Integrity courts: the cases they hear and the limits of their jurisdiction
People search for "the integrity court in Baghdad" and "the investigative court for integrity cases" as if it were one court with its own law. In fact, integrity cases are heard by investigative, felony and misdemeanour courts that are ordinary in structure, but the Supreme Judicial Council has designated some of them for these cases. The office of lawyer Ali Barakat in Baghdad sets out what these courts hear and how the Federal Court of Cassation has drawn the limits of their jurisdiction.
Designated courts, not courts under a separate law
The Integrity Commission and Illicit Gain Law does not create a special court. It defines a "corruption case" in the first article and leaves investigation to the competent investigative judge and trial to the criminal courts under the Criminal Procedure Law. Designation is made by judicial organisational decisions. This appears in Federal Court of Cassation decisions referring to "the Hilla investigative court for integrity cases" and "the Nineveh felony court, third panel, for integrity cases".
The central anti-corruption felony court
The Supreme Judicial Council announced on 16/10/2019 its approval of a "central anti-corruption felony court" within the Baghdad/Karkh appeal presidency, under article 29, second paragraph, of the Judicial Organisation Law. The official announcement stated:
- Jurisdiction: major corruption cases, cases against accused persons holding important posts in all authorities and state institutions, and anyone connected with those cases in any capacity.
- Selection of cases: by the public prosecution presidency after consultation with the Integrity Commission and in coordination with the court.
- Investigation: by senior investigative judges of the investigative court for integrity cases in the Baghdad/Rusafa and Karkh appeal courts, for offences committed in Baghdad and the other provinces.
- Reason for formation: the announcement said one cause of the problem was that the Commission and the designated courts were occupied with many minor cases fitting the definition of a corruption case, at the expense of major cases with a clear effect on the national economy.
The limit drawn by the Federal Court of Cassation
First decision (11/enlarged criminal panel/2020): the enlarged criminal panel was asked to resolve a negative conflict between an ordinary investigative court and an investigative court for integrity cases, in a complaint against a private company contracted by a state bank to supply livestock that did not meet specifications. The court decided that the act did not fall within the concept of financial and administrative corruption in the first article of the Integrity Commission Law, so it lay outside the integrity court's jurisdiction and within that of the ordinary investigative court.
Second decision (same date): in a case where the accused were referred under article 340 of the Penal Code, the court decided that the first article of the Commission's law covers that article, so subject-matter jurisdiction lay with the felony panel for integrity cases rather than the ordinary first panel.
The test is the same in both: the legal description of the act and whether it falls within the list in the first article, not the status of the parties alone.
Which offences fall within jurisdiction?
The first article of the Commission's law, as amended in 2019, defines corruption cases as theft of state funds, bribery, embezzlement, illicit gain and officials exceeding the limits of their posts under Penal Code articles 328 to 331, 334 to 336, 338, 340 and 341, and adds corruption and breach of trust in the organisations and unions it names, private-sector bribery in dealings connected with the public sector, and bribery of foreign officials.
From investigation to judgment
Article 134 of the Criminal Procedure Law refers an accused in a felony to the felony court and in a misdemeanour to the misdemeanour court. Article 249 allows the public prosecution, the accused, the complainant and the civil claimant to challenge judgments of the misdemeanour and felony courts in cassation. Article 14 of the Commission's law gives the Commission the right to challenge judgments and decisions in corruption cases. The route before trial is on the investigation route in integrity cases.
Legal basis and sources
- Supreme Judicial Council, announcement of the central anti-corruption felony court, 16/10/2019
- Federal Court of Cassation, decision 11/enlarged criminal panel/2020 of 27/1/2020
- Federal Court of Cassation, enlarged criminal panel decision of 27/1/2020 on article 340 of the Penal Code
- Integrity Commission Law No. 30 of 2011 as amended, articles 1 and 14 (Official Gazette, issue 4217 of 14/11/2011)
- Criminal Procedure Law No. 23 of 1971, articles 134, 249 and 265 (Official Gazette, issue 2004 of 31/5/1971)
- Federal Court of Cassation, enlarged criminal panel decision on article 340
Frequently asked questions
Does the integrity court have its own law?
No. These are investigative, felony and misdemeanour courts designated by the Supreme Judicial Council, working under the Criminal Procedure Law.
My case was sent to the integrity court but the act has nothing to do with corruption. What happens?
The Federal Court of Cassation decided that an act outside the first article lies outside the integrity court's jurisdiction. See integrity cases versus ordinary complaints.
Can these courts' judgments be challenged?
Yes, in cassation under the Criminal Procedure Law, as explained on challenging procedures in integrity cases.
Related topics and articles
- 01The investigation route in integrity cases: the Commission, the investigative judge and the public prosecutionHow corruption cases are investigated: Integrity Commission investigators under the investigative judge's supervision, the priority of the Commission's jurisdiction, notice to its legal department, requests to take over a case, and the judge's decisions after investigation, under the Commission's law and the Criminal Procedure Law.
- 02Integrity cases versus ordinary criminal complaintsA comparison between a corruption case investigated by the Integrity Commission and an ordinary criminal complaint: the offences, who starts the case, the complaint deadline, the investigating body, the effect of withdrawal and the competent court, under the Commission's law and the Criminal Procedure Law.
- 03Challenging procedures and decisions in integrity casesRoutes of challenge in corruption cases: cassation against investigative judge decisions before the felony court within thirty days, challenges to judgments before the Federal Court of Cassation, what cannot be challenged separately, and the Integrity Commission's right to challenge and to recall shelved reports.
- 04The Federal Integrity Commission: mandate, structure and limitsThe eight duties of the Federal Integrity Commission in article 3 of Iraq's Integrity Commission and Illicit Gain Law No. 30 of 2011 as amended, its head, deputies and departments, oversight by the Council of Representatives, and the limits on its work inside ministries.
- 05Illicit gain in Iraqi law: definition, proof and penaltyThe definition of illicit gain in the seventh paragraph of article 1 of Iraq's Integrity Commission and Illicit Gain Law No. 30 of 2011 as amended, when a file opens, the ninety days to prove sources, and the penalties and return of value in article 19.