Judicial principles and studies
Written cassation and paragraph (c) of Article 9 in the Medical Liability Law
A brief summary explaining the scope of written cassation under Article 291 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the roles assigned to the High Committee in Article 9 of the Medical Liability Law, and the distinction between committee decisions and technical expert reports.
Updated: 10 September 2026
Prepared and reviewed by: Ashraf Al-Khawaja
Subject
The study addresses the limits of written cassation under Article 291 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows the Minister to request cassation of final judgments only where a decision conflicts with the law or a fundamental procedural error occurred. Concurrently, the Medical Liability Law establishes a High Committee with specified membership and subcommittees, and paragraph (c) of Article 9 defines its tasks and the form of its outputs.
Summary
- The Committee's first task results in a decision that is submitted to the Minister or the bar after the subcommittee process and available objections; the High Committee's final decision is then conclusive and may produce administrative effects such as disciplinary measures, closure, or delisting. - The second task produces a technical expert opinion for the judiciary upon request by the competent judicial authority; this expert opinion functions as evidence in the case and is not covered by the finality rule in Article 10(c), because that rule applies to "decisions," not to "technical expertise." - A technical opinion provided by the High Committee and used by the prosecution is evidence from an opposing party; equality of arms requires that the accused be allowed to rebut it with another court‑supervised technical expertise. The court remains the ultimate trier of facts and weighs evidence under the conviction standard and fair trial safeguards. Note: This is an educational summary only; it is not a judicial text or legal advice.
Practical significance
- Article 291 confines written cassation to legal questions and fundamental procedural defects, avoiding encroachment on factual findings and the discretion of the trial court. - High Committee decisions enjoy administrative finality under Article 9’s procedures, while technical expert reports submitted to the court do not acquire the same conclusiveness within judicial proceedings. - Ensuring the accused’s ability to challenge committee‑produced expertise through court‑supervised counter‑expertise is essential to preserve fair trial rights and the court’s authority to evaluate evidence.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.