"Constitutionality" : The right to incubator to keep the custody house ends with the young, the mandatory nursery age
The Supreme Constitutional Court headed by Counselor Paul Fahmy Iskandar- President of the Court established two new principles regarding the legal rules of the custody housing, and the implementation of the reactionary impact of its rulings in criminal material The mandatory. For the year 1929, adding by Law No. 100 of 1985, it leads: that the absolute commitment to preparing the custody housing expires to reach the small or small age of mandatory custody, and the consequent right of the absolute husband to recover the custody housing and benefit from it, if he has the right starting with the preservation of it. It receives from the foregoing that the judge may authorize the incubator, after the end of the mandatory period of the nursery, by keeping the young or small in its care if it turns out that their interest requires that, as what the judge authorizes this way is not an extension of the mandatory custody period, but rather to the period of conflict, the incubator provides its services donated With it. The absolute authentic operative that is created by Article (195) of the Constitution and Article (49) of the law of this court, on its rulings, in the face of all and for the state with its various powers, so that these powers are committed to & ndash; Including the judicial authorities of its difference & ndash; With respect for its judiciary and its implementation in the right way, and since the appellate ruling may confront this interpretation and destroy it, it is considered an obstacle to implementing the rulings of the Supreme Constitutional Court in which they are disputed, which must not be accustomed to it, and the continued implementation of the two rulings of the aforementioned constitutional court mentioned.
& nbsp; Criminal, conditional on its application in the verbal conviction ruling. In the reasons for its ruling, the court said that the entrepreneurship of the ruling of the last paragraph of Article (49) of the law of this court referred to, that the criminal text stipulated that its unconstitutionality has resulted in the condemnation of the convict, or led to his conviction for any & nbsp, a copy, that in cases where the criminal text is stipulated that it is unconstitutional from among the accusations of the accusations, which was not applied by the ruling of condemnation, or if the one act is multiple crimes, and not multiple crimes, The penalty for the text that is not constitutional is the most severe, or in which the text is outside & ndash; College & ndash; The pillars of criminalization or penalties of all kinds, prescribed for the crime to which the conviction is supported, or the association grows & ndash; Absolutely & ndash; Between that text and the evidence of evidence on which the ruling on condemnation is dependent on, in any of these cases, the link between the verdict of condemnation and the text stipulated that its unconstitutionality becomes an outbreak.
