سلطات التحقيق بين النظام الفلسطيني والنظم الإجرائية المقارنة
Date
2022-05-07
Authors
مازن عبد الفتاح شحده جرادات
mazenabd Alfatah shehda jaradat
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
جامعة القدس
Abstract
منح المشرع الفلسطيني للنيابة العامة وحدها دون غيرها القيام بسلطة التحقيق في مختلف الجرائم، بما يشمل مباشرة الدعوى الجزائية وتحريكها والتحقيق والتصرف فيها باعتبارها الممثل العام عن المجتمع، وهذا ما جاء بصريح المادة الأولى من قانون الإجراءات الجزائية على أن "تختص النيابة العامة دون غيرها بإقامة الدعوى الجزائية ومباشرتها ولا تقام من غيرها إلا في الأحوال المبينة في القانون". وتشمل السلطة السابقة الممنوحة للنيابة العامة القيام بتوجيه الاتهام وفي ذات الوقت التحقيق مع المتهم، بما يتعارض مع مبدأ مهم في فضاء القانون الجنائي، وهو مبدأ الفصل بين سلطتي التحقيق والاتهام، والتي اخذت به الكثير من الدول المقارنة والأنظمة القانونية، حيث أن التحقيق يتمثل في مجموعة من الإجراءات التي تباشر من السلطة المختصة وفقا للشكل القانوني المحدد بقصد الكشف عن حقيقة الجريمة ومرتكبها، أما الاتهام فهو إسناد جريمة إلى شخص معين بتحريك الدعوى الجنائية أو رفعها أو مباشرتها في مواجهته. وبالتالي كان لا بد من الوقوف عند سلطة التحقيق الممنوحة للنيابة العامة في التشريع الفلسطيني بالمقارنة مع ما جاء في الأنظمة القانونية الاجرائية الأخرى.
لذلك هدفت هذه الدراسة إلى التعرف على مدى وجود حاجة الى فصل سلطة التحقيق عن سلطة الاتهام واستحداث مؤسسة قاضي التحقيق في التشريع الجنائي الفلسطيني. ولتحقيق هدف الدراسة اعتمد الباحث في دراسته لسلطات التحقيق بين النظام الفلسطيني والنظم الإجرائية المقارنة على المنهج التحليلي بشقيه (الاستقرائي والاستنباطي)، إضافة إلى المنهج المقارن، وذلك من خلال تحليل النصوص القانونية المنظمة لسلطة التحقيق الابتدائي في التشريعات المقارنة، واظهار أوجه القصور وذلك كله في حدود الاسترشاد بالآراء الفقهية والقانونية.
توصلت الدراسة إلى مجموعة من النتائج، أهمها: بالنسبة لموقف المشرع الفلسطيني نجد بأنه يتبنى نظام ومبدأ الجمع بين سلطتي التحقيق والاتهام بيد النيابة العامة وحدها دون غيرها، بحيث تعد النيابة العامة في فلسطين ذات أهمية بالغة يتم الاعتماد عليها بشكل رئيسي وأساسي في الدعوى الجزائية. كما أن القضاء الفلسطيني أكد على ذات الموقف للمشرع الفلسطيني فيما يخص الجمع بين سلطتي التحقيق والاتهام بيد النيابة. كذلك نظراً لوجود بعض إجراءات التحقيق لا تختص بها النيابة العامة وتعتبر من ضمن الاختصاصات القضائية، أو تكون سلطة النيابة العامة فيها مقيدة ومحدودة، فإنه بالإمكان القول بأن هناك مجال لتطبيق سلطة القضاء على باقي إجراءات التحقيق، وهذا هو جوهر نظام قاضي التحقيق.
كما أوصت الدراسة بمجموعة من التوصيات، أهمها: يجب على المشرع الفلسطيني تطبيق نظام قاضي التحقيق في ظل اتجاه الفصل الجزئي بين سلطتي التحقيق والاتهام، وهذا ما يتطلب وجود تنظيم قانوني كامل يبين صلاحيات قاضي التحقيق والنيابة العامة وعدم جواز تعدي كل منهما على الأخر، وطبيعة العلاقة فيما بينهما.
