The technological advancement across various aspects of life—particularly within the judicial system—represents a civilizational achievement that contributes to facilitating procedures and accelerating the settlement of disputes. Remote litigation has emerged as an effective tool in this regard, easing burdens, saving time and effort, and opening wide prospects for the development of justice. This is commendable and acceptable in many forms of civil, commercial, and administrative litigation.

However, criminal justice retains a unique specificity that requires the criminal judge to carry out his duty while being in direct contact with the accused—observing his appearance, physical condition, and psychological state closely. Visual observation may reveal details that screens and reports cannot convey.

A face-to-face encounter between the judge and the defendant enables the judge to notice signs of weakness due to poor nutrition, sense the scent of clothing carrying traces of overcrowding and poor detention conditions, observe stains caused by lack of cleanliness, and hear the dragged footsteps that reflect fatigue, congestion, or limited mobility—along with the clinking of shackles and the sound of keys unlocking before him at the hands of the guards.

These live scenes, with all their details, grant the judge a comprehensive insight that helps him assess whether continued detention is justified or whether the accused should be released, or whether the prosecution’s appeal against release should be accepted. Relying solely on remote appearance deprives the judge of many human indicators that cannot be captured from a distance, which may unintentionally lead to harsh decisions taken at the push of a button, as if the matter were a virtual game disconnected from the reality of suffering.

To better grasp the impact of losing direct confrontation, imagine someone being ordered to take a human life by hand—witnessing fear in the victim’s eyes, hearing the fading breaths, seeing the blood. Human nature will resist execution despite incentives or justification. But if the act were carried out remotely, with only the press of a button behind a screen, the human dimension fades, and the decision becomes lighter on the conscience, despite the outcome being the same.

Therefore, true criminal justice requires that direct confrontation between judge and defendant remain an essential element of trial procedures—protecting rights and ensuring the foundations of a fair trial as stated in international covenants, most notably the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which affirm the defendant’s right to be tried in person before his natural judge.

Justice is not merely texts applied mechanically—it is feeling, responsibility, and conscience. The judicial conscience is built upon perceiving truth with all senses, not through a cold image on a screen.

Eihab Nayel
Legal Consultant & Managing Partner