First of all, the report emphasizes the special interest of the Presidency of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in cooperation and coordination in legislative matters, especially in the current context characterized by the launching of a process of revision of several laws related to the judicial field, which regulate the intervention of the Public Ministry in both the civil and criminal fields, in application of the constitutional principle of the independence of the judiciary.
Given the important prerogatives devolved to the Ministry of Justice in terms of legislative initiative in the judicial field, especially in law enforcement, and given that the law has invested the Presidency of the Public Prosecutor’s Office with the mission of overseeing the implementation of criminal policy, the year 2021 was marked by the consolidation of fruitful cooperation between the Presidency and the Ministry of Justice in this area, said the report, noting the receipt of several draft laws for advice and improvement.
The report cites, in this regard, the draft law No. 01.18 amending and supplementing the law on criminal procedure, which is at the heart of the missions entrusted to the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the fight against crime and protection of individual and collective rights, through the management of complaints and minutes, the enforcement of criminal decisions, the practice of cassation appeals and the consecration of cooperation with various stakeholders in the field of justice, nationally and internationally.
It also concerns, adds the same source, the draft law No. 20.61 on the protection of public officials whistleblowers, the draft law No. 19-21 on the organization and management of prisons, the draft law No. 27-21 on the digitization of legal proceedings, and the draft law No. 27-21 on the organization of the occupation of bailiff.
In fulfillment of the constitutional principle of separation, balance and collaboration of powers, the Organic Law on the Supreme Council of the Judiciary Power has established channels of institutional communication between the party in charge of developing criminal policy (Parliament) and the party responsible for its execution (Presidency of the Public Prosecutor’s Office), the same document notes.
Article 110 of the above-mentioned organic law stipulates that the Council receives reports on the state of justice and the judicial system, including the report from the King’s Attorney General at the Court of Cassation, in his capacity as head of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, on the implementation of criminal policy and the functioning of the Public Prosecutor’s Office before its presentation and discussion before the two committees in charge of legislation in the two Houses of Parliament.
The annual report on the implementation must contain conclusions and recommendations so that the legislative institution can be aware of the results, discuss them and, subsequently, take them into consideration when drafting and amending legislation, with a view to achieving efficiency and harmony between the legislative choices and the requirements of judicial practice.
In this context, the document reports, during the year 2021, a positive interaction of the House of Representatives with the reports of the Presidency of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, stating that the Committee on Justice, Legislation and Human Rights of this House began, from December 29, 2020, the discussion of reports on the years 2017, 2018 and 2019.
This debate has resulted in a report with three axes, the first of which is the independence of the judiciary and the methodology of reports discussion, while the second axis relates to the execution of criminal policy and the third concerns various issues, says the same source, noting that this report was forwarded to the Presidency of the Public Ministry on September 23, 2021.
For its part, the Committee on Justice, Legislation and Human Rights in the House of Councillors has launched, December 20, 2021, a first discussion of the report of the Presidency of the Public Prosecutor’s Office for the year 2020.
The report of the committee sent to the presidency includes a number of recommendations, many of which are in line with its strategic guidelines for the proper implementation of the law, such as the call for the organization of inspection visits to places of detention, the positive interaction with the reports of the Court of Auditors regarding financial corruption, the rationalization of pre-trial detention and the consecration of the exceptional nature of the marriage of minors, it explains.
Regarding the judicial inspection, the report notes that despite the structural changes that have occurred in the judiciary, it is still governed by Articles 13 to 21 of the law establishing the judicial organization of the Kingdom of 1974, which is rendered obsolete by the current situation of the judiciary, whose independence has been enshrined in the Constitution of 2011 and the two organic laws relating to the Supreme Council of the Judiciary Power, the Statute of Magistrates and Law No. 33. 17 relating to the transfer of the attributions of the governmental authority in charge of Justice to the General Prosecutor of the King at the Court of Cassation in his capacity as President of the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
It should be noted that the aforementioned articles of the law establishing the judicial organization of the Kingdom assigned to the General Inspectorate of the Ministry of Justice several missions, including the inspection of magistrates and courts and the preparation of reports on the actions taken, which are forwarded to the Minister of Justice so that he can take the necessary action.
However, these powers have been transferred to the Supreme Council of the Judiciary Power, in accordance with Article 113 of the Constitution and the provisions of the Organic Law on this Council, the report notes, adding that the powers exercised by the Minister of Justice over the Public Prosecutor’s Office have also been transferred to the King’s Attorney General at the Court of Cassation in his capacity as President of the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
Although the first version of the draft law on the General Inspectorate of Judicial Affairs did not give the President of the Public Prosecutor’s Office specific powers of inspection and investigation – a shortcoming that the report of the President of the Public Prosecutor’s Office called for to be remedied – the effective coordination between the Ministry of Justice and the components of the Judiciary has nonetheless made it possible to satisfy the observations made by the President, the report notes.
Thus, under Law No. 38.21 on the General Inspectorate of Judicial Affairs, the Presidency of the Public Prosecutor’s Office is now associated with the development of the inspection program of the prosecution and magistrates, explains the same source, specifying that the inspection program of the courts of first and second degree is now prepared in coordination with the President of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, who may, however, request an emergency inspection outside the agreed program.
