Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Welcome to the Neno's Place!

Neno's Place Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality


Neno

I can be reached by phone or text 8am-7pm cst 972-768-9772 or, once joining the board I can be reached by a (PM) Private Message.

Join the forum, it's quick and easy

Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Welcome to the Neno's Place!

Neno's Place Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality


Neno

I can be reached by phone or text 8am-7pm cst 972-768-9772 or, once joining the board I can be reached by a (PM) Private Message.

Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Many Topics Including The Oldest Dinar Community. Copyright © 2006-2020


    Expert: Lifting the immunity of MPs accused of flagrant crimes does not violate the constitution

    Rocky
    Rocky
    Admin Assist
    Admin Assist


    Posts : 272150
    Join date : 2012-12-21

    Expert: Lifting the immunity of MPs accused of flagrant crimes does not violate the constitution Empty Expert: Lifting the immunity of MPs accused of flagrant crimes does not violate the constitution

    Post by Rocky Fri 28 May 2021, 6:58 am

    [size=52]Expert: Lifting the immunity of MPs accused of flagrant crimes does not violate the constitution[/size]

    [size=45][You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]The Federal Court resolves the debate on the concept of the major bloc[/size]
    [rtl]Expert: Lifting the immunity of those accused of flagrant crimes does not violate the constitution[/rtl]
    [rtl]Legal expert Tariq Harb believed that the Federal Supreme Court's decision regarding lifting the immunity of MPs accused of flagrant crimes does not violate the constitution.[/rtl]
    [rtl]Harb said in a statement yesterday that "the Supreme Court in its interpretation of parliamentary immunity has reached constitutional perfection or is nearing legal perfection or close to that, and that its decisions came in accordance with the authority established under the provisions of Article 93 of the Constitution, either by judgment or interpretation, and its ruling was an interpretation of Article 63 of the Constitution." Which stipulated that a deputy may not be arrested during the period of the legislative term unless he is accused of a felony and with the approval of the absolute majority to lift his immunity or if he is caught red-handed in a felony, which means that it is absolute immunity, but immunity against one legal action, which is to throw Capture only).[/rtl]
    [rtl]A witnessed felony[/rtl]
    [rtl]He added that (if the felony is witnessed, then the attorney may be arrested because this is a clear case, which is the witness of the attorney when the felony is committed or after its commission, or if the victim follows the victim after its occurrence, and in all the cases specified by Article 1 of the Criminal Principles Law No. 23 of 1971 .[/rtl]
    [rtl]He continued, "The unrecognized felony for which the representative enjoys immunity is the crime for which the law is punishable by more than five years in prison, such as premeditated murder, bribery, embezzlement, terrorism, forgery of official documents, etc." And the approval of the majority of the members, i.e. the approval of 165 deputies or more, or the approval of the Speaker during the legislative recess).[/rtl]
    [rtl]Adding (As for misdemeanor crimes and offenses punishable by imprisonment of five years or less or fines, they do not need to take legal measures against the deputy for the approval or vote of the House of Representatives, and among these crimes are financial and administrative corruption mentioned in Articles 331 and 341, crimes of defamation, insult, swindling, fraud and issuance of a deed Without balance and others).[/rtl]
    [rtl]The court decided to abolish decisions to obtain Parliament's approval for all crimes with which the deputies are accused, whether they are felonies, misdemeanors, or infractions. A statement of the court received by (Al-Zaman) yesterday said that (the court decided to obtain the approval of the House of Representatives only in one case, which is the issuance of an arrest warrant for a crime of the type of felony that is not witnessed. Other than that, for the deputies' immunity and legal measures can be taken against them directly in the event of any accusation Including a witnessed felony, misdemeanor, or contravention).[/rtl]
    [rtl]Actual number[/rtl]
    [rtl]He added that (the court has interpreted the concept of an absolute majority wherever it is mentioned in the constitution, which is more than half the actual number of members of the House of Representatives, and what is meant by a simple majority is more than half of the number of representatives present after the quorum has been achieved).[/rtl]
    [rtl]He pointed out that (with this decision, courts can settle corruption cases faster than before, because most corruption crimes apply to the description of misdemeanor crimes, and resolving them depends on lifting the immunity of the accused, if he is a deputy). In addition, the Judicial Institute held a lecture on the judiciary and constitutional law for students of the first and second stages.[/rtl]
    [rtl]A statement by the Supreme Judicial Council said yesterday that (the lecture held at the Judicial Institute for students of the two stages, in which Professor of Constitutional Law Amin Atef Saliba lectured), and added that (Saliba looked on a field tour of the halls and halls of the institute, and expressed his admiration for the judicial system in Iraq). In turn, the Director General of the Institute, Faten Mohsen Hadi, presented (the institute’s shield to Saliba, in appreciation of his presence and enriching the culture of the institute’s students with the topic of the lecture).[/rtl]
    [rtl][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
    [/rtl]

      Current date/time is Sun 16 Jun 2024, 8:47 am