Question of Constitutional Review of Judges of Courts on the Ordinary Laws

Fallowed by the hierarchy of legal rules, Iranian legal system has provided some institutions for preservation of constitution against of laws and regulations. Nevertheless, status of preservation of constitution is not so desired because the scope of jurisdictions of supervisor institutions does not extend to all the existing norms in the legal system. For example, Guardian Council is only institution that preserve the constitution against the resolutions of Islamic Parliament and this supervision does not apply the other legal norms that approved by another Normalization. Also, the supervision of Administrative Justice Court doesn’t include to the executive norms and neither extends to legal rules. The multiplicity of normalization and absence of comprehensive control on them, have caused to enter and attend the conflicting norms with constitution in Iranian legal system. These conflicting become obvious for the Laws enforcement officers in execute phase. Judges of courts are considered as one of the laws enforcement officers that might be to encounter with conflicting norms with constitution. This research is studying the reasons of the Advocates and Opponents of Constitutional supervision of Judges, on the Ordinary laws. Accepting the Jurisdictions of Constitutional supervision of Judges on the Ordinary law is the result of this paper.