Baghdad /Judiciary Media
In its session held on 7/1/2021, the Supreme Judicial Council discussed what was raised by some of the negligence attributed to the judiciary in the field of combating crimes, whether terrorism or corruption here the Council clarifies that the Supreme Judicial Council, represented by the various courts , was the main axis that contributed to protecting the gains achieved after the change of the political system in 2003 and at all levels, as judges confronted the trial of terrorists and those accused of crimes of job corruption and other insane crimes, and the price of this response was paid with the martyrdom of (68) a judge and a member of the public prosecutor, as well as a large number of associates of the Supreme Judicial Council of various job ranks. All law specialists know that there is no person who has been sentenced in prisons or arrested in the investigation stages except by a judicial decision, and that there is no person required to judge except by a decision issued by the court, and that those convicted in prisons are now in prisons by a decision of the judiciary and those detained by the investigation authorities also by a decision from the judiciary and The fugitives wanted persons are also by a decision from the judiciary, as it is neither constitutionally nor legally permissible to arrest a person, to imprison him, or to issue an arrest warrant against him except in accordance with a judicial decision. Therefore, the judiciary was, is and will remain the primary opponent to combating crime in all its forms. But until the judiciary fulfills the role decreed for its constitution and legal it is the duty of the various investigation authorities is to present the considered legal evidence so that the judiciary can convict the accused of any of these crimes and without this evidence, the judiciary applies the law to release the suspects or the accused despite the issuance of a previous decision of arrest or detention for the purpose of conducting the investigation. If the investigation does not reach evidence that is legally reliable the result of the investigation or trial will end with the release of the accused, and this does not mean that the judiciary has not fulfilled its constitutional and legal role. Rather, the defect lies in the investigative body. Which did not lead to presenting evidence of the accused’s conviction, and the question here is if the judiciary, God forbid, failed to perform its legal duty, then how did the investigation authorities arrest a suspect ?! And how was she able to obtain a decision to arrest him?! In both cases, a decision must be issued by the judiciary?
Therefore, we call on all concerned parties not to escape the responsibility of combating crimes in all their forms and to blame the judiciary on the pretext that the judiciary is not cooperating while the opposite is true and that this allegation is tantamount to suspending failure in the performance of the duty of the judiciary to show some in front of public opinion that he has fulfilled his duty And the judiciary is the cause of the failure to achieve the desired results, and this is not consistent with the correct approach in building a state in which the law is respected, and that the attempt to undermine the citizen’s confidence in the judiciary under pressure to escape responsibility will inevitably lead to chaos that will have negative effects on all state institutions and not the judiciary alone, and he repeats The Supreme Judicial Council calls upon everyone to review the real role stipulated in the constitution and the laws in force for every authority or institution in the state, and in the light of this, the real responsibility and failure in the fight against crime in its various forms are determined