A Review of the Criminal Procedure System and its Causes A Model Study on the Arab Countries

Reconsideration is one of the methods of extraordinary objection to the final judgments, i.e. those that have acquired the authority of the res judicata and become unobjectionable by appeal or cassation, and it is one of the regular means granted to litigants by virtue of which they can file a lawsuit for the damage they have suffered as a result of a judgment or decision. In their interest, and in this sense, it is a license granted by the system to the litigants to show the defects of the judgment issued in the case and to demand the competent judiciary to cancel it or amend it in a way that removes its defects. Some laws and regulations in Arab countries call it reconsideration, others petition, and the other retrial. With these different names, it became clear to the researcher, after studying these means, especially in the statutory reasons and justifications that their existence requires to object accordingly to reconsider a decision or a judicial ruling issued in the interest of the objector to obtain a decision or a judicial ruling in his favor, and he found that there is a problem in some of them, which It lies in the fact that only the litigants have the right to use it, so no objection is accepted from another person who is not a party to the lawsuit. Therefore, the researcher in this study will shed light on it through the use of the inductive and descriptive approach in order to show its importance in achieving judicial justice, which guarantees the litigants to resolve the dispute between them by reconsidering the final ruling, in order to arrive at a new ruling that expresses the desired truth, and he divided it into two sections, The first is a definition of the concept of reviewing the system of criminal procedures and its legal nature, and the second of the reasons for which litigants may request a review of the system of criminal procedures based on the final rulings and the legal nature of these reasons.

The Application of the Doctrine of Res Judicata in the Context of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights: Analysis of the Court’s Decisions in the Gombert and Dexter Cases

As part of an ongoing discussion on the proliferation of the human rights judicial mechanism, this article critically analyses and unpacks the only two examples where the African Court had to decide on the application of the doctrine of res judicata under Article 56(7) of the African Charter. The Court declared both applications inadmissible on the grounds of their previous settlements by the ECOWAS Court of Justice and the United Nations Human Rights Committee. The article demonstrates that while the Court’s decision in the Gombert case appears to be correct in principle, its finding in the Dexter case is highly questionable and unconvincing.

Legal Certainty

Legal certainty is considered in the paper not only as one of the general principles of law and one of the requirements of the Rule of Law, but also as a fundamental feature and condition of the significance of law and its instrumental value in general. In this regard, the definitions of the Rule of Law conception and the lists of its components proposed by Western philosophers and theorists of law and by the Venice Commission are analyzed. Elements of the principle of legal certainty such as legislation and case law accessibility, legal acts’ predictability, principles of case law unity, legitimate expectations, res judicata, the European concept of autonomous interpretation and the American doctrine of uncertainty of law are covered. By analyzing and synthesizing theoretical concepts of the principle of legal certainty, the practice of its interpretation and application by European and national courts, the connections between it and other general principles of law (in particular – principles of legality and reasonableness), this principle plays a key role in the Rule of Law implementation in the national legal system.

application of principle of res judicata and estopple in family law cases in Syariah court

This writing examines the Syariah court’s approach in applying the principle of res judicata and estoppel in family law cases in Syariah. With the existence of the legal provisions, there are still the unclear application of res judicata and the principle of estopple in terms of hearing mal cases especially the matter involved with a monetary claim for example mut’ah cases, child maintenance, and jointly acquired property. Although this principle has been understood by the legal practitioner, the synchronization between the principle of res judicata, estopple, and court procedure is yet to be scrutinized by the Courts. Thus, a qualitative study was carried out along with library research including decided cases in this research. The content analysis method is applied in data analysis. This study indicated that in arriving at a decision, Syariah Court indirectly applied these principles. However, the implementation of these principles should be highlighted to validate the principle of justice in Syariah Courts.

Prezența militară rusească în Republica Moldova prin prisma jurisprudenței CEDO / Russian military presence in the Republic of Moldova in the light of ECHR jurisprudence

In the article below, I analyse the role of the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ilașcu and others v. Moldova and Russia. This judgment, being pronounced by an international tribunal, benefits from the authority and power of the res judicata. However, this argument was “strategically ignored” by the Moldovan political establishment. I tried to find the answer to the question: Why has Moldovan diplomacy never used this strong argument, provided by the ECHR?

