زهرا بازوبند

The emerging and pervasive disease of COVID 19 (coronavirus disease), which has gone from an epidemic to a global pandemic, has created many challenges for the international community. Since this disease has certain characteristics such as the unknown and complexity of its origin, high extent and speed of its spread and transmission, high mutability, lack of definitive treatment so far for it, existence of incubation period and latency of the disease and many other features, it requires a comprehensive study and development of a comprehensive plan in all dimensions to be controlled and managed. Due to the high rate of transmission of this disease and lack of care by carriers and patients, COVID-19 has increased exponentially, and on the other hand, the long duration of the disease has caused people to neglect following health protocols, which itself causes other people to get sick. And while imposing a legal and moral burden in non-compliance with the rights of society, it threatens people’s security, physical and mental health. On the other hand, one of the goals of the jurisprudential rules and customary laws is to protect the life and health of individuals. The requirements and guarantees of the supervision of care and prevention against COVID-19 and the responsibility imposed on people who do not comply with health protocols will be the subject of this article. Accordingly, people who do not consider the minimum health standards against this virus have a responsibility if they are carriers, and if negligence or fault and attribution of harm or damage to other people is confirmed, they should be able to compensate the damage while being punished. There will also punishments if people are aware of being a carrier.

In the Islamic Penal Code of 2013, the legislator has provided penalties for “complementary Punishments”. It is important to identify the nature of these punishments for the possibility of applying these types of responses to punishments and retaliation, and the existence of rules such as “the prohibition of punishment over life” and “the determination of punishment in limiting crimes”. The reason is that in the event of the criminal nature of supplementary sentences, the legislator’s action to enforce these responses along with punitive and retaliatory acts is contrary to these rules. So the question of the present research is what is the nature of the complementary punishments? Are these punishments within the scope of criminal responses or should they be included in non-pay responses?

This research was conducted in a descriptive analytical method using library resources. Data was gathered and analyzed by referring to the real and virtual library. Thus, relying on the definition, the nature and characteristics of the limits, retaliation, and sanctity, while expressing a comprehensive and complete definition of punishments, the status of such actions in the criminal response and the classification of punishments, and considering the precautionary nature of the additional punishments.

Findings and conclusion:

Due to the specifics of the punishments, it is possible to say that additional punishments are among the types of non-punishment. The legislator’s intention to use the title of punishment for these actions, the general meaning of punishment, and to impose such acts as a form of criminal reprimand, Of their criminal or non-judicial nature, in order to deal with the commission of a crime. Therefore, it can be said that complementary punishment is actually a measure to prevent the commission of a crime, which applies to some criminals in relation to the offense of committing and punishing the perpetrator. Keywords