[ad_1]
The security services had to declare their weapons against Law 191, arguing that its implementation means preventing them from exerting pressure and torture on the detainees and adopting technical methods to search for evidence.
However, it is surprising that the strike stems from the provisions of the Law on the Organization of the Judicial Power and the Law of Criminal Procedure, which is the guarantor of public freedoms and protector of the rights of citizens to obtain fair trials.
This is how the roles have been reversed between the security agencies that have come to ensure, even on the table, that they are going to implement the law, and between the judges who are waging an open battle on the basis of “Oh murderer, dead “, Given that the immunity that has transformed some judges into” demigods “will inevitably disappear with the implementation of the Law, and they will no longer be out of accountability. Note that it is not the first law to criminalize judges.
Judges: these are our justifications
The judges declare that what provoked them is the last point of the third article, which indicated that “the investigator, whether a judge of the Public Ministry or a member of the judicial police, is subject to a prison sentence of three months to one year and a fine ranging from two million Lebanese pounds to 10 million Lebanese if none of the guarantees provided by law are observed.
Here is the heart of the dispute, as the opposing judges consider this article “unacceptable”. However, they try to add other objections to save appearances, among them the fear that the presence of the lawyer in the preliminary investigations will have a negative role in teaching the detainee the testimony they deem appropriate, and the inability of the judicial police to expedite the investigation. interrogation and exposing cells, especially in crimes of terrorism, homicide, kidnapping and haste, considering that the 24-hour limit to attend to the lawyer can be the reason for the escape of the rest of the gang to which a detainee belongs or to kill a person kidnapped, for example.
They also point out that outposts and detachments are not equipped with the simplest tools, so how will investigations be filmed with audio and video, as stipulated by law? This question shows that the judges are trying to play the role of the king more than the king himself, and the security services confirm that they are working to equip the investigation centers with the necessary equipment to implement the law!
The “Supreme Judiciary” is angry with Aoun
In addition to these objections, the judges allege that the Parliamentary Commission for Administration and Justice did not request the opinion of the Supreme Council of the Judiciary (its opinion) on the law before referring it to the General Assembly of the Council of Representatives.
Some jurists point out that the search for the opinion of the “Supreme Judicial Power” is not mandatory in this law, and the provisions of article 5 of the Law of Organization of the Judicial Power do not apply to it, considering that it is a reform of the law. Criminal Procedure Code.
Some go further and emphasize that Parliament owns itself, in support of articles 8 and 20 of the Lebanese constitution, which stipulate that “the conditions and limits of judicial guarantee are established by law, and the promulgating authority is independent to determine, protect and establish those guarantees “.
In any case, the judges who oppose the existence of a legal vacuum by ignoring the opinion of the Supreme Council of the Judiciary are the same ones who bypassed the powers of the council and ignored its existence.
Therefore, the “Supreme Judicial Power” pours its anger on the Appellate Prosecutor in Monte Líbano, Judge Ghada Aoun, who expressed his dissatisfaction with the law to the President of the Republic, bypassing the Council.
