the key principles of accountability,
transparency, participation, equity, and consistent with the rule of law and democracy”.
Specifically, the Results and Resources Framework of the Country Programme Action
Plan 2006-2010 (CPAP) identifies "Formulation and effective implementation of

comprehensive strategies to support the reforms of legal/judicial systems, including the
ongoing programme to support the implementation of the “Legal System Development
Legal Normative Documents post-checking Agency – MOJ; 10. Dep’t of Administrative and Criminal
Laws – MOJ; 11. Legal Dissemination and Education Dep’t – MOJ; 12. Civil and Economic Dep’t – MOJ;
13. Personnel Dep’t – MOJ; 14. Institute of Law Research – MOJ; 15. Department of Quasi-Judicial Affairs
(DQJ) – MOJ: 16. Department of International Cooperation 17. Department of Justice of Hai Phong City;
18. Department of Justice of Quang Binh Province; 19. Department of Justice of Khanh Hoa Province; 20.
Department of Justice of Da Nang City; 21. Department of Justice of Tien Giang Province; 22. Department
of Justice of Lam Dong Province;

9


Strategy” (LSDS) and the Judicial Reform Strategy (JRS)" as key outputs of UNDP's and
relevant donors' assistance. In order to achieve those outputs, the Project focused on the
following key groups of actions:


Strengthening planning, steering and overall management of the LSDS and the
JRS, including: (a) enhancing policy dialogue on legal and judicial reforms; (b)
improving horizontal coordination; (c) facilitating resource planning; (d)
developing strategic management systems; and, (e) institutionalizing tools for
learning from and replication of best practices.



Implementing key components of the LSDS and JRS, including use of the Legal
System Development Facility (LSDF), to (a) strengthen legal drafting, research,
review and appraisal capacities, with priority being given to legislation on the
organization and operation of institutions within the national political system,

legislation on rights of citizens to freedom and democracy, legislation on civil,
economic and commercial activity, and legislation on international integration; (b)
advancing criminal justice and judicial procedures reform; and (c) enhancing law
implementation and enforcement capacities.



Strengthening capacities for promoting the rule of law and access to justice at
local levels by: (a) strengthening alternative dispute resolution mechanisms at
local levels; (b) enhancing legal education and dissemination; (c) promoting
alternative mechanisms for legal aid; and, (d) improving law enforcement
capacities.



Strengthening central and local capacities to implement international human
rights treaties ratified by Viet Nam by: (a) raising general awareness on ratified
human rights treaties and the associated reporting obligations; (b) assessing the
status of implementation of ratified human rights treaties into national legislation;
and (c) addressing capacity development needs related to reporting obligations to
treaty bodies.

Project Outputs
12. These activities are described in the lists and tables set forth in Annex C. Among the
most notable activities are the Project’s support to the issuance of Resolution 48, and (to a
lesser degree) Resolution 49; its role in improving the redrafts of several laws, including
the amended Law on the Promulgation of Legal Normative Documents, and the decrees
10

implementing that law; its support to discussions on expanding the participation of civil
society in the law-making process; its role in assuring more effective use of regulatory
impact assessments in the law making process; and its support to research for revising the
criminal procedure code and laws affecting criminal prosecution.
13. Among the priority activities completed by the Project were several discussed in the
2007 Project Results and Resources Framework and Work Plan (See Annex B), which
were divided into three components:


Strengthening access to justice by improving the quality, consistency and
coherence of formal legal documents;



Enhancing the policy framework and capacity for access to justice and protection
of rights through strengthened legal implementation and enforcement; and



Strengthening domestic and international communication and policy dialogue on
legal and judicial reform, access to justice, and protection of rights.

Strengthening Access to Justice by Improving the Quality, Consistency and
Coherence of Legal Documents
14. The project played a significant role in strengthening formal legal documents, by:
(1) Providing tools for legal drafters that help with consistency and coherence; (2)
Initiating new work on regulatory impact assessment of legal documents; (3) Seeking
ways to improve public participation in the lawmaking process; (4) Providing training in
law drafting for local and central officials; and (5) Participating in drafting of key laws
and other legal documents that directly related to access to justice and protection of

rights.
15. The first area, providing tools for legal drafters the help provide consistency and
coherence in the law drafting process, included a drafting handbook, a manual and toolkit
on review of legal documents for conflicts and consistency, and drafting guidelines on the
supporting documents that must accompany drafts of new laws (such as implementing
regulations and decrees).
16. The second area, initiating new work on regulatory impact assessment of legal
documents, arose out of concerns expressed by the Government, Ministry and other
actors – that the emergence of new legal documents causes ripple effects in the regulatory

