Judgment is any decision issued by the court that applies the law to the dispute presented before it. A judicial ruling must be public and represents the ultimate goal of the judicial process, whether it results in conviction, acquittal, or exoneration. A key characteristic of a judicial ruling is its clarity, free from ambiguity or confusion.

Legal Framework and Language
According to the Palestinian Basic Law, Arabic is the official language of the courts. The Judicial Authority Law reinforces this by requiring that all judicial documents be written in Arabic, maintaining a unified style. Consistency in language is essential for effective communication in judicial rulings.

Essential Components of Judicial Rulings
A comprehensive judicial ruling must include the relevant facts, the applicable law, and established legal doctrines without veering into theoretical interpretations. The language used in court decisions should be descriptive and objective. One of the critical aspects of a judicial ruling is discipline and decorum, ensuring that the language is clear and precise, devoid of insults or vulgarity.

Coherence and Role Boundaries
Coherence between sentences is vital; repetition should be avoided. Judges must adhere to the boundaries of their judicial roles and refrain from interfering with the functions of other branches of government, such as the legislative and executive. Each judicial ruling should be based on a careful weighing of evidence, arguments, and proofs, ensuring it is convincing to the reader.

The Importance of Specificity
The use of specific phrases is crucial, while vague expressions should be avoided. Judges must provide clear reasons for their rulings. For example, if a ruling relies on witness testimony, the judge should explain why that particular testimony was chosen, rather than simply stating they felt comfortable with it due to the witness’s piety and integrity.

As Indian jurist Chaudhry aptly states, “The art of writing judicial decisions is that litigants feel that the judge has used their intellect regarding the arguments and evidence presented before reaching the judgment.” Thus, a judicial ruling should demonstrate a sound and sufficient understanding of the case’s facts, the defense, and legal objections, maintaining coherence among the components of the ruling, including the facts, reasons, and the judgment itself.

Judicial Justice and Public Assurance
One of the most critical aspects of judicial justice is that a sound judiciary ensures its rulings are supported by clear reasons and justifications. This practice provides reassurance to the public and fosters a sense of justice. The reasons relied upon by a judge when issuing a ruling must be convincing and not merely brief or concise.

For instance, if a judge issues a ruling based on a testimony or a medical examination, it is essential for them to clarify why they relied on that evidence in a manner that satisfies public intellect and conscience. Simply stating reasons in a brief manner may not be meaningful to the parties involved or the general public. When judicial rulings are publicized, and the judge fails to articulate the reasons, it suggests that these reasons remain hidden within the judge’s intentions. If a judge is truly fair, they cannot issue a ruling based on undisclosed reasons; such reasoning must be made transparent to the public.

Although the concept of reasoning in judgments originated in Italy, it has now spread to many other countries, with judges relying on it in their rulings—be it in criminal, civil, or military cases. This practice embodies the essence of judicial justice.

Conclusion
In summary, clarity, coherence, and well-articulated reasoning are fundamental to the integrity of judicial rulings. By ensuring that decisions are transparent and grounded in solid reasoning, the judiciary can uphold public trust and foster a genuine sense of justice within society.
After the liberation of France, Charles de Gaulle asked about the state of the country. He was told, “In the worst condition.” He then asked, “Is the judiciary in good shape?” They replied, “Yes.” He said, “If the judiciary is well, then France is well.”