The approval of the accused militant’s principal to execute the arrest order issued against him are not contradicts with the provisions of the Constitution.

  The Federal Supreme Court during its session dated on 14.10.2019 ruled with no contradictions between the provisions of the clauses (2^nd) and (3^rd) of the article (19) of the military criminal procedure law number (22) for 2016 and the provisions of the articles (19/1^st & 3^rd & 6^th &14) of the Constitution.  

The spokesman of the Court Ayass Al-Samouk said “the Federal Supreme Court convened its session headed by the Judge Madhat Al-Mahmood with the presence of all members. The Court tried a case where the plaintiff litigated the Speaker of the ICR/ being in this capacity, and the President of the Republic/ being in this capacity”.

He added “the Court found that the two articles (2^nd and 3^rd) of article (19) of the military criminal procedure law number (22) for 2016 were enacted to comply with the tasks exercised by the militant in the Iraqi Army, and there aren’t any contradiction between it and the article (14) of the Constitution above-mentioned because the aforementioned constitutional article requires the availability of equality in one case between one component in the community. Therefore, it doesn’t meaning the equality between the militant and the civilian which each one of them belongs to a different component in the tasks commissioned to him”.

He also pointed “besides, the Federal Supreme Court finds after studying the provisions of the constitutional articles above-mentioned, and about the necessities of issuing the military criminal procedure law aforementioned. The article (99) of the Constitution meant reaching the fair investigation and trial against the militant in what related to crimes perpetrated by him during his official duties, and this procedure will provide him the legal guarantees in necessity. This matter requires to return to his principal to evaluate his action, and does he deserve the trial or not after proceeding a fundamental investigation by experts if the principal was abuse. In case of not granting the permission of recruiting or executing the arrestment order or delaying its execution or referring the militant to the specialized Court, the decision will submit to challenge before the administrative judiciary as article (7/4^th) of Council of the State law number (65) for 1979 (amended) by the law (1) for 2017 stipulated. This article provides a sufficient guarantee for the aggrieved if the decision against him was negative in this concern”.

“the Federal Supreme Court decided to reject the case formally for the litigation against the second defendant the President of the Republic/ being in this capacity, the second defendant isn’t the body that enacted the law (challenge subject) of unconstitutionality of some of its articles, and objectively because there are no contradictions between the provisions of the constitutional articles above-mentioned by the plaintiff and the clauses (2^nd & 3^rd) of article (19) of the military criminal procedure law number (22) for 2016”.