عباس زراعت

fact that the verdict should be justified, documented, and reasonable, and its legal and material elements should be stated. Verdicts without any causation do not mean anything and are rarely issued; however, there are several instances in which the verdict is issued incompletely or defectively. Given the scanty legal literature on causation defects in Iran, the present descriptive-analytic study compares and contrasts the laws of Iran and other countries to examine court and quasi-judicial verdicts. This study introduces the defects of causation along with its implementation guarantee. In addition, it examines the most important examples of causation. To this end, the current study investigates how this principle is used in the Iranian legal system. Fundamental causation defects of a verdict can invalidate it although the passed laws do not explicitly state this opinion. The findings indicate that causation invalidation could be considered as a judicial invalidation since evaluation authorities, e.g., appeal courts, the supreme court, and the administrative court of justice, are responsible for detecting fundamental detects.

Re-prosecution of the accused after the issuance of a restraining order is one of the solutions envisaged by the legislature to ensure justice for persons who did not have access to sufficient reasons or reasons at the time of the trial. The grounds for re-prosecuting the accused are in line with the objectives of the criminal proceedings. These include achieving the Judicial truth, preventing norm-breaking in society. The main source of criminal investigation is the prosecutor's office, so the legislator has made the possibility of re-prosecuting the accused based on Article 278 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this institution. In some cases, depending on the type of charge, the judicial organization and the personality of the perpetrator, step-by-step investigations are carried out in a source other than the prosecutor's office, and it is possible to issue a restraining order. according to the silence of the legislator, this ambiguity has arisen as to what the procedure of re-prosecution will be if the court issues a restraining order? Depending on the position of the court in Judicial system, if a restraining order is issued by the court at the preliminary investigation stage, it is possible to re-prosecute the accused, but contrary to Article 278, if the restraining order is finalized in a higher authority, there is no need to prescribe a higher authority because the court has independence. It is not like the prosecutor's office.

One of the things that causes responsibility under the doctrine of causality, is the rule of causality in the law and jurisprudence. This rule also applies to the crimes and violations found in the building and construction.Sometimes this rule conflicts with other rules in the subject matter.The present study examines the relationship between the rule of causation and its relationship with other rules in construction crimes and with the rules of warning, benevolence, no-harm, waste and deception in a descriptive-analytical method, using library tools with the aim of knowledge raising and awareness. The results of this research are:If effective warning conditions are observed in the construction industry, the warning rule governs the rule of causation, and also if benefactor has done the conditions of benevolence in the subject under discussion, that is, acting according to the laws and regulations, the rule of benevolence takes precedence. In the no-harm rule, the opposite point of which in the causality is the rule of domination, if the action of the owner is in his favor or the repulsion of the loss from himself, the rule of domination prevails, otherwise the no-harm rule is followed by that

Nowadays, using the victim-offender participation model in the judicial process has become a common solution in the criminal policy of countries Which is much broader than the traditional view of them in the system of crime evidence. In other words, the correct intervention and participation of the parties to the crime in the criminal proceedings process by completing the probative phase and focusing on the evidence phase in order to fulfill the aspirations of the criminal justice system emphasizes the beneficial effects and results of the trial in society. This model is considered as one of the important components of the relationship between the legislative and judicial criminal policy of countries, regarding the extent of interference of victim- offender with the participation of the people in the criminal proceedings. Iran's Code of Criminal Procedure has shown its willingness to use this model by anticipating the provisions on mediation. The participation of the parties in the trial is not only accepted by the Islamic system, but it has also been highly emphasized. This descriptive-analytical article seeks to explain the pattern of mediation in victim-crime participatory litigation by emphasizing the position of this form of litigation in Iranian criminal law and the Islamic legal system. The results of this study show that there is a semantic difference between the patterns set in common criminal policy and what is called mediation in domestic laws and regulations. However, their principles and basis are the same in the legal system and customary regulations. Failure to pay attention to these principles has led many to mistakenly consider mediation in criminal procedure as a manifestation of restorative litigation in Iran.

Constitutional law as a fundamental law is of great value and validity. But this validity and importance is prominently cultural and ethical giving it a spiritual worth in nature. The Guaranteed implementation of constitutional provisions depends on the firm conviction of the government and the nation. This means that the deeper they believe in constitutional law, the better guarantees they can have for their implementation without violations requiring prosecution or condemnation. However, constitutional principles cannot be abandoned without administrative guarantees especially in non-democratic countries. Therefore, the ordinary legislator should also consider guarantees for criminal enforcement. A group of important provisions of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran is related to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the people. Given that the government is the guarantor of their realization, these must have a stronger guarantee of implementation. These rights have been enshrined in a number of constitutional principles, but most of them are in Chapter 3 of the constitution. The purpose of this article is to explore the guarantee of criminal enforcement of these rights. Article 570 of the Islamic Penal Code passed in 1996  envisages the most important guarantee of the enforcement of these rights. However there are some subtle points related to it that call for deep research. The present paper attempts to address this article (570), its relationship with subject matter of other legal articles and the intended rights and freedoms

Administrative proceeding is a sub-discipline of formal law which is, along with other proceedings, responsible for enforcing the substantive regulations related to administrative violations of government officials and public institutions. The relationship between trials has always been the subject of debate among legal thinkers leading to controversies. Are administrative proceedings independent of or a function of judicial proceedings? A consequence of this controversy is the choice involved when a single issue with a unique criminal nature and administrative violation is simultaneously raised in both administrative and judicial authorities: should the administrative authority stop the proceedings and wait for the outcome of the judicial proceedings to be known or does he have the right to handle the case independently and make a decision, regardless of the verdict issued by the judicial authority? This article seeks to examine the various dimensions of this issue and appropriately answer the above-mentioned two questions, the first of which is the main research question and the second the sub-question.Differences in the nature, subject matter, and purpose of the two types of proceedings necessitate the independence of administrative proceedings from civil and criminal proceedings. As a result, if an issue is raised by the judicial authority and at the same time by the administrative authority, both can handle it and decide independently. However, the ambiguities surrounding the issue and the lack of clarity in legal procedures and doctrines call for independent and accurate research.