11


process that must be explored and measured so that they can be managed effectively. In
this area the project researched and drafted a procedure and manual for measuring the
regulatory impact of draft legal documents, so that the Government and relevant
ministries could then adapt the drafts or manage the regulatory impact. This involved
comparative research by national and international consultants, and a workshop on
comparative regulatory impact assessment which contributed to the procedure and
manual drafting process.
17. The third area, seeking ways to improve public participation in the lawmaking
process, was recognized as especially important and the Project supported international
consultants to assist in providing information on participatory methods overseas, case
studies were drafted (including one on the Law on Associations), and workshops held, all
to further the broader participation of society in the law-drafting process.
18. The fourth area, providing training in law drafting for local and central officials, was
a core priority of Resolution 48, and the Project supported both training infrastructure
(i.e. materials and modules) and local training for more than 1000 officials in Hai Phong,
Quang Binh, Da Nang, Khanh Hoa, Lam Dong and Tien Giang.
19. The fifth area, participating in drafting of key laws and other legal documents that

directly related to access to justice and protection of rights, included (1) working to
provide recommendations to the Government on amending and supplementing existing
legal documents or adopting new documents to comply with Vietnam’s existing and new
obligations under human rights treaties, and (2) working to redraft, utilizing foreign
expertise, key laws relating to access to justice that included the laws on administrative
offenses, state compensation for harms done to citizens, organization of the procuracy,
and the criminal procedure code.
Enhancing the Policy Framework and Capacity for Access to Justice and Protection
of Rights through Strengthened Legal Implementation and Enforcement
20. Another group of Project activities supporting a key priority for Vietnam were those
that emphasized implementation and enforcement of law. This priority area included four
important elements: (1) revising and modernizing criminal law and procedure; (2)
strengthening the capacity of legal consultants in associations, mass organizations and
other groups to help citizens to protect their rights; (3) strengthening the capacity of local
justice officials, conciliators and the policy to respond to citizen claim and strengthen
access to justice; and (4) strengthening legal dissemination and information systems.
12


21. The first area, revising and modernizing criminal law and procedure, enabled the
Government, Ministry, and Supreme People’s Procuracy to study, survey and propose
changes to current criminal law and procedure as expressed through the Criminal Code
and the Criminal Procedure Code.2
22. The second area, strengthening the capacity of legal consultants in associations, mass
organizations and other groups to help citizens to protect their rights. In this work the
Ministry trained legal consultants both from existing legal consultancy offices in
associations and mass organizations. Along with support beyond this project for legal
aid, support to these legal consultancy services and their strengthening and improvement
was a key area for work on access to justice and rights protection in Vietnam
23. The third area, strengthening the capacity of local justice officials, conciliators and

the police to respond to citizen claim and strengthen access to justice, continued the
training activities for local justice officials, conciliators, and police officers in legal
implementation and enforcement. Also, the Project supported development for drafting
training materials and professional manuals for conciliators, legal consultancy, officials at
political system at grassroots level, and officials in the police force, and supported their
use in more than 10 training courses in several provinces.
24. The fourth area, strengthening legal dissemination and information systems, was an
effort to strengthen the capacity of legal consultants in associations and similar groups to
help citizens protect their rights. In addition to training, important research work was also
done by a comprehensive national legal information study as well as a worldwide study
of comparative methods.
Strengthening Domestic and International Communication and Policy Dialogue on
Legal and Judicial reform, Access to Justice, and Protection of Rights
25. Communication and policy dialogue through the Project played a crucial role not only
in the legal and judicial reform process itself but also in bringing Vietnam and the donors
together in understanding and support. The Project completed several activities in this
area: (1) translating and posting on the web many documents relating to legal reform; (2)
conducting policy research on strategic issues in legal and judicial reform; (3) organizing

2

Activities with the Supreme People’s Court were also originally planned, but cancelled at the request of
the Court because of conflicting schedules and the availability of resources of other international
cooperation projects.

