نظرية العقوبة المبررة و قاعدة "الالتزام بتكييف الواقعة"

Abstract EN

The “justified sentence theory” was appeared in France in the early 19th century, this theory means that there is no interest in cassation appeal for the condemned, even if the judgment contains an error in the qualification, as long as the sentence pronounced is the same as that provided for by the applicable law; the Supreme Court leaned at the time on article 411 of the criminal instruction code, although this text only mentioned the case of “error in citing the text” so that the sentence would be justified; this extension was under the pretext of alleviating the pressure and speed of processing of criminal instance and the economy in the legal procedures.

In Algeria, the Supreme Court was not deviate from this approach, although article 502 of the criminal proceeding code only mentions the case of “erroneous mention of the cited text” to consider the sentence justified.

it turns out from this study that this enlargement contradicts an important rule of criminal justice, which is the "obligation to qualify the fact", and its consequences linked at the same time to a public interest concerning the duty of the correct application of the law, and to a particular interest, which is the right of the accused to be judged for the fact of which he is accused with its exact qualification, as this is one of the requirements of a fair trial.

Is it possible to reconcile that extended application of this theory with the exigencies of that rule?.