The right of the accused to object to decisions and rulings before they are implemented between Iraqi law, Jordanian law, and French law

Abstract

This research deals with the right of the accused to object to decisions and judgments before their implementation in each of the Iraqi, Jordanian, and French laws, through a comparative study that aims to shed light on the differences and similarities between the three legal systems. This study is important to ensure the protection of the rights of the accused in the different judicial systems, and to provide an opportunity for the accused to correct the judgments issued against them before their implementation, whether the judgment was in absentia or in person. In the Iraqi legal system, the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 23 of 1971 deals with how to file an objection to judgments in absentia and in person, and clarifies the legal procedures and deadlines that must be followed. On the other hand, Jordanian law allows the accused to file their objections according to specific conditions and procedures to ensure the reconsideration of the judgments. In French law, the right to object is organized in a similar manner, but with differences related to the nature of the courts and procedures. The research concludes that the right to object represents a fundamental guarantee of justice, as it gives the accused an opportunity to review the judgments and decisions issued against them, and to submit new defenses that may lead to amending or canceling the judgments. The procedures and conditions of objection differ between comparative legal systems, reflecting the diversity of justice organizations between the three countries. The research recommends the need to enhance comparative studies on the right to object to judgments in different legal systems, and to enhance the awareness of defendants of their legal rights to ensure a fair trial.