The Legal and Judicial Basis for the Positive Role of the Criminal Court Judge in Completing the Missing Evidences
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35246/6bpmc709Keywords:
الدور الايجابي, الادلة الناقصة, الاقتناع القضائيAbstract
Each opponent in the case competes to present evidence that supports his claim, with the aim of convincing the criminal judge of his right to what he claims. The criminal judge examines and scrutinizes those facts and decides the dispute in light of the factual elements presented to him in that case. However, sometimes he does not find in the case file enough to clarify the doubts in his mind about the veracity of the incident presented before him The evidence contained therein is not sufficient in itself to convince the criminal judge of the validity of the evidence, so he orders an investigation that he deems necessary to enlighten his belief and to ease his conscience. The incomplete evidence requires intervention by the criminal judge to complete it, and therefore it is not permissible to rely on it alone by the trial court to take it as a reason for ruling a conviction Which makes its role in proof left to the trial court in light of the other evidence presented to it (such as testimony and evidence) that enhances its emotional conviction.
This study addresses the legal and judicial basis for the positive role of the criminal judge in completing incomplete evidence, with a focus on the legislation that addressed incomplete evidence and how to deal with it, as the majority of countries did not discuss incomplete evidence clearly, but judicial applications have referred, even directly, to this type of evidence and how to deal with incomplete evidence.
The research analyzes case studies of the formation of a criminal judge's conviction through incomplete evidence, because incomplete evidence does not have the same evidentiary strength as complete evidence, so it requires the judge's intervention to complete it.
Downloads
References
First: The Book:
i. Barhami Abu Bakr Azmi, Procedural Legitimacy of Scientific Evidence, Dar Al Nahda Al Arabiya, Cairo, 2006.
ii. Abdul Amir Al-Ukaili and Salim Harba, Principles of Criminal Trials, Part Two, Legal Office, Baghdad, 1988.
iii. Judge Salman Obaid Abdullah Al-Zubaidi, Al-Mukhtar fi Decisions of the Federal Court of Cassation, Criminal Section, 1st edition, Part Ten, Library of Law and Judiciary, Baghdad, 2016.
iv. Omar Mansour Al-Maaytah, Forensic Evidence and Criminal Investigation, 1st ed., first edition, Dar Al-Thaqafa Library for Publishing and Distribution, Jordan, 2000.
v. Dr. Mazen Khalaf Nasser, Principles of Criminal Investigation, Dar Al-Sanhouri, Beirut, 2018.
vi. Mamoun Salama, Criminal Procedures in Egyptian Legislation, Dar Al Fikr Al Qanuni for Printing and Publishing, Cairo, 1979.
vii. Mahmoud Hafez Al-Feki, Judicial Doctrine and its Impact on the Justice of Judicial Judgment, Dar Al-Kutub and Arab Studies, Alexandria, 2022.
viii. Mahmoud Mahmoud Mustafa, Evidence in Criminal Matters in Comparative Law, 1st ed., without mentioning the place of printing, 1977, p. 19.
Second:- The Research
i. Raad Fajr Fatih Al-Rawi, Proof (The Principle of Judge Conviction), research published in the Journal of the College of Law for Legal and Political Sciences, Volume 1, Issue 3, 2012.
ii. Dr. Uday Suleiman Al-Mazouri, members of the judicial police exceeding the use of their authority (a comparative study), research published in Al-Rafidain Law Journal, Volume 1, Year 8, Issue 19, 2003.
iii. Haider Miqdad Sakr Al-Shadoud, Proof and its Importance in Positive Laws and Islamic Jurisprudence, research published in the Journal of the Iraqi University, Issue 62, Part 3, without mentioning the Sunnah.
iv. Dr. Alaa Al-Najjar Hassanein Ahmed, Retroversion from confession and its impact on the judge's conviction in criminal matters in light of the rulings of the Egyptian Court of Cassation, research published in the Journal of Legal and Economic Research, Issue 73, 2020.
Third: Scientific theses
i. Ahmed Jabbar Hussein, The Role of Evidence in Penal Proof (A Comparative Study), Magser's Thesis, University of Maysan, College of Law, 2022.
ii. Fana Horia Fattah, The Authority of the Criminal Judge in Appreciating Evidence (A Comparative Study between Jordanian and Iraqi Legislation), Master's Thesis, Middle East University, Jordan, 2016.