РЕАЛІЗАЦІЯ ПРИНЦИПУ ПРАВОВОЇ ВИЗНАЧЕНОСТІ КРІЗЬ ПРИЗМУ ЗАХИСТУ КОНСТИТУЦІЙНИХ ПРАВ І СВОБОД ЛЮДИНИ ТА ГРОМАДЯНИНА

У статті досліджено принцип правової визначеності, його реалізацію у процесі захисту прав і свобод людини та громадянина. Зазначено, що в широкому розумінні принцип правової визначеності є сукупністю вимог до організації та функціонування правової системи з метою забезпечення стабільного правового становища людини шляхом удосконалення процесів правотворчості і правозастосування. При цьому для сучасної конституційної держави найвищим досягненням має стати довіра громадян до самої держави та її інститутів. Така довіра може ґрунтуватися тільки на гармонійній взаємодії правової визначеності чинного законодав- ства та аналогічної його дії на практиці. Дотримання принципу правової визначеності чітко позна- чає межі діяльності державної влади, максимально домагається прозорості у відносинах держави й людини, тим самим забезпечуючи дотримання прав і свобод людини та громадянина. Наголошено на тому, що в основі принципу юридичної визначеності, як одного з істотних елементів принципу верхо- венства права, лежить відоме з римського права положення res judicata (лат. «вирішена справа»), відповідно до якого остаточне рішення правомочного суду, яке вступило в силу, є обов’язковим для сторін і не може переглядатися. Зроблено висновок про те, що ідея та поняття «правова визначе- ність» є досить складною, багатогранною, різноаспектною категорією як для правової доктрини, так і для юридичної практики. Правова визначеність є універсальним принципом у всіх сферах юри- дичної діяльності. Це постає з того, що, по-перше, у законотворчій сфері правова визначеність є ключовим критерієм якості та основною метою цього виду діяльності; по-друге, правова визначе- ність є найважливішим інструментом і засобом у процесі реалізації конституційного контролю орга- нами правосуддя. Вищий судовий орган конституційного контролю неодноразово встановлював, що невизначеність норм права сама собою неконституційна, адже дає можливість правозастосовникові зловживати своїм становищем, по-різному тлумачити норми права залежно від власного інтересу, ставить суб’єктів права в нерівні умови.

The Methodology of Formal Interpretations of Judicial Decisions by the International Court of Justice

This article examines the International Court of Justice’s methodology in cases where it interprets its own decisions under the procedure in Article 60 of the Statute. The Court is constrained by respect for the res judicata of the previous decision. When interpreting the decision the Court and its judges strive to find the intention behind a decision, and emphasise elements that include wording, context, and object and purpose. A comparison with how the Court interprets treaties, resolutions from the United Nations Security Council, and unilateral declarations by States show that the instruments have important different but that their interpretation nonetheless have some basic similarities. On this basis it may be possible to formulate general principles of interpretation in international law.

Repeated proceedings against suspected illicit wealth – justifiable protection of public interest or violation of human rights?

The internationally acknowledged need for effective legal measures against illicit enrichment that is perceived as the key policy tool against organised crime and corruption triggered rapid developments in the variety of those legal measures. Lithuania may serve as a sole-standing example of a jurisdiction that enacted a great variety of legal strategies against illicit enrichment – criminal liability both for money laundering and illicit enrichment and also extended powers of confiscation, civil confiscation and tax fines for unexplained income. This diversity of measures leads to the issue of competition arising between them and also carries the risk that measures may be used repeatedly and arbitrarily against persons and their property.The paper focuses on the issue of the legitimacy of repeated investigation and assessment of suspicious assets in civil confiscation proceedings and extended powers of confiscation.The analysis is divided into two parts where fundamentally different legal situations are discussed. In the first situation, repeated assessment of the origin of the assets takes place in proceedings of similar legal nature (proceedings aiming to restore legal order). The second situation appears where reassessment takes place in proceedings of a different nature – in the restorative proceedings after failure to prove the illicit origin of the assets in the punitive proceedings.While the first situation rather clearly falls within the scope of the principle of legal certainty and the rule res judicata that prohibit repeated proceedings for the same issue in the same circumstances against the same person, the second situation is more open to debate. Punitive proceedings use the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence is in play. These safeguards are designed to protect defendants from unfounded conviction, but they may be considered excessive for other legal issues such as the recovery of damages or the proceeds of illicit activities. In addition, in the context of civil confiscation, public interest in effective protection from organised crime and corruption comes into play. Therefore, there are strong arguments for giving priority to public safety over the principle of legal certainty that would protect defendants from repeated assessment of their assets in other proceedings with a lower standard of proof or even the reversed presumption of the illegality of unexplained wealth.Finally, the paper addresses the question of whether extended powers of confiscation qualify for restorative or punitive proceedings. The answer to this question is the key argument of whether civil confiscation proceedings can legitimately follow criminal proceedings where the court failed to confiscate the assets on the grounds of extended powers of confiscation. The paper argues that extended powers of confiscation are of a restorative nature. Therefore, when assets have already been investigated in proceedings of civil confiscation and their origin has been assessed as lawful in the light of extended powers of confiscation, re-consideration of their origin should be deemed as infringing the principle of legal certainty, unless the decision in the criminal proceedings was barred by lack of formal grounds.

The difference between the power of res judicata and the authority of res judicata

The court’s decision is a final product of the judicial activity, aimed to ensure the protection of the persons contested rights, freedoms or legitimate interests. However, in order to establish an effective protection, it is important that the court decision is final has the authority of res judicata. In specialized literature, configured two concepts regarding res judicata. In this article, are highlighted the criteria that delimit this two concepts and the practical and theoretical necessity of such delimitation.