تقييم موقف محكمة الاستئناف من نظر الطعون الجزائية تدقيقا في ضوء مبدأ التقاضي على درجتين

Abstract EN

Although the principle of litigation on two degreed has become one of the concepts and pillars that are almost applied in all countries of the world and is explicitly stated in many constitutions, and that this principle finds its basis in the rights and public freedoms as a right or guarantee that diverge from the right of litigation, and even though International conventions and agreements ascertained that a convicted person should be given the opportunity in criminal matters to challenge the judgment of the court of first instance, and to hear his appeal by a higher court and more experienced than the court that issued the preliminary judgment, however, the application of the principle of litigation on two degrees collides with the manner in which the national legislator regulates the right of appeal either to be resolved by audit or pleading, so as resolving an appeal by pleading achieves the purpose of determining the litigation on two degrees, and fulfills greater justice The Jordanian Constitution did not enact the principle of litigation on two degrees except in the case of administrative judiciary.

The Jordanian criminal legislator adopted a position that is different from the legislative situation in many Arab legislations whereby the Jordanian legislator has narrowed the scope of appeals by pleading, and this violates many of the guarantees and principles set out in the pillars of criminal procedures, the most important of which is the principle of confrontation between adversaries, the principle of oral trial, the principle of general trials and the principle of emotional conviction of the judge.

Therefore, we had to try to evaluate the position of court of appeal from resolving criminal appeals by audit.