Fourth: House: Laws
i. Egyptian Criminal Procedure Law No. (50) of 1950, amended by Law (1) of 2024.
ii. Iraqi Criminal Procedure Law No. (23) of 1970.
iii. The current Iraqi Evidence Law No. (107) of 1979.
iv. Lebanese Code of Criminal Procedure No. (328) of 2001.
v. Jordanian Criminal Procedure Code (9) of 1961, amended in 2006.
Fifth: House Decisions
i. Cassation of January 15, 1945, Set of Legal Rules Q6, No. 456.
ii. Egyptian Criminal Cassation, Session 4/9/1978, Q92, Q72.
iii. Cassation of January 14, 1987, Collection of Cassation Rulings, Q38, No. 11.
iv. Jordanian Court of Cassation Decision No. 260/93, Judicial Journal 1993.
v. Egyptian Criminal Cassation No. 13853 of 1965, Collection of Inferiority Court Rulings, S48, dated 10/2/1997.
vi. Jordanian Court of Cassation Decision No. 656/97, Bar Association Journal, 1998.
vii. Jordanian Court Decision No. 645/Five-Year Panel/2004, dated 5/26/2004.
viii. Cassation No. 649 of 10/3/2006, Set of Legal Rules, Technical Office, Part 3.
ix. Federal Court of Cassation Decision No. 77/Public Authority/2008.
x. Decision of the Dahouk Court of Appeal in its discriminatory capacity, No. 128/T. C/2012, 5/7/2012 Unpublished.
xi. Federal Court of Cassation Decision No. 8982/Criminal Authority/2012/T/6333, dated 9/6/2012.
xii. Federal Court of Cassation Decision No. 315/316/322/T/C/2012), dated 9/13/2012.
xiii. Federal Court of Cassation Decision No. 12523/H C/2015 dated 1/3/2015.
xiv. Appeal No. 31330 of the 83rd judicial year, dated 5/5/2015.
xv. Decision of the Karkh Criminal Court/Third Commission No. 467/C3/2019 dated 5/15/2019, unpublished.
xvi. Decision of the Egyptian Court of Cassation, Appeal No. 1903 of the 88th Judicial Year, 10/17/2020, published.
xvii. Federal Court of Cassation Decision No. 1445/Criminal Authority/2024 dated 4/23/2024, unpublished.
xviii.
xix. Federal Court of Cassation Decision No. 1495/Criminal Authority/2024, dated 5/6/2024, unpublished.
xx. Decision of the Dahouk Court of Appeal in its discriminatory capacity, No. 128/T. C/2012, 5/7/2012 Unpublished.
xxi. Federal Court of Cassation Decision No. 2050/Juvenile Authority/2024 dated 11/24/2024, unpublished.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright and Licensing:
For all articles published in Journal of Legal Sciences, copyright is retained by the authors. Articles are licensed under an open access Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, meaning that anyone may download and read the paper for free. In addition, the article may be reused and quoted provided that the original published version is cited. These conditions allow for maximum use and exposure of the work.
Reproducing Published Material from other Publishers: It is absolutely essential that authors obtain permission to reproduce any published material (figures, schemes, tables or any extract of a text) which does not fall into the public domain, or for which they do not hold the copyright. Permission should be requested by the authors from the copyrightholder (usually the Publisher, please refer to the imprint of the individual publications to identify the copyrightholder).
Permission is required for: Your own works published by other Publishers and for which you did not retain copyright.
Substantial extracts from anyones' works or a series of works.
Use of Tables, Graphs, Charts, Schemes and Artworks if they are unaltered or slightly modified.
Photographs for which you do not hold copyright.
Permission is not required for: Reconstruction of your own table with data already published elsewhere. Please notice that in this case you must cite the source of the data in the form of either "Data from..." or "Adapted from...".
Reasonably short quotes are considered fair use and therefore do not require permission.
Graphs, Charts, Schemes and Artworks that are completely redrawn by the authors and significantly changed beyond recognition do not require permission.
Obtaining Permission
In order to avoid unnecessary delays in the publication process, you should start obtaining permissions as early as possible. If in any doubt about the copyright, apply for permission. Journal of Legal Sciences cannot publish material from other publications without permission.
The copyright holder may give you instructions on the form of acknowledgement to be followed; otherwise follow the style: "Reproduced with permission from [author], [book/journal title]; published by [publisher], [year].' at the end of the caption of the Table, Figure or Scheme.
