Dr. Ashraf Mohammed Samhan
Assistant Professor – Criminal Law – Faculty of Sharia and Law – University of Al Jouf – KSA

Abstract:

This research deals with essential problems which are raised by the logical system of adjustment of crime and its relationship with the efficiency of the required evidence for the accusation, one of which is: what is meant by the accused? Is it the one who is accused by the required evidence? or he is the one who is officially charged ? And what is the relationship of the accused with the adjustment of crime? and is the division of the adjustment into two kinds (true and charitable) a formal division only with no effects ? or there are differences between them in the accusation ,and is the adjustment case occurs by the outer appearance of the adjustment of the crime (if there is no doubt),and if the adjustment is conditioned by the outer appearance to indicate the crime? And does this mean to total removal of the witnesses of the committed crime? And does the certainty of the adjustment means the certainty of the actual events? Or it means the certainty of the adjuster with one of his senses? And is it possible to set an objective criterion to determine the short time for adjustment or its accessories and tools with the accused?
At the end the research comes out with many results: First is that: the actual adjustment although it is restricted on the investigation on the adjusted crime only this does not mean you cannot investigate on another crime you have been adjusted with during the procedure of the first crime. Also it is not conditioned for the adjustment to see the actual crime in front of the adjuster, but it is considered by the outer appearance of the adjustment of the crime. And also: the personal witness of the outer appearance differs according to the kind of adjustment and whether it is true or charitable.
In addition: conditioning the efficient evidence for arresting with the adjustment of the crime as a proof of the adjustment is not enough evidence of the efficient evidence for the accusation: because the link between them is not absolute, and also if the case is the same as in the two kinds of adjustment and if you look at the charitable adjustment, it is conditioned by the adjusting of the accused himself not only the crime ,and it is also that the adjustment as a case does not allow to take any investigating procedure on anyone, except the one who is proofed.
Finally and in spite of the code: (56/1)from the penalty procedure law (Kuwait law) does not conditioned the efficient evidence of the accusation, but we can understand what is meant by who is described in the code by the word (accused) for who is adjusted of the crime because we cannot call him accused unless we have the sufficient evidence for this accusation.

Read Full PDF Text (Arabic)