الحصانة القضائية الجزائية للرئيس الدولة.

Abstract

To date, internal legal systems lean on the immunity against penal code according to a balanced principle of duties, on the one hand preserving the Presidents' responsibilities by setting up the immunity ration materiae and to ensure that perpetrators did not go unpunished without affecting procedural immunity in the other side, especially implemented in parliamentary republics. This one is confronted with jurisprudence's limits to face penal legal immunity of head of states. This legal protection concerns significantly the presidential office internationally, depending on customary international law and that would block foreign legal authorities. About this matter, the Presidents' jurisdictional immunity is consistent with the constitutional rule granted in the context of international law, seems to become a legal way that induces the head of state to escape criminal responsibility before any domestic or foreign legal authority, even though it does commit the most extreme and serious crimes which doesn’t fit with the international legal system. Since the end of the First World War and along the same lines as a result, there have been major changes in judicial practice with the recognition of Presidents’ international penal responsibility as the main principle, which requires to reconsider the reorganization of the legal immunity’s scope, depending on customary foreign law rules. In fact, today legal diplomatic practice is becoming formalized at the international level, legal immunity field is spread within judicial issues that impose confrontation between two aspects, diplomatic and legal from one side to the other. The diplomatic one ensures Presidents’ full and absolute immunity principle and the legal aspect is based on the idea of ensuring that heads of states didn’t go unpunished. In this regard, there is a dispute approach between the two immunity forms. The first one is '' international law Standards-compliant '' by activating the immunity and the second form is distinguished by the judicial authorities’ inefficiency whether they are, local or foreign ones to face immunity’s effects of heads of states, in what results the establishment of legal practice contradictorily with the non-punishing principles.