ایمان یوسفی

The third party’s objection before the criminal court was considered as one of the controversial issues in the jurisprudence (judicial procedure). Some criminal judges accepted the third party’s objection to the written judgment in the property restitution section and dealt with the matter as a civil judge; while others believed in the principle of inherent jurisdiction between legal and criminal courts and considered the third party’s objection to be exclusive to the legal court. The challenge of accepting or not accepting the third objection was caused by the legislator's approach to some specific crimes in which the judge of the criminal court is obliged to issue a judgment to make restitution without a petition.On the one hand, one legal verdict on the issue of making restitution or the like is issued by a criminal authority without presenting a petition and as specified by some legal articles, and on the other hand, the acceptance of a third party’s objection depends on the existence of a full legal dispute. In some countries, such as Italy, it is mandatory to file a full civil lawsuit before the criminal court, and unlike Iran's proceedings, there is no distinction between crimes. With the approval of the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court No. 818, the dispute was resolved in the jurisprudence and the third party’s objection was considered to be within the jurisdiction of the criminal court. There are various objections to the unanimous decision, including the fact that the principle of inherent and specialized jurisdiction has been ignored. Also, based on the unanimous decision of the criminal court, it must deal with a third party’s objection litigation that has not been based on a fully processed legal lawsuit before, and sometimes it is created simply because a line is written in the judgment of the criminal court whose mission and purpose is something else. On the other hand, it seems that articles such as Article 111 of the Criminal Procedure Law have been neglected in issuing judgments by the Supreme Court.

The model has an investigator based on the separation of the prosecution stages from the investigation. The investigator and the prosecutor are jointly responsible for conducting the preliminary investigation stage. The decision on the adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence against the accused is closely related to the concept of impartiality with the concept of impartiality. The prosecutor has been the representative of the government in conducting preliminary investigations. Prosecutors, as investigators, do not have the ability to make impartial judgments about the most important rights of individuals.The model has an investigator based on the separation of the prosecution stages from the investigation. The investigator and the prosecutor are jointly responsible for conducting the preliminary investigation stage. The decision on the adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence against the accused is closely related to the concept of impartiality with the concept of impartiality. The prosecutor has been the representative of the government in conducting preliminary investigations. Prosecutors, as investigators, do not have the ability to make impartial judgments about the most important rights of individuals.