ضمانات المتهم في مرحلة التحري في التشريعين السوداني الاردني

Abstract

Abstract The Defendants Guarantees in The Process ofInvestigation (primary Investigation) in both Sudanese and Jordanian Legisltaions. (A Comparative Study) This study dealt with the defendants guarantees in the primary investigation stage in the Jordanian and the Sudanese legislations - comparative study. This is one of the most important stages of the lawsuit in which pieces of evidence are collected to prove the charges or discover innocence. It is uncertain stage which receives a great attention when the legislation is amended. The study also aims at mentioning the general principle of respecting the defendants guarantees during this stage and including these guarantees in both legislations in an attempt to emphasize the strong and ~eak points in both legislations when they deal with the proceedings. It also aims at knowing the guarantees which are preserved by Sudanese and Jordanian legislations for the defendants in the investigation stage. This can be done through exploring the legal texts included in the criminal and procedure laws in both countries. In this study the researcher followed the descriptive, analytical, and comparative approach. The results of the study were as follows: The defendants guarantees in a lawsuit is considered one of the subjects which is closely related to man's rights and freedom which were protected by legislations through universal declarations and international agreements. They are also activated through considerations and legislations so that the members of the society know their guarantees during that stage. - Both legislators gave authorities to several unspecialized bodies which led to the violation of people's rights and freedom. - Both legislations combine the authorities of investigation and charging which make the detective an enemy and the enemy can not be afair detective.Both Sudanese and Jordanian legislators do not take into account the importance of the lawyer in defending his clients and the way he does that, the shortcoming in some procedures for listening to the witnesses and organizing experience and inspection procedures. The two legislations do not take into account the suspension period as part of the punishment and they do not compensate the defendent if it is proved that he is innocent. They also do not recognize the failure theories which make the guarantees appropriate and they do not organize rules of recording in detailed and clear way. They also do not take into account the absolute secrecy which is adopted by the Sudanese legislation. The researcher suggested a number of recommendations of which the most important ones are: - Activating the role of the Attorney General from the practical side and it should not be limited to supervision. - Adopting separation of both authorities investigation and charging. - Declaring that the defendant has the right of having a lawyer form the moment of his arrest and ending the lawsuit. - Focusing on the way of listening to witnesses and the defendants rights to seek help from an expert consultant. Deducting the suspension period from the punishment if the defendant IS charged and compensating him if he is innocent. - The continuous modernization of both legislations to make them keep abreast of the latest development in modern societies. - Working on the documentation of laws and legislative sentences through the Internet and other means in order to secure information for researchers to conduct future research. I - Encouraging researchers to conduct comparative studies between foreign and Arab legislations which may fill the gap in legislation and their modernization.