Human Right of the Natural Recourse to the Adjudication Between the Constitutional and Criminal Texts

Abstract

Abstract: The human rights enjoyed a considerable significance in both the international covenants and national constitutions. Including the human right of the natural recourse to the adjudication or judiciary. Which is considered one of the basic principles in the criminal law, because it contains the guarantee of the just trial of each accused in front of the competent judge. Besides the availability of all the legal guarantees ratified by the constitution and law. In order for the competent judiciary to be natural, many elements must be satisfied, in front of which the establishment of the court, and the determination of its competence and jurisdictions, before the crime is committed according to a law. And this court should be permanent, with sufficient guarantees for the independence and neutrality of the judiciary towards both the legislative and executive authorities. In order to preclude any form of subordination or tendency to any external. It is worth-noting that the constitutions and national criminal laws in Iraq and Egypt adopted a varied attitude in ratifying this right expressly, in spite of their emphasis in institutionalizing the deep-rooted guarantees, which realize a just trial or adjudication, when the accused appears in front of the court. Considering that there are many forms of the violation of the human right of the recourse to the natural adjudication, represented by the establishment of the special and extraordinary courts, devoid of the simplest ingredients of justice and independence, which constitute a blatant violation of the human right of the recourse to the natural adjudication.