Protecting The Right To Be Forgotten In Criminal Justice: From European Union Experience To Vietnam's Practice
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34625/issn.2183-2705(39.2)2026.ic-13Keywords:
Right to be forgotten, criminal justice, personal data protection, accused persons, victimsAbstract
The Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF) enables individuals to request the deletion of, or restricted access to, their personal information, particularly in the online environment. In criminal justice, this right serves an important humanitarian function by helping former offenders especially those who have served their sentences or whose cases have been dismissed overcome social stigma and support reintegration. It also protects victims, particularly children and women, from “secondary victimization” caused by the long-term retention and dissemination of identifying information.
The European Union has institutionalized the RTBF through the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and landmark judicial decisions, developing a legal framework that seeks to balance privacy rights with public interest and access to information. In Vietnam, the 2025 Personal Data Protection Law recognizes a right to request data erasure but lacks tailored provisions addressing the RTBF within criminal justice. This gap is compounded by normative frictions with other legal regimes, including intellectual property, the press, and rules on the preservation of judicial records.
Using a comparative approach, this article examines the EU experience and contrasts it with Vietnam’s legal framework and emerging practices. It highlights the key challenges in protecting the RTBF for both offenders and victims and proposes reforms to harmonize privacy with access to information while safeguarding humanitarian values and transparency within Vietnam’s criminal justice system.
References
Mario Costeja González (Document 62012CJ0131). In.: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 2014.
Google LLC, successor in law to Google Inc. v Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL). In.: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 2019.
2005/20, E. R. Guidelines on Justice in Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime. In., 2005.
ALLEGRI, M. (2022). “The Right to be Forgotten in the Digital Age”, in (ed.), 237-251.
AMBROSE, M. L. AND J. AUSLOOS. (2013). “The Right to Be Forgotten Across the Pond”. Journal of Information Policy, 3, 1-23.
AUSLOOS, J. (2012). “The ‘Right to be Forgotten’ – Worth remembering?”. Computer Law & Security Review, 28(2), 143-152.
BARAKZAEI, S. (2024). “Digital Privacy Violation with a Focus on the Consequences and Supporting Mechanisms in the National and International Documents”. مجله علمی تحقیقی تاج, 01, 131-153.
CANNATACI, J. A. Right to privacy. 2021.
CHOROMIDOU, A. (2021). “EU data protection under the TCA: the UK adequacy decision and the twin GDPRs”. International Data Privacy Law, 11(4), 388-401.
DIMITRA KAMARINOU, CHRISTOPHER MILLARD AND J. SINGH. (2016). “Machine Learning with Personal Data”. Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper 247.
DUC SON. Officially concluded that death row inmate Tran Van Them was wrongfully convicted. In., 2016.
EUROPE, C. O. European Convention on Human Rights,. In., 1950.
FAISAL, K. Right to be Forgotten in Spent Criminal Convictions. 2020.
FAISAL, K. (2021). “Balancing between Right to Be Forgotten and Right to Freedom of Expression in Spent Criminal Convictions”. SECURITY AND PRIVACY, 4(4).
GDPR. Art. 17 Right to erasure (‘right to be forgotten’). General Data Protection Regulation. In., 2016.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy : note / by the Secretariat. 2018.
GLORIA GONZÁLEZ FUSTER The Emergence of Personal Data Protection as a Fundamental Right of the EU. Edtion ed.: Springer Cham, 2013.
GOOGLE. Requests to delist content under European privacy law. In., 2025.
KOSTA, E. Consent in European Data Protection Law. Edtion ed.: Brill | Nijhoff, 2013. ISBN 978-90-04-23236-5.
KULK, S. AND F. Z. BORGESIUS. (2014). “Google Spain v. González: Did the Court Forget about Freedom of Expression?: Case C-131/12 Google Spain SL and Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos and Mario Costeja González”. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 5(3), 389-398.
