[ad_1]
First – The aforementioned law, with its noble purpose directed according to its title and for its compelling reasons, was not presented to the Supreme Council of the Judiciary for a decision before its approval, in accordance with the requirements of subsection / G / of article 5 of the Law of the Judiciary, contrary to what has been circulated in some media, noting that its presentation to the Council could have led to the clarification of some of the legal procedural problems related to it, in line with all the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The Supreme Council of the Judiciary, and in a statement issued on 11/11/2019, had previously summoned the Chamber of Deputies to seek its opinion on the proposals or other projects related to the Judiciary, in accordance with the provisions of the cited section (g).
Second – Although the judiciary is in charge of implementing the laws, it is still its right, and indeed its duty, if it sees any defect or loophole in the framework of the implementation of those laws, to follow the legal mechanism available to propose amendments in the action. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph / g / assigned.
The Council will endeavor to do what it deems appropriate and appropriate in this regard.
In this context, nothing excludes the right of judges to present proposals in this regard to the Supreme Council of the Judiciary, in accordance with article 44 of the Law of the Judiciary, which must be complied with as a single legal method that cannot be diverted or eluded.
Third – The provision of basic guarantees and the activation of defense rights, in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 191, cannot be obtained by conducting auctions and unjustified campaigns that make their implementation a victory for one side and a loss for another, since the supreme goal is represented in the contribution of this law to the construction of a just State. .
[ad_2]
