Federalism: Ruling on the possibility of the participation of the convicted of an offense of honor or corruption in the elections, even if included in the amnesty[/rtl]
[rtl]Release date:: 2019/10/14 12:25 • 197 times read[/rtl]
The Federal Supreme Court ruled the possibility of the participation of the candidate sentenced by a judicial decision for a felony or misdemeanor violating honor, including cases of financial and administrative corruption in the elections, pointing out that the inclusion of pardon does not negate the status of it does not suit the public responsibility in the occupation In the state.
"The Federal Supreme Court held its session under the chairmanship of Judge Medhat al-Mahmoud and the presence of all members of the judges and considered the case of the plaintiff, the President of the Council of Representatives / in addition to his job," court spokesman Iyas al-Samouk said in a statement received by Euphrates News.
Al-Samouk continued, `` The plaintiff challenged by his agents the unconstitutionality of paragraph (III) of Article (5) of Law No. (14) of 2019 (Law of the First Amendment to the Law of Provincial and District Council Elections) No. (12) of 2018. ''
He pointed out that "the paragraph subject to appeal unconstitutional provides one of the conditions of the candidate for membership of these councils and read ((to be of good conduct and conduct is not convicted of a felony or misdemeanor of honor, including cases of administrative and financial corruption by virtue of a judicial decision whether or not covered by amnesty or not )) ".
He pointed out that "the plaintiff based his claim on the constitutional articles mentioned in the petition for alleged violation of paragraph (III) of article (5) of the above-mentioned constitutional articles."
He explained that "the Federal Supreme Court found from the analysis of the paragraph subject to appeal that it came a restriction on those who hold public office in the state elected or appointed summoned by the nature of these tasks."
He added that "the court affirmed that this restriction does not contradict the constitutional articles mentioned by the plaintiff in his petition in which adequate protection of the right of the state and society to assume responsibility The judgment in which the degree of bits, whether or not covered by pardon, shall be granted. "
He added that "the Federal Supreme Court argued that the inclusion of the pardon does not negate the status of it does not suit the public responsibility to occupy a position in the state."
He explained that "the court confirmed that those who claim not to be covered by this restriction and included outside, because what was sentenced was not an offense of honor, he can review the legal ways to appeal not to cover."
He added that "the Federal Supreme Court found that the plaintiff's claim is free of constitutional and legal basis and outside the jurisdiction and based on the foregoing decided to rule by agreement to dismiss them."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]