The College of Law at the University of Baghdad Discusses a Dissertation Entitled:
“Reality and Law in Cassation Appeals within the Scope of Criminal Proceedings”
On Thursday, September 11, 2025, the College of Law at the University of Baghdad discussed the doctoral dissertation titled:
“Reality and Law in Cassation Appeals within the Scope of Criminal Proceedings”,
submitted by the PhD candidate Adnan Hamid Musa, from the Department of Criminal Law. The discussion took place in the Model Court Hall at the college.
The Examination Committee Consisted of:
Prof. Dr. Nawal Tariq Ibrahim – Chairman
Prof. Dr. Ismail Ne’ma Aboud – Member
Prof. Dr. Alaa Nasser Hussein – Member
Asst. Prof. Dr. Qa’id Hadi Dahash – Member
Asst. Prof. Dr. Samer Sa’doun Aboud – Member
Prof. Dr. Kazem Abdullah Al-Shammari – Member and Supervisor
Dissertation Objective:
The dissertation aims to establish a clear and precise standard to distinguish between “reality” and “law” within the scope of criminal proceedings, and to define the extent of the Court of Cassation’s oversight regarding the trial judge’s evaluation of factual and legal matters.
Structure of the Dissertation:
The dissertation is divided into four chapters:
Chapter One: The nature of reality and law in criminal proceedings, and the criteria for distinguishing factual issues from legal issues.
Chapter Two: The scope of the Court of Cassation’s review over legal errors.
Chapter Three: The Court of Cassation’s oversight of factual errors.
Chapter Four: Judicial logic and the review of its application.
Key Recommendations:
The need to adopt a legislative policy that clearly defines the jurisdiction of the trial court and the scope of the Court of Cassation’s oversight.
A proposed amendment to Article 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, suggesting that the phrase:
“The appellant shall not be harmed by their appeal, unless the judgment is based on a violation of the law,”
be revised to remove the latter part. The recommendation is to keep only:
“The appellant shall not be harmed by their appeal,”
as the current wording contradicts a well-established principle of litigation.
A recommendation to explicitly grant the Court of Cassation the authority to correct material (clerical) errors in challenged rulings, without the need to remand the case back to the trial court for correction.
