قناعة القاضي الجنائي بنظر الدعوى و إمكانية الوقوع في الخطأ القضائي (دراسة مقارنة)

Abstract

The issue of preserving the freedom and dignity of the individual is raised in all laws, and freedom is at its highest level in Islamic law. This is because Islam has honored man and enhanced his value, and Islamic societies must preserve this dignity from humiliation and waste. Likewise, democratic systems have sought to preserve human rights from distortion. By stipulating and emphasizing human rights charters, and since the judiciary is independent and has no authority over it other than the law, it is possible to confiscate a person’s freedom by arbitrarily using power and denying justice. To say so scratches the face of the truth whose foundations we seek to establish in the public order and society. Therefore, I decided to research the issue. The possible error in which the judiciary or authority makes by ruling on an innocent person and limiting his civil rights, or placing him in an environment that affects his normal behavior, in addition to removing him from life and disrupting his interests, or releasing a dangerous criminal as a result of this error, and the importance of this issue - which may be a reason If a person loses his confidence in the judiciary first, and in the state secondly, it must be shed light on it, and what possible oversight should be placed on the rulings issued by the courts, as well as oversight of the courts of appeal. By this, I do not mean that the state should interfere in the work of the judiciary, because the judiciary is in order to carry out the task that has been assigned to it. He must be independent, but there is no doubt that the criminal judge’s arrival at a ruling requires effort and difficulty because the truth is not an easy matter, which makes it possible for him to make a mistake, and judges differ in their personalities, beliefs, and the legal foundations on which they base their assessment of evidentiary evidence. Therefore, under the principle of judicial conviction, the judge is given complete freedom to derive his conviction from any evidence he is comfortable with from the evidence presented in the case.