All praise is due to Allah, and may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon Prophet Muhammad, as well as upon his pure family and noble companions. The salient feature of the identity of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is that it refers all its affairs to the Qur’an and the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). In fact, this principle has been firmly established by articles 1, 7, 8, 23, 26, 48, 55 and 67 of the Basic Law of Governance, which makes it abundantly clear that the Kingdom does not content itself, within the framework of constitutional law, with anything other than divine law, making the Basic Law of Governance governed by the provisions of the Islamic Law (Sharee’ah) and leaving no vacuum in the Saudi judicial system.1 In fact, all the Kingdom’s systems without exception have firmly established the concept of the independence of the judiciary. Article 46 of the Basic Law of Governance provides: “The judiciary is an independent authority. There is no control over judges in the dispensation of their judgments except in the case of the Islamic Sharee’ah.. Likewise, Article 1 of the Law of the Judiciary provides: “Judges are independent and, in the administration of justice, they shall be subject to no authority other than the provisions of Sharee’ah and laws in force. No one may interfere with the Judiciary.. It is upon this fundamental principle, which is anchored in total justice, that the Saudi judicial system was founded the very day the Saudi state came into being. In fact, this particular guarantee was not the product of a new system, but rather the very basis upon which a new entity came into existence. What the new Law of the Judiciary actually added in this regard was nothing more than stress such principles which are deeply rooted in our judicial edifice, which prides itself on its remarkable achievements and impressive contributions. Indeed, the state of stability the Saudi judiciary enjoys, particularly its independence, has turned Saudi judges into living examples of integrity, impartiality and neutrality. One aspect of such stability is the distribution of jurisdictions in the areas of supervision, support and services. Along these lines, the Saudi judge is subject, in his technical functions, to the control of the High Court; with regard to his functional and supervisory matters specified in the judicial system, he is subject to the control of the Supreme Judicial Council; and in administrative, financial and executive matters, as well as assessment of the right course of justice, supervision of the implementation of its rules and regulations and carrying out tasks that are bound to bring it about, he is closely linked to the Ministry of Justice; each of these constitutes an integral part of a perfect judicial edifice which is represented before the government under the same umbrella. One advantage of this diversity is the institutional form it takes in the judicial and functional aspects. Under the new Judiciary Law of 2007, the High Court consists of specialised circuits; the Supreme Judicial Council is now composed of a president and ten members, with a broad spectrum of jurisdictions, comprising officials from the judicial power and the executive power. This firmly establishes the concept of cooperation between the various  powers with a view to carrying out institutional and administrative work. Therefore, the Chief of the High Court, four full-time members of the rank of Chief of the Appellate Court, the Deputy Minister of Justice, the Chief of the Bureau of Investigation and Prosecution, and three members who possess the qualifications required by the Appellate Judge, are all members in the Council; and each one is entitled to a vote. To further secure its position and reinforce its guarantee of independence, most of the Council’s decisions fall under the category of ‘complex decisionsg, which are subject to the Council’s examination and the King’s order and render the rest of the Council’s decisions incontestable, being institutional decisions which enjoy guarantees represented in the broad spectrum of the Council’s structure. In fact, such decisions are in no way similar to the other administrative decisions that are subject to judicial control and which fall outside the scope ofthis ‘integrative entity§. There are, nevertheless, some institutional decisionsthat are subject to judicial control as they do not enjoy the guarantees specified in the new law, but this does not impede the possibility of adding further guarantees. In opposition to this, the High Court, which now assumes the previous Supreme Judicial Council‘s main function as the highest authority in the judicial system, is in full control of the judicial power and all its functions, and none of its decisions may be contested, based on the principle of the independence of the judiciary. Were this to happen, such an essential guarantee would certainly be violated. In fact, a number of researchers have criticised and made constitutional remarks about some non-Saudi laws, describing them as examples of ‘judicial deviation§ that works to the advantage of some but at the expense of the system‘s interest. In stark opposition to this gloomy depiction, there is the brilliant example of an organisational setting in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where everything is geared towards the common good, following the impeccable guidance of the Kingdom‘s timeless ‘constitution‘: the Qur‘an and the Sunnah, and following a uniform system which reflects an academic and institutional diversity that is governed by the organisational authority concerned with systems and their executive regulations, hence the possibility of adding further guarantees. The institutionalisation of such principles in no way implies that humans are impeccable, but we must draw a distinction here between those whose mistakes are intentional and those whose mistakes are unintentional. There is also a further distinction between those who manage to review their mistakes even after it is too late and thus learn from them and those who review them but they fall short of realising the reasons behind their slips. This stresses the fact that the remarkable aspects of our judicial system, including the independence of judges and the diversity of the perfect distribution of jurisdictions in the areas of supervision, support and services under the same judicial umbrella, reflect the noble objectives behind seeking to realise the common good on the basis of independent inductive evidence prior to preparing the judicial reform, which has actually completed and perfected a previous attempt in this respect by bringing about major developments required by the present-day progress movement in our ever developing society and the country‘s positive response to it. By stating that the judicial reform completed and perfected a previous attempt in this respect, we actually stress the fact that the most important guarantees in our judicial system have not come about as a result of novel developments in a new system, as some of those who are not familiar with our judicial system may wrongly understand it. In fact, the new Law of the Judiciary was intrinsically covered in the Law of the Judiciary of 1395 AH (1975 AD) as well as in some other regulations before it; and all of these have been covered by the State‘s policy as to its judiciary since its foundation by the late King Abdul-Azeez. Therefore, the independence and the guarantees of the judiciary are included in the previous law. The new law is centred on certain procedural provisions, foremost among them is revising the method of ranking judges. For instance, there was no vacuum in these rankings or in the supervisory aspect at the top of the judicial pyramid. To clarify, the Appellate Court in the previous law carries out, during a certain stage of a given case, the functions of the Courts of Appeals, and the Permanent Panel of the Supreme Judicial Council carries out the functions at the top of the judicial pyramid (the High Court). It is for this reason that all the functions previously carried out by the Permanent Panel of the Supreme Judicial Council have been transferred to the High Court, including the jurisdiction of confirming the sighting of the new moon. All this highlights the fundamental principles that were laid down and espoused concurrently with the foundation of the State, and our judiciary will continue to exercise its jurisdictions independently and harmoniously, without being affected by any external influences; and it will, with Allah’s assistance, continue to make distinctive contributions due to the great support it receivesfrom the Saudi leadership and its continuous support for the guarantees of justice which it stresses whenever the opportunity presents itself in the variousnational and international forums and official and political circles. We all look forward to a promising future which will witness further significant contributions and noteworthy achievements now that the High Court,  the body responsible for establishing judicial principles, has undertaken its new responsibilities. This undoubtedly reflects the usual brilliant example of our judicial system characterized by its unique distinction, solid judicial structure and highly competent men. We will soon hold interviews with these aptly chosen judicial figures in order to benefit from their knowledge and expertise, in an effort to effectively discharge our responsibilities and clear our conscience, as this represents an act of worship dictated by Islam itself and a form of discharging our duties towards the ruler and society at large, regarding the most important task for which the entire judicial system was founded. We pray to Almighty Allah to guide our steps and to bless our endeavours; we also pray to Allah to shower His peace and blessings upon His messenger Muhammad, his pure family and noble companions.