The Effects and Legal Provisions Arising from Absolute Criminal Liability in Iraqi and Egyptian Legislation

Abstract

This study examines the legal effects and consequences arising from absolute criminal liability under Iraqi and Egyptian legislation, considering it a limited exception to the general principle that criminal liability requires proof of intent or negligence. It focuses on the impact of this exception on criminal attribution, the burden of proof, the right of defense, legal defenses, and the nature of sanctions, as well as its compatibility with fair trial guarantees. The study adopts a comparative analytical approach through an examination of general and special criminal law provisions, constitutional principles, and relevant judicial decisions in both countries.The study demonstrates that describing liability as “absolute” does not mean that all elements of criminal responsibility are eliminated. Establishing voluntary conduct, material and legal attribution, capacity, and causation—where required by the criminal provision—remains necessary. The exception is limited to dispensing with the requirement to prove a specific mental state within the limits established by law. The comparison also reveals that Iraqi applications are fragmented, particularly in certain special laws, the liability of legal persons, and publication-related offenses, with insufficient clarity regarding their legal effects and available defenses. In contrast, the Egyptian constitutional judiciary has contributed to limiting conclusive presumptions of knowledge and fault and has prevented the imposition of liability solely on the basis of official status.The study concludes that the legitimacy of this type of liability requires a clear legal provision and a duty capable of compliance, while preserving the right of defense and allowing reliance on force majeure, impossibility of compliance, and due diligence defenses where the nature of the provision permits. It also requires proportionality between the sanction imposed and the degree of culpability and seriousness of the offense, with a preference for financial and corrective sanctions over custodial penalties in specifically defined regulatory misdemeanors and violations.