In order to preserve rights and achieve balance between the parties to the criminal dispute, the phenomenon of arbitrariness in the use of the procedural right in general and the use of the criminal procedural right in particular has taken up a large part of the attention of legislation, the judiciary and jurisprudence, because neglecting this phenomenon, the facts of which have emerged on the scene of application, is considered a violation of the principle of the rule of law and correct conduct. It is also considered a loophole that allows the law to be violated under the guise of exercising the procedural right in accordance with the law without actually adhering to the purpose of legislating the law, as the court refuses to hear testimony denying the charge under the pretext of its futility, removing the accused from the trial session or handcuffing him during the trial without significant risk, or the court replacing itself with The expert in a purely technical matter and other cases whose emergence has been proven by practical reality are all considered arbitrariness in which the person conducting the criminal procedure exploits his legal powers to harm justice and violate the purpose of procedural legislation using methods of procrastination, distortion, and procrastination.
Al-Dulaimi et al. (Fri,) studied this question.