The Rationality of Judges' Considerations in Affirming, Modifying, or Annulling District Court Decisions at the Appellate Level

Abstract

Appellate decisions of the high court determine whether a district court judgment remains in force, is corrected, or is set aside. This article analyses the rationality of judges' considerations in affirming, modifying, or annulling district court decisions at the appellate level in both civil and criminal cases, referring to Law No. 20 of 2025 on Criminal Procedure and Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code, both in force since 2 January 2026. The study employs normative juridical research using statutory, conceptual, and analytical approaches to primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials, which are analysed qualitatively and prescriptively. Three findings emerge. First, appellate authority derives from the position of the high court as judex facti, which re-examines facts and the application of law, while the duty to give reasons is regulated in the Judicial Power Act, the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code, and civil procedural law. Second, the rationality of judicial considerations can be assessed through five indicators: legality, factual sufficiency, logical coherence, responsiveness to the appeal memorandum, and proportionality of justice. Each type of ruling carries a different burden of argument: affirmation requires independent verification, modification requires an explanation of the point of divergence, and annulment requires a clear identification of defects together with reasoning on the merits because the high court must adjudicate the case itself. Third, considerations that merely adopt the first-instance reasoning without answering the appellant's objections, or that modify the ruling without measurable reasons, weaken judicial accountability and open the way to cassation. Updating judgment-writing templates, quality supervision of decisions, and training of high court judges are necessary to preserve such rationality.