PROCEDURAL RULES BETWEEN THE PHILOSOPHY OF LEGISLATION AND THE REALITY OF APPLICATION: A CRITICAL ANALYTICAL STUDY OF THE BOOK “PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE” BY DR. BARAA MUNTHER ABDUL LATIF. A REVIEW ARTICLE
Downloads
Objective: The significance of the work lies in the fact that, unlike the majority of other works, Principles of Criminal Procedure, written by Professor Dr. Baraa Munther Kamal, boldly rethinks the criminal procedure in the light of the following obvious truth: the effectiveness of law depends on the effectiveness of the protection of constitutional rights. The author considers criminal procedure as the existential core that underpins the rule of law and explains the criminal litigation process through two key considerations: the right of the state to punish and the sacred right of the accused under the presumption of innocence. Method: In the book, the author does not simply list the relevant legal provisions as in most legal texts. Instead, he plunges into the philosophy of criminal procedure and uses the power of narration combined with analytical explanation. The study also incorporates the latest trends of the Federal Court of Cassation to bridge the gap between theory and practice. Results: The work transforms criminal procedure analysis into a practical guide rather than a text based solely on rigid legal wording. By integrating judicial trends and philosophical interpretation, the book explains procedural stages while maintaining a balance between state authority and the protection of constitutional rights of the accused. Novelty: Unlike conventional works, the book boldly rethinks traditional concepts such as detention, search, interrogation, and the nullity of procedural acts in light of international fair trial standards and the provisions of the current constitution. Consequently, the book emerges as a methodologically strong and qualitatively significant reference in contemporary criminal procedural policy.
L. L. Sample, “An Examination of the Degree to Which Sex Offenders Kill,” Crim. Justice Rev., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 230–250, Sep. 2006, doi: 10.1177/0734016806292929.
J. Das Joya and K. A. Mannan, “Procedural Justice and Human Rights: An Evaluation of Arrest and Detention Provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in Bangladesh,” Nov. 2025, doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7995097/v1.
P. James, “Wellbeing at work: an issue whose legislative time has come?,” Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 5–18, Jan. 2003, doi: 10.1080/14774003.2003.11667634.
L. Determann, “Praise for previous editions,” in Determann’s Field Guide to Data Privacy Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2025. doi: 10.4337/9781035336265.00019.
M. S. SPIRIDONOV, “PROCEDURAL LIABILITY IN CRIMINAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS: INTEGRATION PROSPECTS,” The rule-of-law state theory and practice, no. 1(79), pp. 195–204, 2025, doi: 10.33184/pravgos-2025.1.21.
Dr. R. Banerjee, “EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS INTERLINKAGE: A BOOK REVIEW ON INCENTIVES,” in PERSPECTIVES ON EDUCATION, SOCIETY, AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: AN INTEGRATED APPROACH, REDSHINE PUBLICATION, 2020. doi: 10.25215/9141001990.22.
J. Penner and J. E. Penner, “Working with a Body of Rules: On the Nature of Doctrinal Legal Disagreement in Judge-Made Law,” in New Essays on the Nature of Legal Reasoning, Hart Publishing, 2022. doi: 10.5040/9781509937684.ch-009.
K. Takahashi, “The issues which may be determined inconsistently if the contribution claim is tried independently of the original claim and the ways in which inconsistent determinations arise,” in Claims for Contribution and Reimbursement in an International Context, Oxford University PressOxford, 2000, pp. 91–97. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780198268963.003.0004.
N. Andrews, “Arbitral Awards and Errors of English Law: Refining The Law Making Function of The Judicial Appeal System,” in The Culture of Judicial Independence, Brill | Nijhoff, 2014, pp. 340–362. doi: 10.1163/9789004257818_024.
M. Ghins, “Defending Scientific Realism Without Relying on Inference to the Best Explanation,” Axiomathes, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 635–651, Aug. 2017, doi: 10.1007/s10516-017-9356-0.
H. Thakur, “Nullity in the void — Application of the Code of Civil Procedure to enforcement of Awards under the Arbitration Act,” Dec. 2024, doi: 10.31235/osf.io/58xdu.
A. GHAMBARYAN, “ՕՐԵՆՔՈՎ ՍԱՀՄԱՆՎԱԾ ԿԱՐԳՈՎ ՁԵՌՔ ԲԵՐՎԱԾ ԱՊԱՑՈՒՅՑՆԵՐԻ ՕԳՏԱԳՈՐԾՄԱՆ ԱՐԳԵԼՔՆԵՐԸ / PROHIBITIONS ON THE USE OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW,” Scientific Artsakh, pp. 12–24, 2025, doi: 10.52063/25792652-2024.4.23-12.
D. Enoch, “IN DEFENSE OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS (OR ANYWAY, PROCEDURAL DUTIES): A RESPONSE TO WELLMAN,” Legal Theory, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 40–49, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.1017/s135232521800006x.
K. Salim and Dr. M. Abdulkarim, “The Effectiveness of Procedural Rules in Ensuring Judicial Security in the Stage of Preliminary Investigation (Analytical study),” Journal of Legal and Political Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 142–163, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.17656/jlps.10369.
S. A. Arnold, “Measuring juvenile justice and community youths’ perceptions of their false confession risks during police questioning: Psychometric properties and factor structure of the Perceptions of Coercion during the Holding and Interrogation Process (P-CHIP) Instrument.,” Wesleyan University. doi: 10.14418/wes01.1.1756.
Copyright (c) 2026 Sameera Ghasi Ajel , Assist. Lect. Osama Sattam Hamoud
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