13


the regular government-donor policy dialogues on legal and judicial reform; and (4)
organizing annual donor coordination meetings on legal and judicial reform

PART B: PROJECT PERFORMANCE – IMPLEMENTATION
ISSUES
Actual achievements and impacts
26. Project VIE/02/015 was effective because it covered a broad range of legal actors
that helped lead to the LSDS being issued at the highest level of authority.
The Project is one of the few, if not the only, Project that undertook the difficult job of
coordinating activities by every significant agency in the legal/judicial field as well as
several local level law agencies. This rich mixture of partners assisted the Project in
breaking free from the tendency to treat law as a formal science instead of a functional
service. In addition to the MOJ, ONA, SPC and SPP, the Project added the Ministry of
Public Security as a subcomponent. For the first time, the Police, which in many cases
represent the only aspect of the legal system that the ordinary citizen encounters,
cooperated with other law-related agencies and began at least to some degree to regard
itself as part of an integrated legal system instead of as a totally separate and autonomous
actor.
27. The significance of this multi-agency, integrated approach to legal/judicial
development should be clearly understood and, ideally, treated as a foundation for future
work that will more clearly establish the appropriate relationship of Police and Prosecutor
and the Courts. However, the Project’s management design, especially with respect to
financial management, would require change to increase effectiveness (See Paragraphs
47-49).
28. The Project was an essential link from the Legal Needs Assessment to both
Resolutions 48 and 49.
Resolutions 48 and 49 should be read together, as expressing a unified strategy of legal
and judicial reform. The Project’s support, which had its origins in the LNA, has
contributed to several elements of both resolutions, and presents an opening to
cooperation with the international community and many law-related ministries and
agencies. The Project’s support to “access to justice” is especially relevant to the strategy
of the two resolutions as follows:

14


A. Under the heading “Directions” in Resolution 48, an opening is provided to address
the “bottom up” or “demand driven” approach to law development (See Paragraph 35):
“To develop and improve the law on judicial support (e.g., lawyers, the public
notary, judicial expertise, judicial police, and such like) so as to meet, incrementally
and without disruption, the diverse legal assistance needs of the people and
businesses”
B. Resolution 49 also stresses the need to develop an adversarial system, mentioning this
concept at three separate places:
1. Under the heading “Tasks of Judicial Reform”
“Renovating the method for conducting trials in the courtroom by defining more clearly
the status, powers, and responsibilities of litigators and other parties involved in litigation
so as to ensure transparency, democracy, and discipline; improving the quality of
adversarial litigation in all trials and hearings, which might be seen as a breakthrough
in judicial activity.”
2. Under the heading “Improving judicial support institutions”
“Training and developing a corps of lawyers with good political and ethical qualities and
high professional competence. Improving the mechanism for enabling lawyers to
perform effective adversarial litigation during trials and hearings, while clearly
defining lawyers' responsibilities.”
3. Under “Implementation”
“ Improvement of the quality of performance of judicial organs and the quality of
adversarial litigation in all courts. This should be regarded as a breakthrough in judicial
operations….”
29. The Project assisted the SPP in its workshop on the potential reorganization of the
Procuracy, and the topic of the adversary system was hotly debated at this workshop.
Certain participants went as far as saying that Resolution 49 was “mistaken”, which

position shows a potential (and need) for further action on this subject as a means of
implementing both Resolution 48 and 49.
30. The strongest and weakest features of the Project.

15


The strongest features of the Project have been (i) its serving as support and background
for certain of the most important concepts contained in Resolutions 48, 49 and Directive
900 and (ii) its support to a number of high priority activities at the central and grass
roots levels; its weakest has been the inability to secure the government’s creation of a
coordinated and detailed action plan for legal/judicial reform that could be easily
understood and accessed by the international community in order to proceed with reform
efforts. This was at least partially addressed by the Project during its “Mapping” activity
that was the subject of the Project’s final Legal Partnership Forum in October, 2008.
31. The significance of Directive 900’s instruction to the various agencies to develop
separate plans.
The lack of a detailed government action plan, referred to in Paragraph 30 above, may, in
fact, not represent a weakness at all. Directive 900 instructs all relevant agencies to
prepare their own separate plans on how to achieve the goals of the strategy set forth in
Resolutions 48, 49 and Directive 900. (presumably all of the law-related agencies such as
the SPC, SPP, ONA and the MPS are included and are therefore required to have their
own reform plans). Accordingly, as these plans are made accessible to the international
community, any interested member of that community would be able to proceed with
reform projects with the assurance that it has the attention of the highest Vietnamese
authorities, as well as being an activity that is considered integral to the agenda of the
individual agency concerned. This will only be the case, however, if detailed individual
agency plans, in addition to the donor activities in the Mapping activity, are made
publicly available.
32. The value of the local subcomponents.

