Controversy surrounds "Judicial Institute", Accusations of "list manipulation"

Questions are mounting within the Syrian legal community regarding the Ministry of Justice's commitment to transparency, following what applicants described as "irregularities" in the recent Judicial Institute entrance exam. These irregularities have reached the point of accusations that seats were awarded to individuals who did not meet the minimum passing score.

Behind the Scenes of the Exam: Sudden Changes and Shocking Figures

According to observers, the first signs of trouble appeared with a sudden change to the passing requirements. While the officially announced minimum score for the written exam was 60, applicants were surprised to find the threshold lowered to 50 when the results were released.

This raises a fundamental question about the rationale for including over 110 names with scores between 50 and 60, despite the existence of a sufficient number of genuinely qualified candidates to fill the available seats.

The figures point to a paradox that some have described as "excluding qualified individuals." Approximately 50 individuals with scores below the 60-point threshold were admitted to the final list, at the expense of more academically qualified candidates. This has led to accusations that the oral examination, intended as a formal verification tool, has been transformed into a means of manipulating the lists based on undisclosed considerations.

The Judicial Institute responded: "The written exam is not the sole criterion."

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Hassoun, Dean of the Higher Judicial Institute, issued a statement on his official page clarifying the procedures. He asserted that criticism differs from "unsubstantiated accusations," a statement some interpreted as a "legal threat" rather than a detailed procedural explanation of the issue.

In keeping with the principle of transparency, the Dean explained that the competition saw a record number of applicants, with 2,996 students applying. He emphasized that the Institute adopted an open-door policy by waiving the GPA and English language proficiency requirements to ensure the broadest possible participation, while maintaining only one requirement: the applicants' criminal record.

Regarding the evaluation mechanisms, Al-Hassoun emphasized the following points:

- Accuracy of marking: A committee of judges from the Court of Cassation was formed, with each judge marking one question to ensure fairness. This resulted in 226 students passing the written exam.

- Technical error: The institute acknowledged a clerical error in entering one student's score between the paper and the electronic version. The student was notified after the appeals period.

- Comprehensiveness of the evaluation: The dean stressed that the written exam was not the sole criterion. Applicants also underwent oral examinations and interviews before the Supreme Judicial Council, which focused on "academic strength, personality, quick wit, and social reputation."

- Final screening: The institute announced a two-month preparatory course to confirm the eligibility of those who qualified before final acceptance.

These conflicting data points present the Ministry of Justice with a professional challenge. While applicants see it as a "gateway to favoritism," the institute insists that it is a "multi-criteria" evaluation process aimed at selecting the most suitable candidate for the judiciary, rather than limiting competence to the numerical score of the written exam alone.