Legal confirms prevent abuse of the Constitution of the intellectual and political in the interrogat

[ltr]Legal confirms prevent abuse of the Constitution of the intellectual and political in the interrogation process[/ltr]

 Since 26.07.2016 at 09:45 (Baghdad time)
[ltr][You must be registered and logged in to see this image.][/ltr]
[ltr]Baghdad balances News[/ltr]
[ltr]He confirmed the legal expert Tareq Harb, Tuesday, that the Iraqi constitution to prevent all forms of abuse during interrogations Parliamentary minister process.[/ltr]
[ltr]He said the war in a statement received / balances News / copy of it, "Parliament decided in the last week of the month of July 2016 an interrogation of some Minister Phan can be said that the interrogation parliamentary accusation issued by the House of Representatives against the questioner which is similar to the judicial indictment issued by the Criminal Court." .[/ltr]
[ltr]He added that he "may have on the parliamentary interrogation to withdraw confidence from the minister and thus end the affair would ministerial described the judicial indictment, which may result in a sentence of any court may have on impeachment and criminal indictment of the death."[/ltr]
[ltr]He continued, that "we have seen that all interrogations parliamentary did not withdraw confidence from the questioner and therefore did not end the government called in all cases is bound to observe the conditions that must be available in the interrogation of the constitutional and legal that the provisions of there not be arbitrary in the interrogation so that Article 29 / IV of the Constitution banned all forms of abuse and therefore must have been questioning Parliamentary away from the abuse of the right of interrogation. "[/ltr]
[ltr]And between, that "for us in Article VII of the Civil Law No. 40 of 1951 Mmelthadda namely, that the use of the right such as the right in questioning established by Article VII of this law that is not intended to damage to third parties any damage to the personality that is questioning Kaladharar minister from ministers of key ministries and not to interests that are intended use of the interrogation to a few achievable and what can be achieved as a result of questioning and should be the use of the interrogation aimed at achieving the legitimate interests either in the interests of illegal interrogation they are a form of abuse which was rejected by the Constitution. "[/ltr]
[ltr]He pointed out the war to that, "We should be questioning is really far away from the intellectual and political coercion in accordance with the provisions of Article 37 / II of the Constitution, since no member of parliament who purports to interrogate the minister working as a phenomenon generate intellectual and political coercion, the competent minister may, based on the interests of the political blocs in parliament and not Al build the public interest. "[/ltr]
[ltr]He explained that, "We must adhere to interrogation by the provisions of Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure of the House of Representatives and the verdicts indicate the subject of the questioning and the things that are questioning them and the facts and the main points covered by the questioning and the reasons underlying the interrogation presenter and face of the offense which can be attributed to being questioned." .[/ltr]
[ltr]He pointed out that he "must be reasons supports the view of a member of parliament in the questioning and should not be included questioning things contrary to the Constitution and the law, indecent phrases or related to matters not within the jurisdiction of the minister questioned and not be questioning request targeting special interest or personal interest nor request for questioning on the subject already of the House of Representatives that separate it. "[/ltr]
[ltr]He emphasized that, "We must take the constitutional form of interrogation, a request from the House of Representatives and one vote in Parliament at a formal meeting the approval of 25 members of the interrogation."[/ltr]
[ltr]He stressed, saying, "We should be questioning matters within the jurisdiction of the questioning and not just petition the member who asked the interrogation and the signing of some lawmakers this petition because it is necessary to publicize the request of the deputies in the parliamentary session, but if violated interrogation preceding provisions it deemed to have violated the provisions of the Constitution and the law do not count on it does not lead to the effect or result ".anthy 29 / a 43[/ltr]




[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]