المسؤولية الجزائية لعضو مجلس النواب عن جرائم القذف والسب في التشريع العراقي : دراسة مقارنة == The Criminal Responsibilities of a Parliament Member for Defamation and Insults in the Iraqi Laws A comparative study
Author name:
هناء عبد الجواد علوان
Supervisor name:
هدى هاتف مظهر الزبيدي
General topic:
Law
Specific topic:
Constitutional Law
Degree:
Master
University:
University Of Basrah - College Of Law And Politics - Department Of Public Law
Language:
Arabic
University location:
Basrah
First pages:
13T1635 - p.pdf
Abstract:
Studying the subject of the criminal responsibilities of the Parliament Member (P.M.) about the crimes of defamation and insults is of great importance as the (P.M.) is regarded as a representative of the people and expresses their wishes and desires in addition to the other tasks ; something like enacting laws ,oversight over the works of other authorities . He has other responsibilities entrusted to him according to the law. The (P.M.) enjoys many privileges. One of these is the parliament immunity, which turns his criminal responsibilities differ fromthose of ordinary people particularly those which are related to crimes of defamation and insults. Enjoying the substantive immunity prevents the ability to make him accountable for his speeches that include defamation and insults. Also enjoying the procedural immunity hinders taking any criminal procedures against him.Via our study we have come up with the following results ; the most important are : As the (P.M.) enjoys substantive immunity , he is not questioned about his opinions that contain defamation and insults in the limits that the Constitution explains , that is, the opinions given should be within the parliamentary work and because of it and his opinions during holding the parliamentary sessions - in the Parliament or in the parliament committees. The person who shares with him the crime of defamation and insult cannot make use of this immunity as it is personal immunitythat can take effect on the (P.M.) only .The media and media men cannot make use of this immunity, either. They are protected by their own special laws.As for the criminal responsibility for the crimes of defamation and insults in the field of procedural immunity, it does not protect him from investigating his responsibility for the crime, but it prevents the authority from taking any criminal procedures that may touch or harm his freedom during enjoying his being a member of the Parliament, because such crimes are looked upon as a misdemeanor , which theConstitution does not permit any procedures to take effect on the (P.M.), if he commits it whether it is witnessed or not ; and a procedure can be taken after his membership ends.Through our study of this subject, we have got the following recommendations : We recommend the legislature to amend the Iraqi constitution and rules of procedure of the Iraqi Parliament making the possibility of taking punitive action against the PM in the case of committing attested misdemeanor crimes because of the possibility of the malicious prospect in remarkable crimes. And also the legislature is recommended to make the possibility of asking for permission to take punitive action against P.M. who commits a misdemeanor which is unattested.We recommend legislature to organize the issue an authorization request to take punitive measures in the case of a member of the House of Representatives has committed an unattested felony, and determine a period of thirty days to decide on the application, otherwise request is deemed acceptable. We recommend legislature to consider membership status as an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of more severe punishment against the P.M.. Besides, we call for an exception to opinions contained the meaning of insults from views covered by immunity to the lack of justification for the coverage of immunity.We call on the legislature to amend the rules of procedure of the Iraqi Parliament, including determining the spatial scale of the objective immunity more specific and clearer providing for inclusion of the spatial scale of the objective immunity, wherever the P.M. practices duties and missions, so as to cover the Parliament and a place where committees held, even when held outside the dome of Parliament as well as any place where the P.M. exercises his/her duties. This in order to grant a P.M. a wide range of practicing to his/her duty without fear of being held accountable as a result of his views made by the occasion of performing their work outside the Parliament.
