The rule of law is a clearly established principle in all countries. This principle is based on several permanent factors: The civil judge for all defendants is legally qualified to apply regulation rightfully according to judicial legislation, as stipulated by criminal law. The law provides all the necessary guarantees for the defendant. In addition, newly devised judicial systems provide several degrees of judgment: initial court verdicts are subjected to objection in form or substance before the appellate courts. Criminal court verdicts can be appealed before the Court of Cassation, which can either uphold or overrule and can order a retrial before another court. On the other hand, the basis for the statement, ‘Judicial verdicts are the titles of truth', is actually derived from a sound philosophical principle. This philosophical principle states that ‘truth is actually relative, and not absolute.' Therefore, any defendant receiving a penal sentence cannot claim that this verdict is contrary to the truth. The truth is actually founded in the judge's conscience. He gives the sentence according to the facts he is convinced of and the law by which he abides. His sentence stems from his firm belief in the defendant's guilt or innocence. That is why there is a fundamental legal principle in criminal law which allows oral pleading in criminal cases. The lawyer has to make his case while establishing eye contact with the judge, in order to stir his passion, and not by merely reciting a written plea. In summary, there exist powerful legal and judicial traditions that have founded the principle that ‘Judicial verdicts are the titles of truth'. Therefore, it does not seem appropriate to comment on verdicts on behalf of crime victims' families in any given crime. A hard labor sentence, for example, may not satisfy their need for vengeance, they would perhaps prefer capital punishment! These comments are unacceptable; they go against all the established principles of legal traditions. Jurisprudents know that no comments should be made regarding judicial systems in newspapers or media channels. The established custom in modern societies is to leave these comments to law scholars or specialists only, and exclusively through specialized media channels, such as the French Dalloz magazine, or the Mohamaa (Lawyers) magazine in Egypt. These rules ought to be observed before media is drawn into flawed commentary on legal verdicts.
