Legal expert Tareq Harb said that some lawmakers and others, repeat should be the speed of the Federal Court issued the ruling in the lawsuit that has been filed on the constitutionality of the parliamentary session, headed by Salim al-Jubouri, and that on the day 15.05.2016,
Without those notes that "the federal courts suits in all the world, including the US Supreme Court is one of the quiet and slow proceedings because of their nature and essence of where stray from the speed and urgency, the fact that this court shall consider the most dangerous and important in society, which have suits raised serious in all aspects political and governmental, administrative, social and economic life and at the level of the state as a whole is can not be compared to the Federal Court proceedings in any other lawsuit heard by any other court of the judiciary courts for dealing with the more accurate claims, "adds Wars"
therefore, we find that the rules of procedure workflow in the publication of the Federal Supreme Court in the official Gazette of the facts of Iraq number (3979) on 2/5/2005 select this system of certain procedures and certain periods different from what is in the first instance courts and courts of criminal and other courts and leave the identification of further actions and extended to other laws such as what is stated in Article II of the system, which specified period not exceeding 15 days for the purpose of Report petition and answer them, where they are not set a date for the hearing until after the completion of these notices, which may take longer than the previous period, as well as what is stated in Article IX of the system that have been identified for no less than 15 days to determine the date of the court hearing after the completion of the previous submissions,
as well as Van such cases the Court can not be resolved or issue a decision rule in one session or two may not be that the duration of the delay is between pleading hearing date and the date of the last more than twenty days in accordance with the provisions of Article (63 / 2) of the Procedure Law No. (83) for the year 69 ", as well as the proceedings of this court need also," says the war a lot of the evidence and the arguments and data, facts and documents and documentaries,
as is the case with this infection, it is imperative that the court looked at the television recording of this the session was the court assisted by experts in accordance with Article 14 of the court system to show how technical matters for the hearing and the number of attendees and how self-employed and had previously resorted to the court to experts to find out how many of those present MPs in a parliamentary session as well as you should check to determine the number of deputies in the session, and If there is a staff sitting in the parliamentary session, especially in the last rows, especially since the meeting took place in the Great Hall and did not get in the hall in the parliament in which you get sessions are usually equipped with imaging is more accurate than the Great Hall may require Thread delay waiting for the experts' report. "
War also asserts, "It must be noted that the Federal Supreme Court Law No. (30) for the year 2005 law makes it compulsory to attend all eight members of the Court and the President of the Court for holding a hearing and that means that the failure of one of the members of the Court would lead to the postponement and that the Court remedied this by procuring the approval of the Presidency to the members Reserve.
Finally he called a war to "settle the subject of the next session of parliament amicably between the reform front (the protesters) political and parliamentary blocs, so that the failure to convene the Parliament arranges great damage to the political process and that the extension does not exceed on 05/30/2016 because Article 58 of the Constitution decided to extension only for thirty days. "