The article examines the Moroccan Supreme Council through the comparative concept of cassation, understood as review of the legal correctness of judgments rather than a re‑trial of facts. It outlines leading comparative models, especially the French tradition, and contrasts them with other arrangements that differ in grounds of review and the effects of cassation decisions. Against this background, the author analyzes the Moroccan configuration and its implications for predictability, unity of jurisprudence, and the distribution of functions between higher and lower courts. The paper argues that clear grounds for cassation and consistent reasoning are necessary to protect legal certainty while correcting serious errors of law.
Mohamed Al Kachbour (Fri,) studied this question.