Lawyers’ bodies demand compensation for the victims of “arbitrary reserve detention”

Today, Thursday, the associations of lawyers have asked the members of the House of Representatives to be “supporting” in their proposal aimed at providing the project of the criminal procedure to “create a legal mechanism to compensate the persons who were subjected to arbitrary reserve arrest”, with “setting a timetable for reserve arrest in misdemeanors and crimes, and explaining its extension decisions accurately”, as well County judicial. ”

The association called, according to its president, Hussein Al -Zayani, to “strengthen the guarantees of defense”, through “the obligation to attend the lawyer from the first moment of theoretical guard, with a report invalidating the preliminary research procedures when violating this right,” noting that “it is obligatory to attend as well during the provision of the suspect before the Public Prosecution, given that this stage constitutes a decisive moment in the criminal procedure, where decisions may be taken that may have a direct impact on the freedom of individuals and their fate Legal. ”

Al -Zayani, who was speaking in the House of Representatives on the sidelines of a study day organized by the majority teams on “Bill Decades No. 03.23 to change and complement Law No. 22.01 related to the criminal ruler in light of societal transformations”, called for “the project’s keenness to enhance the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence, by obligating the courts to decide on the initial defenses and formal requests with just and independent decisions before proceeding to the matter, in addition to the subject Circulating audiovisual registration for all stages of preliminary research, not only when reading and signing statements.

In this context, the legal actor drew attention to “not strengthening the right to silence and protecting the context of innocence,” highlighting that “the project did not expand the guarantees of exercising the right to silence during all stages of research and investigation despite the provision of it in the constitution,” and proposing to add a text to Article 66 bis of the project that acknowledges that “the right to silence is not an implicit recognition of what is attributed to the person.”

The head of the Association of Lawyers in Morocco stressed “the abolition of the texts that the Public Prosecution grants unbalanced powers”, by “re -working with the mandatory investigation of dangerous crimes, to ensure the audit of cases before referring to the court”, as well as “canceling the public prosecutor’s granting the exclusive air conditioning authority to criminal acts, and enabling the court to exercise its role in this regard.

The same spokesman continued: “In order to achieve fair and effective justice, the authority of the“ appropriate ”authority granted to the Public Prosecution and the judges of the ruling must be seized, so that within the limits of strict legal texts, they do not leave an area for absolute emotional estimation.” He added: “The decisions of the Public Prosecution and the rulings of judges should be taken in accordance with clear legal criteria, and take into account the activation of judicial control mechanisms to prevent abuses.” The authority of suitability to a ‘legal suitability’ is closely related to the application of legislative texts accurately, away from the mere personal appreciation.

In the context of criminal proof, the lawyer himself called for “protecting the process from bias and self -esteem”, recording the necessity of “linking proof with objective evidence, i.e. adopting the structural material evidence and documentary, while reducing dependence on confessions that may be the result of effects or coercion”, as well as “strengthening technical and scientific means, the use of fingerprints, genetic analyzes, visual and auditors as major tools To ensure the credibility of the evidence. ”

The prominent legal actor mentioned the need to “ensure absolute transparency by documenting each step of collecting and analyzing evidence, while enabling the defense to review these evidence and appeal it when necessary,” considering that “these measures aim to achieve an accurate balance between the Public Prosecution Authority and the judgment, while protecting the rights of litigants and ensuring the integrity of the judicial process, which enhances confidence in the legal system.”