LARRAURI, E. (2014). “Criminal record disclosure and the right to privacy”. Criminal Law Review, 2014, 723-737.
LUONG KET. What makes the case of Han Đuc Long distinct from previous wrongful conviction cases? In., 2016.
MARIA TZANOU The Fundamental Right to Data Protection. Edtion ed.: Hart Publishing, 2017.
MAYER-SCHÖNBERGER, V. Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. Edtion ed., 2009. ISBN 0691138613.
MICHAEL J. KELLY AND DAVID SATOLA. (2017). “The Right to Be Forgotten”. University of Illinois Law Review, 1.
MINH HAI. Case Overview: The Tragic Suicide of a 13-Year-Old Girl Following Sexual Abuse in Ca Mau. In., 2017.
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY. Law on Judicial Records In., 2009.
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY. Criminal Procedure Code. In., 2015a.
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY. Penal code. In., 2015b.
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY. Law No.: 103/2016/QH13. Press Law. In., 2016.
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY. Law No. 07/2022/QH15. Amendments To Some Articles Of The Law On Intellectual Property. In., 2022.
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY. Law No. 91/2025/QH15 Personal Data Protection. In., 2025.
NGO THI MINH HUONG AND P. H. TRUNG 2020. The Right to Be Forgotten in the Digital Age: Challenges for Artificial Intelligence Applications. In Proceedings of the Workshop Artificial Intelligence: Impacts on Law and Human Rights, Ha Noi2020 VNU.
NGUYEN THI HONG YEN, DAO THI KHANH LINH, TRAN NHU Y AND LE THI BICH NGOC. (2022). “The Right to Be Forgotten in Selected Jurisdictions and Policy Recommendations for Vietnam”. Legislative Studies Journal.
O’MAHONY, C., E. SPRUIN AND M. JOYCE. (2023). “Secondary Victimisation in the Justice System: Facility Dogs to the Rescue. Irish Journal of Social Justice.”.
OHCHR. The right to privacy in the digital age. United Nations Human Rights Council Report A/HRC/51/17. In., 2022.
QUACH, S., P. THAICHON, K. D. MARTIN, S. WEAVEN, et al. (2022). “Digital technologies: tensions in privacy and data”. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 50(6), 1299-1323.
RAUCHEGGER, C. (2014). “G. González Fuster, The Emergence of Personal Data Protection as a Fundamental Right of the EU, Springer International Publishing, 2014, 274 pp, ISBN 978-3-319-05022-5”. International Data Privacy Law, 5(1), 91-94.
RAZMETAEVA, Y. (2020). “The Right to Be Forgotten in the European Perspective”. TalTech Journal of European Studies, 10(1), 58-76.
SAVIRIMUTHU, J. (2017). “The Fundamental Right to Data Protection: Normative Value in the Context of Counter-Terrorism Surveillance”. SCRIPT-ed, 14, 387-393.
THE GOVERNMENT. Decree No. 13/2023/ND-CP. Protection Of Personal Data. In., 2023.
UNITED NATIONS. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 19. In., 1966.
UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In., 1948.
UNODC. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). In., 2015.
WERRO, F. (2009). “The Right to Inform v. The Right to be Forgotten: A Transatlantic Clash”.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Duy Thuyen TRINH, Trung Tin NGUYEN, Oanh Thi Kim VO
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who published in the journal agree to the following terms:
- The Authors grant the Journal the right of first publication, and other non-exclusive publishing rights, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which allows the sharing of work with recognition of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to take on additional contracts separately, non-exclusive distribution of the version of the paper published in this journal (ex .: publish in an institutional repository or as a chapter in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post and distribute their work online (eg .: in institutional repositories or on their website) at any point before or during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as increase the impact and the citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
RJP does not apply submission, publication or any other fees of any nature. Its articles are open access, with the goal of disseminating scientific knowledge and the debate of legal topics in the area of Legal Sciences.
