THE TITLE GOES HERE WITH EACH INITIAL LETTER CAPITALIZED

Abstract

The Libyan legislator, in accordance with Article 394 of the Criminal Procedure law, has adopted the theory of justified punishment, according to which the Supreme Court (the court of cassation) is required to correct a judgment and exclude the cassation, despite the suspicion of mistake in applying the law, whenever the penalty imposed was identical to the penalty that should have been imposed, had the error not occurred, because there is no interest in the appeal, and there is no doubt that the provision of this article raises a legal problem, as it addresses a controversial issue related to the balance between the right to appeal and the speed of ruling the case on the one hand, and the reconciliation between the susceptibility of the judgment that is in violation of the law, and the availability of interest on the other hand. If the principle is that every mistake in law application opens the door to appeal. Is the theory of justified punishment an exception? And if the motive behind adopting this concept is to give priority to practical considerations for quickly adjudicated case, does this consideration prevail over the right of the accused to appeal, as well as his interest in a judgment that is consistent with the correct law application? Our research has concluded with the necessity of amending the aforementioned article, so that its application is limited to the case of a material mistake in citing the text, without extending this to cases of error in the law.