The Project worked with several local level subcomponents, including the Departments
of Justice in Hai Phong, Quang Binh, Da Nang, Khanh Hoa, Tien Giang and Lam Dong.
The activities of these subcomponents may be considered to be very close to being “user”
related. That is, the activities encouraged direct use of the law by citizens. Examples of
local department activities in Khanh Hoa Province are: review of local administrative
regulations and LNDs, 14 training courses conducted for mediators and legal
representatives of organizations in newer laws, such as Family Law, Civil Code, Land
Law, and the Penal Code.
33. Positive effects of local subcomponent activities.

16


Among the positive effects of Project activities reported by the Department of Justice in
Khanh Hoa are the following:


In 2005, 22 administrative LNDs were found to be inconsistent with other laws
and regulations; in 2006, there were only 8. In 2005 only 23 LNDs were sent to
the Department for their review, but in 2006, 120 were sent in.



Success for conciliation at the grass roots level has increased: After training in the
new Civil Code, in 2006, 90% of the conflicts were successfully resolved; in
2007, the rate was 95% and that rate is continuing.



Outreach TV and radio programs were effective in explaining citizens rights

under the law

These activities are especially important because they are evidence of actual use of the
legal system (See Paragraph 35 of this report).
34. Potential for increased involved of private lawyers with local subcomponent
activities.
The Da Nang Department of Justice has conducted training for local officials, but has
also at least invited private lawyers to attend, to improve access to justice.( Inclusion of
more opportunities for private lawyers in future projects would be positive.)

PART C: LESSONS LEARNED
Substantive Matters
35. Moving from future project activities that focus on the “Supply” of law and legal
institutions to those that focus on “Demand” and greater use of the legal system by
ordinary citizens would increase the effectiveness of law development efforts.
From 1992 to date, most legal/judicial sector projects assisted by the international
community have focused on assisting the law-oriented state agencies to increase the
quality of the “supply” of law. That is, improvements were desired in the quality of legal
normative documents, the capacity of legal institutions, and the availability of LNDs.
Another major focus was to encourage wider recognition of the importance of law by the
highest authorities. This focus has produced significant gains, and projects that continue
to assist the suppliers of law continue to be necessary and desirable. However, the

17


experience of the Project shows that there now may be a greater need to focus more on
the demand for law, on encouraging broader use of the law by citizens. This new focus
can not play a role in monitoring and evaluating progress in the legal/judicial sectors, but
it will also assure that progress can continue to the next level. Law is functional, and is a

tool for a society to maintain stability, achieve economic progress and social,
environmental, health and other goals. But it is only capable of serving as such a tool to
the extent it is in frequent use. The relative low number of private lawyers, and the
common lack of representation of citizens in civil or criminal trials, may be an indication
that including a few activities that focus on the use of the legal/judicial system in future
projects would prove to be an effective law development method. Legal/judicial
development projects in the future should encourage greater “use” of the legal/judicial
system, and projects should move from a focus on the “supply” of law to “demand” for
law by the citizens (who are the users of law.) Such a shift is fully consistent with the
concepts of Outcome Four of the “One Plan”, and can build on the achievements of
Project VIE/02/015 and other UNDP projects as well as those of other donors.
36. Future projects should move toward a “bottom up” or “grass roots” approach by
supporting the following principle:
“The People can help the State implement the laws”
37. The meaning of this principle is that the State has adopted a legal framework, and has,
with the assistance of several efforts such as the Project, strengthened the capacity of its
law-related agencies during the past two decades. Now, the State might reasonably turn to
the citizens and encourage and assist them to implement the laws by providing them with
practical assistance to use those laws:
--Example: If the land law provides for a certain method of acquiring land use rights, and
a citizen complies with this provision, if the citizen is able to use the land law to explain
in a court of law why he, and not some other private citizen or official, has a valid land
use right, then one can see that the land law is implemented.
--Example: If the family law provides a married woman with certain rights to property
upon divorce, to encourage her to go to a court of law or a conciliation service to enforce
the provision of the law is to implement the family law.

