Evaluating the Peace Institution in Judicial Procedure of Iraqi Criminal Courts in the Light of Restorative Justice Principles

Objectives: The objective of this research is to analyze the performance of Iraqi criminal courts in relation to the principles of restorative justice, focusing on key principles such as discretion and consent, confidentiality and non-publicity, invalidity of statements, and judicial supervision. The study seeks to assess how these principles are integrated into the procedures of Iraqi criminal courts by reviewing Iraqi criminal procedure laws, examining court cases, and conducting interviews with judges, lawyers, and jurists in Iraq. Methods: To achieve the research objectives, the study utilized a comprehensive approach, analyzing Iraqi criminal procedure laws and reviewing relevant cases from criminal courts in Iraq. Additionally, qualitative data was gathered through interviews with judges, lawyers, and jurists to gain insights into the practical application of restorative justice principles in the country's judicial system. This combination of legal analysis and expert interviews provided a thorough understanding of the subject. Results: The study found that the procedures of Iraqi criminal courts align fully with the principle of consent and discretion. However, the principle of secrecy and non-publicity is inconsistently applied, with some courts adhering to this principle and others not. In cases where court hearings are supposed to be closed to the public, the sentences are often announced publicly, which undermines the principle. The Iraqi criminal laws are largely in harmony with the principle of invalidity of statements, particularly in restorative procedures, where confessions made during restorative proceedings are treated as non-judicial and cannot be used against the accused. Article 129 of the Iraqi Criminal Procedure Law supports this by ensuring that confessions made in an agreement between the accused and the investigator cannot be used against the accused. However, if an agreement is not reached or if the information provided is false or incomplete, the statements made by the accused can be used against him, which contradicts the principle of invalidity of statements in restorative justice. Lastly, the principle of judicial supervision is incorporated into the Iraqi legal system through Articles 194 to 198 of the Iraqi Criminal Procedure Code, specifying the necessary conditions for accepting peace and compromise. Conclusion: The research concludes that while Iraqi criminal courts largely uphold several restorative justice principles, there are inconsistencies, particularly regarding the implementation of secrecy and non-publicity. Additionally, the use of statements made by the accused in certain circumstances does not fully align with the principle of invalidity of statements in restorative justice. Nevertheless, the Iraqi Criminal Procedure Law provides a strong foundation for restorative practices, especially through judicial supervision and the non-judicial nature of confessions made during restorative proceedings. For further alignment with restorative justice, improvements in the application of confidentiality and a more consistent approach to the invalidity of statements could be beneficial.