The Palestinian legislator granted the Public Prosecution alone the exclusive authority to investigate various crimes, including initiating a criminal case, initiating it, investigating and disposing of it as the public representative of society. penal and its initiation, and it is not instituted by others except in the cases indicated in the law.” The previous authority granted to the Public Prosecution Office includes filing charges and at the same time interrogating the accused, in contradiction to an important principle in the field of criminal law, which is the principle of separation between the powers of investigation and accusation, which was adopted by many comparative countries and legal systems, as the investigation is represented in a group Among the procedures initiated by the competent authority according to the specific legal form with the aim of revealing the truth about the crime and its perpetrator. As for the accusation, it is the attribution of a crime to a specific person by moving, filing or initiating a criminal case against him. Therefore, it was necessary to stand at the investigative authority granted to the Public Prosecution in the Palestinian legislation, in comparison with what was stated in other procedural legal systems. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the extent to which there is a need to separate the authority of investigation from the authority of accusation and to establish the institution of the investigating judge in the Palestinian criminal legislation. In order to achieve the aim of the study, the researcher relied in his study of the investigation authorities between the Palestinian system and the comparative procedural systems on the comparative descriptive approach, by analyzing the legal texts regulating the authority of the primary investigation in the comparative legislation, and showing the shortcomings, all within the limits of being guided by jurisprudential and legal opinions. The study reached a set of results, the most important of which are: With regard to the position of the Palestinian legislator, we find that he adopts the system and principle of combining the powers of investigation and accusation in the hands of the Public Prosecution alone and not others, so that the Public Prosecution in Palestine is of great importance and is relied upon mainly and fundamentally in the criminal case. In addition, the Palestinian judiciary affirmed the same position of the Palestinian legislator with regard to combining the powers of investigation and accusation in the hands of the prosecution. Also, given the existence of some investigative procedures that are not within the competence of the Public Prosecution and are considered within the jurisdiction of the judiciary, or in which the authority of the Public Prosecution is restricted and limited, it is possible to say that there is room for applying the authority of the judiciary to the rest of the investigation procedures, and this is the essence of the investigative judge’s system. The study also recommended a set of recommendations, the most important of which are: The Palestinian legislator must apply the investigation judge system in light of the trend of partial separation between the powers of investigation and accusation, and this requires the existence of a complete legal organization that shows the powers of the investigation judge and the Public Prosecution and the inadmissibility of each of them infringing on the other, and the nature of the relationship between them.
The Palestinian legislator granted the Public Prosecution alone the exclusive authority to investigate various crimes, including initiating a criminal case, initiating it, investigating and disposing of it as the public representative of society. penal and its initiation, and it is not instituted by others except in the cases indicated in the law.” The previous authority granted to the Public Prosecution Office includes filing charges and at the same time interrogating the accused, in contradiction to an important principle in the field of criminal law, which is the principle of separation between the powers of investigation and accusation, which was adopted by many comparative countries and legal systems, as the investigation is represented in a group Among the procedures initiated by the competent authority according to the specific legal form with the aim of revealing the truth about the crime and its perpetrator. As for the accusation, it is the attribution of a crime to a specific person by moving, filing or initiating a criminal case against him. Therefore, it was necessary to stand at the investigative authority granted to the Public Prosecution in the Palestinian legislation, in comparison with what was stated in other procedural legal systems. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the extent to which there is a need to separate the authority of investigation from the authority of accusation and to establish the institution of the investigating judge in the Palestinian criminal legislation. In order to achieve the aim of the study, the researcher relied in his study of the investigation authorities between the Palestinian system and the comparative procedural systems on the comparative descriptive approach, by analyzing the legal texts regulating the authority of the primary investigation in the comparative legislation, and showing the shortcomings, all within the limits of being guided by jurisprudential and legal opinions. The study reached a set of results, the most important of which are: With regard to the position of the Palestinian legislator, we find that he adopts the system and principle of combining the powers of investigation and accusation in the hands of the Public Prosecution alone and not others, so that the Public Prosecution in Palestine is of great importance and is relied upon mainly and fundamentally in the criminal case. In addition, the Palestinian judiciary affirmed the same position of the Palestinian legislator with regard to combining the powers of investigation and accusation in the hands of the prosecution. Also, given the existence of some investigative procedures that are not within the competence of the Public Prosecution and are considered within the jurisdiction of the judiciary, or in which the authority of the Public Prosecution is restricted and limited, it is possible to say that there is room for applying the authority of the judiciary to the rest of the investigation procedures, and this is the essence of the investigative judge’s system. The study also recommended a set of recommendations, the most important of which are: The Palestinian legislator must apply the investigation judge system in light of the trend of partial separation between the powers of investigation and accusation, and this requires the existence of a complete legal organization that shows the powers of the investigation judge and the Public Prosecution and the inadmissibility of each of them infringing on the other, and the nature of the relationship between them.