Judicial control and human rights.

The aim of administrative control is to preserve public order in the state, with its elements represented in maintaining (public security, public health, and public tranquility), which are known as the elements of traditional public order. The success of the task of administrative control officers, particularly in the first element (public security), is measured by their ability to prevent crime; if a crime occurs, this represents the announcement of the end of the administrative control task and the beginning of a new phase of control, namely the judicial control phase. The task of judicial control officers is manifested in investigating crimes, uncovering the obscurities surrounding them, tracking down the perpetrator, apprehending them, and presenting them to the competent authorities along with the recorded reports in preparation for interrogating them and handling the documents and evidence, either by referring the case to court for punishment or issuing an order not to proceed with the criminal case based on what the documents reveal. However, this important stage begins from the moment the judicial officers receive the news of the crime or become aware of it in any way. Due to the sensitivity and confidentiality that its nature imposes on the procedures taken by those in charge, which may infringe on the rights of individuals who are directly interacted with by the judicial officers due to their relationship with the crime being investigated, the legislator, followed by legal scholars, deemed it necessary to provide some form of protection for these individuals. The extent and forms of this protection vary from one legal legislation to another, or rather from one legal system to another, depending on the respect for human rights in each legislative system.