Procedures for appealing criminal rulings issued against judges- A comparative study

Abstract

The judge is a member of an independent authority who performs an important role in society through his job position. He is not just an employee who provides a public service within the framework of the public job in the state. Rather, he was granted this position because he performs a serious function, which is adjudicating disputes, whether between or among individuals. And between the state.

Members of the judiciary are subject to special legal rules and procedures that differ from those to which state employees are subject and are regulated according to a special law. If a judge commits a criminal act that violates his job, he must be punished for it, despite the immunity granted to him in the face of criminal procedures. This is to prevent some judges from exploiting this immunity to circumvent the law and attempt to evade responsibility and accountability, as considerations of justice prompted the determination of responsibility for the actions of judges.

  Attributing a criminal incident against judges can only be done through a judicial ruling, and issuing this ruling must go through a set of procedures stipulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the special nature of the investigation.

Appealing the rulings issued against judges is one of the most important legal guarantees that protect their rights, as judges are able to legally appeal them in order to cancel the ruling imposing the penalty. The act committed by the judge may not require violating his sanctity, harming his dignity, or imposing a penalty against him. On the basis of this, we will discuss these procedures for appealing judgments, and demonstrate their compatibility with the prestige of the judicial authority.