issued a Federal Court, Sunday, a ruling on a constitutional (criminal conspiracy) contained in the Penal Law No. 111 of 1969, noting that the concept differs from freedom of expression contained in the Constitution. 

" The Federal Supreme Court held its session under the chairmanship of Judge Medhat Al-Mahmoud and the presence of all the members of the judges, and considered a lawsuit in which the plaintiff, both the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Judicial Council / in addition to their function," said the spokesman of the court, Ayas al- Samuk. "The plaintiff appealed under the petition of the unconstitutionality of Article (56) of the Penal Code No. (111) of 1969, which punishes each member of a criminal agreement with the specific penalty for each crime that was the subject of the criminal agreement, even if not initiated.

He added that "the Federal Court found that the provisions of the criminal agreement were mentioned in Articles (55-59) of the Penal Code, and it is clear that the criminal agreement is the presence of one or more persons agreed to commit an act that the law criminalizes as a crime or delinquency such as theft, fraud and forgery. "The court clarified the meaning of this as the crime that is the subject of the agreement, which is liable to be exposed to the security of the society or to one of its natural or moral persons, and indicates the deviant behavior of the members of this agreement."

He added that "the court went on to rule that this act must be dealt with either the penalty with the reform or pardon of the penalty if it was initiated to inform the public authorities before the crime and before the authorities to act against the perpetrators as required by Article (59) of the Penal Code" "The prosecutor relied on article 38 (I) of the constitution, which stipulates that" the state shall ensure that it does not violate the public order and literature: First: the freedom to express opinion by all means. "

And the Samok that "the Federal Court found that the purpose of this text is contrary to the goal wanted by the plaintiff in his lawsuit, as the freedom of expression of opinion linked to what does not disturb the system and the literature, and the criminal agreement also provides a violation of all contrary to public order and public morality and what went to the judiciary The Egyptian court in one of its decisions in this regard does not abide by the Iraqi judiciary to the difference of obligations and the place and time, "pointing out that" the court decided to respond against the first defendant, the Speaker of the House of Representatives / in addition to his job, not to rely on the support of the Constitution, Supreme Judicial Council "He said.