إصلاح قضاء التحقيق في المغرب: منظور مقارن

Abstract

Since its birth and evolution into its current form in France, and after moving to many countries around the world, the investigating judiciary has been a qualitative addition to the criminal trial, before losing its glamour due to the structural problems that accompanied its birth, as well as others that quickly highlighted its weaknesses and shortcomings.
In this article, the author highlights the institution of the investigating judge, examining the compatibility of his functions with the principle of separation of judicial functions, then focusing on the nature of his relationship with the Public Prosecutor’s Office, before outlining the options for renewing this institution, so that it contributes effectively to meeting the requirements of a fair trial.
To this end, the author has adopted an analytical and comparative approach, analyzing the texts of the code of criminal procedure and comparing them with other legislation in order to identify the approaches to reform adopted concerning the institution of the investigating judge.
This research has led to a number of results, the most important of which is that the investigating judge has taken on a number of incoherent qualities and functions, often in contradiction with the principle of impartiality. In addition, procedural changes have contributed to the marginalization of this institution, and consequently to the expansion of the intervention of the public prosecutor, which has impacted on the necessary balance between judicial institutions. For this reason, the author proposes to transform the pre-trial phase into a unilateral phase, retaining the institution of the investigating judge, but with purely judicial functions.