|
Algeria
Judicial System
The judicial system, in common with other aspects of Algeria's
culture, shares features of its French and Arab traditions. Throughout
the French colonial period, secular courts prevailed as the final
judicial authority, although Islamic sharia courts had jurisdiction
over lower level cases, including civil cases, criminal offenses,
family law, and other personal matters. Secular courts in Algeria
owed their existence to the earlier Turkish administrative control,
however, not French imposition. The French courts replaced the
Turkish courts and, in so doing, modified them to reflect French
principles of justice. The secular courts were authorized to review
sharia court decisions, although for the majority of Algerians,
the sharia court was the final source of judicial authority. Following
independence in 1962, the government promised to create a new
judicial system that would eliminate the French colonial legacy
and reflect more accurately the ideological orientation of the
new state, which was committed both to socialism and the Arab
and Islamic tradition. The revised legal system was not created
until 1975, under Boumediene, when new civil and criminal codes
were announced.
These codes reflected the divergent nature of socialist and traditional
Islamic notions of justice. Family law, personal status (especially
regarding the rights of women), and certain criminal penalties
were divisive issues and many were simply omitted from the new
judicial codes. In the 1980s, Benjedid proposed a family code,
which drew extensive public criticism but was ultimately passed
in 1984.
Judges are appointed by the executive branch, and their appointment
may be challenged only by the High Judicial Council. Judges are
not tenured, although they remain relatively free from political
pressure. The 1976 constitution asserted a judicial responsibility
to uphold the principles of the revolution; this commitment has
lessened in importance, however, as Algeria has moved away from
its socialist origins.
The judicial tradition has stipulated that defendants be fully
aware of the charges against them, that they have free access
to legal counsel, and that they be able to contest a judicial
outcome in a court of appeal. The constitution upholds basic principles
of personal liberty and justice and prohibits the unnecessary
holding of individuals for questioning for longer than forty-eight
hours. Under Benjedid's political liberalization, constitutional
respect for individual freedoms expanded. A number of political
prisoners were released, and the elimination of exit visas and
the legalization of political associations facilitated the exercise
of free speech, movement, and expression.
Individual freedoms were, however, subordinate to military concerns
and issues of national security and have been regularly suspended
under periods of martial law. The military leadership in the early
1990s suspended almost all institutions of state, including those
of the judicial branch. Islamist leaders and other criminal offenders
have been tried by military tribunals and have received heavy
sentences of imprisonment or death. The HCE, as the military presidency,
is an authoritarian government responsible only to itself. Even
at the best of times, the executive is not subordinate to the
judicial branch, the president serving as head of the High Judicial
Council. In the early 1990s, however, cases arising out of the
state of emergency as opposed to ordinary civil or criminal cases
have been assigned to the military tribunals.
Data as of December 1993
|