18

38. If future projects were designed to help the State provide support to legal
representatives to advocate and assist the persons to go before the courts, such support
could be understood as a “bottom up” or “grass roots” approach to implementing laws.
39. At present, workshops and research supported by the Project indicate that the existing
system of legal aid, even including that of the MOJ, does not go all the way to law
implementation, because the persons or offices that provide legal aid do not go to the
court as advocates, but simply tell the citizen about his or her rights and refer them to
private lawyers, and there are an insufficient number of private lawyers able or willing to
help implement the laws on this bottom up basis. The experience of the Project has
shown that it is important to address this lack of meaningful legal representation in courts
of law.
40. Moving to a “bottom up” approach, including greater direct representation of citizens
in courts, would be consistent with the references to the “adversarial” system, expressly
supported in the Resolutions and Directives (See Paragraph 28). It would, however,
require very strong support by the relevant agencies to be effective.
41. While there is continuing need for support to capacity building at the institutional
level, assuring that a component of each new project addresses the “bottom up” approach
might be an effective way to implement the Resolutions and Directives.
42. There are several Project activities that come the closest to the “bottom up” approach,
and may offer guidance for expansion in the future. Such activities include the work of
the local Departments of Justice with legal consultants, work with conciliation process,
and the legal information (Concetti) survey, insofar as it is an effort to determine grass
roots use of legal information.
43. With respect to commercial/economic law, there is not as great a need to focus on
“bottom up” assistance, because large, well-financed international and domestic
economic actors are already in the process of using the new laws and institutions to carry
on their businesses. In this case, retaining a focus on the “top down” approach continues
to make good sense.
44. A more participatory approach in 2007 and 2008 work planning would have been
useful to better respond to actual needs in the legal life of the country. A Report on

Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Law on Promulgation of LNDs, for example, is a
valuable product contributing to new and modern techniques in the law making process,

19


which was submitted to, and highly appreciated by, Members of the National Assembly
in 2008.

Work Planning and Operational matters
45. Design of multi-donor and multi-beneficiary programs/projects should be revisited.
All parties may have different interests toward “access to justice” and protection of rights
but a consensus must be reached in project planning and operation.
46. The current intervention should be carried out by a program, rather than project,
approach which may require a change in the project management guide. Increasing
procedural requirements cannot go together with timely and effective disbursements of
funds. Decentralization of project management should be considered for a multibeneficiary project such as Project VIE/ 02/015.
47. Any such future project should move away from the very logistically difficult "multiagency" single project to a series of separately executed, but integrated, projects with
several opportunities for sharing resources for common activities. . The Project
(VIE/02/015) has had the very difficult task of pushing forward the strategies at the
highest levels, and at the same time carrying out a series of activities that are consistent
with the priorities of those strategies. This has been logistically and bureaucratically
difficult because the PMU, based at the MOJ, was required to work with a number of
groups over which it has no real control. It has, however, produced some successes and
has demonstrated how moving forward with a multi-agency approach can work. In effect,
the Project moved away from the formalistic approach of many law development projects
and dealt with law development in a manner that was conceptually similar to the "4
Pillar" or integrated approach that was suggested in the Legal Needs Assessment.
48. Rather than having a PMU responsible for managing the allocation of resources to
other agencies, however, each law-related agency in future legal cooperation efforts could

be made responsible and accountable for carrying out its own activities, which may
increase the “ownership” of project activities by these agencies. The notion of
“integrating” the projects and assuring the best use of resources could be accomplished
by requirements that certain training, study missions and workshops be carried out with
participation by all the related agencies.
49. The managerial or administrative difficulties of implementing a Project with multiple
agencies or actors should not be underestimated. When a single agency (MOJ, in the case

20


of the Project) is the sole executing agency, with other agencies playing subcomponent
roles, this may reduce the “ownership” in the overall success in the Project, and may also
tend to collect resources within the sole executing agency, and overload the ability of a
PMU to coordinate subcomponents over which it has no line authority. One alternative
for future projects is to assign single, separate projects to individual agencies, such as a
separate project for the MOJ, another separate project for the SPP, etc. In addition to
these separate projects, a “coordinating unit” of some kind, ideally based in a state
agency recognized as superior in rank to all the other agencies, could then be provided
with sufficient resources both to coordinate and monitor the other separate projects and to
fund and administer what could be understood by all to be common or shared activities.

Project Management
50. The PMU has achieved considerable project management skills and experience in
cooperation with donors. Similarly, considerable experience has been gained in
collaboration between the various government institutions represented in the subcomponents.

21

ANNEX A: Project Document Objective, Outputs and
Activities

I. Immediate Objective, Outputs and Activities
Outcome 1:
authorities;

Finalized Draft LSDS for approval by the competent State

Immediate Objective:
Improved and finalised Draft LSDS for approval by the competent State authorities
and its immediate implementation.
Success Criteria:


A well-structured and feasible LSDS approved. ACHIEVED!!!

