Speed of Adjudication: The Critical Balance Between the Flow of Justice and the Guarantees of Fairness

First: Legal Foundations and International Instruments
The prompt resolution of cases is one of the fundamental pillars upon which modern justice is built. Justice is not measured solely by the correctness of judgments, but also by whether they are delivered in a timely manner. Delayed justice is, in essence, another form of denial of justice, as time—in the judicial sphere—is not a neutral factor, but one that directly affects rights and legal positions.

The speed of adjudication is a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed by international instruments. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that: “Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.”
Similarly, Article 14(3)(c) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights affirms the right of the accused to be tried “without undue delay.”

The concept of a “reasonable time” is not a fixed number, but a flexible standard subject to the oversight of higher courts. It is determined based on three essential elements established in international jurisprudence:

1. The complexity of the case, both factually and legally.
2. The conduct of the litigants, including any dilatory tactics.
3. The conduct of judicial authorities and the efficiency of case management.

Second: The Philosophy of “Judicial Time” and the Dialectic of Justice and Speed
Time in law is not merely a physical dimension; it is also a moral one. Delays in adjudication may lead to what is known as “the nullification of utility.” What is the value of a compensation judgment issued after the debtor has gone bankrupt? What is the worth of an acquittal delivered after the accused has spent the prime of their life behind bars?

From this perspective, judicial delay is seen as a form of implicit denial of justice. A judge who fails to resolve a case within a reasonable time commits a serious professional fault that strikes at the core of the judicial function.

True justice must reconcile both speed and accuracy. A fair judgment delivered too late is of little value, just as a swift judgment lacking proper scrutiny holds no weight. This has led to the concept of “expedited justice,” which seeks to achieve judicial efficiency without compromising due process guarantees.

In Islamic jurisprudence, the importance of prompt adjudication is clearly emphasized. Delaying judgment after all its grounds have been established is considered a form of injustice, and some jurists have even deemed such delay blameworthy without legitimate justification. This reflects an early awareness of the impact of time on justice and the necessity of delivering it promptly.

Practically, several factors contribute to delays in litigation, including case overload, a shortage of judges, procedural complexity, and delays in expert reports. These issues call for comprehensive institutional reform aimed at modernizing judicial infrastructure and enhancing efficiency without undermining fair trial guarantees.

Third: The Perils of Premature Speed (The Perils of Haste)
Conversely, rushing to deliver judgments without proper scrutiny results in what is known as “deficient justice.” Ignoring the principle of adversarial proceedings or overlooking essential requests—such as hearing witnesses or appointing experts—under the pretext of speed undermines the persuasive value of judicial decisions and exposes them to reversal.

Justice that moves at lightning speed often burns the very rights it seeks to protect. Therefore, what is required is “qualitative speed”—a balanced approach that safeguards both societal stability and the individual’s right to a fair trial.

Fourth: Mechanisms for Achieving Balance (A Forward-Looking Perspective)
To achieve this delicate balance, modern legal systems—such as the French and English systems, as well as recent judicial reforms in Qatar and other Gulf countries—have adopted advanced mechanisms, including:

1. The case management judge system, which prepares the case and narrows down the issues before trial, significantly reducing litigation time.
2. Comprehensive digitalization, replacing paper processes with real-time data systems, thereby eliminating delays in communication and notifications.
3. Procedural sanctions, such as fines for frivolous lawsuits or deliberate delays by litigants or their representatives, ensuring seriousness in judicial proceedings.

Conclusion:
Speed of adjudication is the spirit that animates the body of justice. Without it, the law becomes a lifeless text; with it, society regains confidence in the judicial system. The true challenge facing modern legislators and judges is not choosing between “speed” and “justice,” but crafting an “expedited justice” that is the natural outcome of an efficient and well-structured procedural system.

True justice is that which is fair in substance, timely in delivery, and reassuring to litigants that their rights have not been undermined by delay or neglect. Achieving the balance between speed and precision remains the greatest challenge confronting contemporary judicial systems.

References:

1. Dr. Ahmed Abu Al-Wafa, Theory of Judgments in Civil Procedure Law, Dar Al-Nahda Al-Arabiya, 7th ed., 2010.
2. Dr. Fathi Waly, Intermediate Text in Civil Judicial Law, Dar Al-Nahda Al-Arabiya, 3rd ed., 2012.
3. Dr. Mina Fayeq, The Right to a Speedy Trial: A Judicial Guarantee for Prompt Adjudication, published article, 2025.
4. Abdel Nasser Thabet Hamed Ahmed, Islamic Law Solutions to Delays in Adjudication, Journal of Sharia and Law, Cairo University, Issue 40, 2022.
5. Ali Qara’a, Judicial Principles, Dar Al-Fikr Al-Arabi, undated.
6. Dr. Hani Khalifa, Modern Mechanisms for Achieving Speed in Civil Adjudication, Journal of Legal and Economic Studies, 2025.
7. European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6.

Written by: Ahmed Al-Anqareh
Legal Consultant