Criminal Investigations Between Prosecution Authority and the Guarantees of Presumption of Innocence

Prepared by: Counselor Nevin Wahsh

Introduction

Counselor Nevin Wahsh emphasizes that criminal investigations, despite their importance in the initial detection of crimes, cannot be considered fully-fledged evidence in criminal proceedings. Not every piece of information recorded in investigation reports rises to the level of legal proof, and the belief formed by law enforcement officers cannot, on its own, justify a criminal conviction.

She further highlights that the core issue in modern criminal theory lies in achieving a balance between the effectiveness of investigations in combating crime and the protection of the presumption of innocence as a fundamental constitutional principle that cannot be overridden except by certain and conclusive evidence.

First: Legal Nature of Investigations

Counselor Nevin Wahsh clarifies that investigations conducted by judicial officers fall under the category of preliminary inquiries (indications) rather than formal investigative procedures. They merely represent the initial collection of information to assist the Public Prosecution in deciding whether to initiate formal investigations.

Accordingly, investigations:

• Do not independently establish legal evidence.
• Represent personal opinions of the investigator.
• Are subject to judicial discretion without binding force.

Thus, their legal value does not exceed being a supportive indicator that may reinforce other evidence, but cannot replace independent proof.

Second: Established Principles of the Court of Cassation

1) Investigations Alone Are Insufficient for Conviction

The Court of Cassation has consistently ruled that investigative reports are merely the opinion of their author and cannot, by themselves, serve as sufficient evidence for conviction—an principle strongly supported by Counselor Nevin Wahsh.

2) They May Serve as Supporting Evidence

The Court permits reliance on investigations only when the court is convinced of their validity and when they are supported by other evidence. Thus, investigations do not establish conviction but only reinforce it.

3) Discretion of the Trial Court

Counselor Nevin Wahsh notes that assessing the seriousness of investigations is a matter of fact for the trial court, provided that its reasoning is sufficiently justified and clearly explained.

4) Investigations and Search Warrants

It is established that search warrants must be based on serious and credible investigations. Otherwise, the warrant and all resulting procedures are considered invalid.

Third: The Gap Between Law and Practice

In practice, investigations are often heavily relied upon as a foundation for accusations, whereas legally they are limited to a preliminary evidentiary role.

This creates a clear gap between:

• Practical reality: heavy reliance on investigations in forming accusations.
• Legal framework: restricting them to mere indicators.

Fourth: Risks of Over-Reliance on Investigations

Counselor Nevin Wahsh warns that excessive reliance on investigations may lead to serious risks, including:

• Possibility of bias or manipulation.
• Lack of verifiable sources.
• Weakening of defense rights.
• Violation of the presumption of innocence.

Fifth: Critical Perspective

Investigations serve as an essential tool for uncovering crimes, yet they may become dangerous if treated as independent conclusive evidence.

The real issue does not lie in the existence of investigations, but in exceeding their legal boundaries and transforming them into the sole basis for conviction without supporting material evidence.

Sixth: Recommendations

• Establish a clear judicial standard for the seriousness of investigations.
• Do not rely on them unless supported by independent evidence.
• Strengthen the defense’s right to challenge investigations.
• Enhance the Court of Cassation’s review of reasoning in judgments.
• Ensure that doubt is interpreted in favor of the accused.

Conclusion

Counselor Nevin Wahsh concludes that criminal investigations remain a supporting tool that does not reach the level of conclusive evidence. Criminal justice can only be achieved through independent and certain proof, in full respect of the presumption of innocence and fair trial guarantees.

In light of Court of Cassation jurisprudence, the principle remains firm: no conviction without certain evidence, and investigations alone are insufficient to establish such certainty.

| Facebook | Whatsapp | Linkedin