23 Hrs
Source:
سواليف
Should the Court of Cassation review necessity in security court cases
The article addresses the issue of the necessity condition in Jordan's State Security Court law, examining its legitimacy and the criteria for applying it within the context of detainees' detention. It clarifies that the legal norm requires law enforcement authorities to refer the accused within 24 hours of arrest, and if this period is exceeded without judicial justification, it constitutes arbitrary detention that contradicts national laws and international covenants. While the State Security Court law provides an exception permitting the detention of the accused for up to seven days in cases of necessity, adherence to the necessity condition and the presentation of concrete evidence demonstrating its existence are essential to ensure the legality of the measure. The article also emphasizes that jurisprudence and comparative legal systems in Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and France stress the importance of clear, specific grounds for extending detention periods. Failure to prove the existence of necessity is considered a violation of the detainees' rights and international law, especially after Jordan's accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Furthermore, it discusses the need for Jordan's Court of Cassation to rigorously review the application of the necessity condition to safeguard human rights and prevent arbitrary extensions. Neglecting this requirement threatens justice and undermines the judiciary's role in protecting fundamental freedoms.
Size: 120%Text Size
Notice: This Is an AI-Generated Summary
Comments (0)