Agreement is the dominant feature of national laws and the International Bill, however, there are some inconsistencies between them, is the existence of this conflict among the most serious legal violations of Human Rights ruled, the fact that these rules represent a minimum of international protection of human rights is not permissible for any state to get off, as represented the common denominator among human beings without distinction among them.
In this study, we tried to answer the following questions: What is meant by agreement between the domestic criminal provisions and the International Bill rules in the field of protection of human rights? What is meant by the incompatibility between the two whether partial contradiction or conflict entirely? And how to resolve this conflict? What is meant by the International Bill? What is the reality of the Iraqi and Egyptian pieces of legislation to protect human rights, and the extent of their agreement or Tardahma with international norms and the provisions of the Bill?
We reached in the study to inter conclusions that if national legislation contains provisions that are incompatible with the rules of the International Bill whether a conflict whole or in part, such texts should be canceled and considered abrogated international access to the rules of the International Bill. We have provided the Iraqi lawmaker some recommendations which when enacted legislation to be free from reproach conflict with the rules of the International Bill investigating when applied - and without Tzeysha internationally or internally - the protection of actual and necessary for Human Rights condemned the aggression of the public authority.