Output 1.1:

The Draft LSDS approved by the competent State authorities;YES

Outcome 2:

Co-ordinated management of the implementation of LSDS

Immediate Objective:
Strengthened capacity of the LSDS Management Mechanism to manage, coordinate and oversee the entire implementation process of the LSDS.
Success Criteria:


Effective LSDS Management Mechanism in place to co-ordinate, monitor, assess,
evaluate and facilitate the implementation of the LSDS. ACHIEVED IN PART

Output 2.1: Enhanced capacity of the LSDS Secretariat. YES
Output 2.2: Establishment of a Management Information System, incorporating a
database for co-ordination activities.YES
Output 2.3: Sustained co-ordination among the Government, State Agencies and
donors YES

22


Outcome 3:

A number of high-priority components of the Project and emerging
needs implemented through the Legal System Development Facility
(LSDF).

Immediate Objective:
Enhanced capacity of the management structure through the implementation of a number
of high-priority components and identification of emerging needs.
Success Criteria:



Effective establishment of the LSDS Support Facility MAYBE??
Effective implementation of a number of short-term priority components, identified
by Ministry of Justice (MOJ), Ministry of Public Security (MPS), Central Party
Internal Affairs Committee (CPIAC), and other emerging high priority proposals.

Output 3.1:

A co-ordinated multi-donor support facility (the LSDF) established to
facilitate mobilisation of resources to support the implementation of
the LSDS. MAYBE

Output 3.2:

Implementation of a number of short-term priority proposals,
identified by the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Public Security
and the Central Party Internal Affairs Committee.???

Output 3.3: Identification, funding and implementation of other emerging highpriority needs.YES

23


Annex B: PROJECT RESULTS AND RESOURCES FRAMEWORK FOR 2007 - 2008
Key outputs

Indicators

Indicative Activities

Component 1: Improving the consistency and coherence of the legal system and the legislative process
1.1 Improved tools
and procedures
for drafting and
checking Legal
Normative

Documents
(LNDs)







Uniform guidelines, tools,
procedures on drafting, scrutinizing
and post-checking LNDs
Specific guidelines on the use of
impact assessments and other
research required in support of draft
LNDs
Specific guidelines on how to
promote stakeholder participation
in the law drafting process
Specific recommendations on how
to bring major LNDs in line with
ratified international human rights
treaties

1. Prepare of a handbook on drafting and scrutinizing LNDs (new
activity)
2. Finalise a manual/toolkit on post-checking of LNDs (ongoing
activity)
3. Develop a manual on regulatory impact assessment of the draft
LNDs (new activity)

4. Prepare guidelines on other supporting documents (including
international comparative research) required for the submission of
draft LNDs (new activity)
5. Undertake a study to recommend ways of involving professional
associations, mass organizations and the general public in the law
drafting process (new activity)
6. Review key LNDs to ensure their consistency with select
international treaties on human rights, such as the Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social, and
Cultural Rights (new activity)
7. Prepare recommendations to the Government on amendment,
supplementation and/or newly adoption of LNDs to meet the
requirements of international human rights treaties (new activity)

24


Key outputs

Indicators

Indicative Activities

1.2 Enhanced role of
the National
Assembly in
ensuring the
consistency of
the legal system
1.3 Strengthened

skills of legal
officials in
drafting and
checking LNDs



Recommendations provided on how
to enhance the role of the National
Assembly and its committees in
securing consistency between
LNDs

8. Conduct a study on the roles of the National Assembly and its
committees in securing the consistency of legal system (new
activity)



Enhanced skills of select groups of
legal officials in the area of
drafting/reviewing LNDs

9. Design training modules using the manuals, toolkits and guidelines
produced by the project (new activity)
10. Undertake training of selected legal officials on a pilot basis and use
post-training assessments to generate recommendations for the
institutionalisation of the training (new activity)

1.4 Select LNDs

drafted and
implemented
according to
improved
standards and
procedures



A number of LNDs related to legal
and judicial reform drafted
according to the improved
standards and procedures

11. Study international best practice and experiences, and organise
consultative workshop with international experts on select LNDs
relevant to the legal/judicial reform process, such as the:
- Code on handling administrative Offences;
- Law on State Compensation;
- Revision of Code of Criminal Procedures;
- Amendment to the Law on the Organization and Functioning of the
Procuracy;
- Amendment to the Law on the Organization and Functioning of the
Courts;
- Amendment to the Law on the Organization and Functioning of the
Investigation Agencies

25