simply approving an act in the Guardian Council can guarantee its legitimacy and correspondency with Canon Law. since the natural responsibility of this entity is to accord Islamic Parliment's enactments with Canon Law (religious law), besides unless legislature's enactments obtain its correspondency with the Canon Law, it can not be described as an act. The Guardian Council has enacted the computer's crime law, so it has legitimacy and for the punitive justice agents this amount of legitimacy is enough. But from the jurisprudence point of view it should be detailed more and the arguments and proofs upon which the legitimacy of this act stands be clarified. The subject of this article is to examine the Canon Law's catechism of producing, distributing and diffusing malwares in the cyber space that is the subject of clause 25 in the computer crimes law enacted under the influence of Budapest convention. There is no instance of this crime in the religious tradition and verses as it is a new crime. Therefore to prove its legitimacy we should refer to intellect and general juridicial(فقهی) rules, such as no harm rule, Tasbib rule(causation rule), Taslit rule, Al ta'azir be yadelhakem rule etc… .It is concluded that the mentioned crime not only doesn't conflict with the religious cases but also we can obtain many reasons for its legitimacy

The issue of "the role of warning in the elimination of criminal and civil liability of warning" is accepted in almost all legal systems, but the place of it in laws and regulations, especially criminal laws and regulations, is different in different legal systems. It can be said that in the criminal laws and regulations of Iran, while accepting the removal of responsibility from the warning who observes the conditions of giving the warning, as the case may be, it is considered as "rule of law" and "legal order". In this research, we reach this conclusion with the library research method. However, the place of warning in the course of legislation has undergone significant changes. However, the role of warning in removing criminal responsibility is conditional on the observance of the conditions in several articles of the Islamic Penal Code adopted in 1992, including Articles 309 and 310 and the notes of Article 308 as in Article 45 of the former Diyat Law. It was not noticed.

Religious terrorism, in which personal and profitable deductions from religious instructions are supporting terroristic actions, has faced several types of amendment, precautionary and punitive responses. Meanwhile, other novel patterns have been applied against this crime but less analyzed. Therefore, according to the fact that a few mentioned patterns usage is not sufficient, using all these patterns simultaneously is needed. In contrast to the corrective and penal models, the novel pattern has been elevated in the form of being non-criminal variable preventation and its focuses on neutraliziation of effective factors in committing religious terrorism by implementing its mechanisms. Moreover, this model offered preventing communication approaches between endangered persons and effective factors in committing terrorism as well. This research is endeavoring to introduce the novel patterns which is encountering this sort of terrorism. This article will considers psychoanalytic analysis and criminal law in a mean time.

Proper restorative justice can play an effective role in preventing recurrence of crime and increasing social security. The effectiveness of the envisaged restorative justice measures requires cultural and social infrastructure. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to identify social and cultural barriers to the implementation of restorative justice in Isfahan province.

In terms of its objectives the present study is of an applied research type and in terms of its nature it is considered as descriptive-analytical. The data were collected using a researcher-made questionnaire with a five-point Likert scale. The validity of the research was confirmed using construct and face validity the reliability of each of the studied concepts was calculated through Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The sample size was set as 359 individuals using quota sampling method appropriate to the statistical population of officers and judicial officials of the Isfahan Prosecutor's Office and Court and based on the Cochran's formula. The research data were described using frequency distribution, relative percentage and mean; and after Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test, the data were analyzed by non-parametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis, Pearson correlation).

Based on the descriptive findings, the average attitudes of officers, prosecutors and court judges towards the implementation of restorative justice in the range of 1-5 were 3.28, 2.94, and 2.75, respectively. On the other hand, the average social barriers among them in the range of 1-4 were 3.10, 2.38, and 2.89, respectively, and the average cultural barriers among them in the range of 1-4 were 2.63, 2.77, and 2.249. In other words, despite the moderate attitude towards the implementation of restorative justice, social and cultural barriers to its implementation are somewhat above average among respondents. Also, based on analytical findings, younger prosecutors and officers familiar with criminal procedure have a more positive view towards restorative justice.

The greater the social and cultural barriers of officers, the more negative their attitude towards the administration of restorative justice. According to court judges, with the increase of social barriers, the administration of restorative justice decreases, and finally, the lack of necessary training for judges of the judiciary make their attitude towards the restoration of restorative justice more negative.

The individualization of custodial arrangements, such as the individualization of punishment, means the imposition and enforcement of criminal penalties commensurate with the nature of the offense or the characteristics of the offender as predicted in international human rights instruments in the international arena. The issue of criminal service contracts is a human protected by the principle of innocence and as a defendant and not a convicted person in the case, and therefore observing his dignity and his particular situation in issuing this sentence is more than the personalization of punishment and respect for the offender who is charged He proved to be important. Nevertheless, this part of the judicial decisions for the accused, in spite of the individualization of punishments, is less relevant to legal texts.The foundations for the individualization of custodial contracts are found in various theories of criminology and the legal principles enshrined in international documents and various regulations. Also, how to apply this, namely, proportionality or inappropriateness in the determination of general supply arrangements and the appointment of unnecessary arrest warrants in a specific sense, has explicit criteria in international documents, which necessitates these criteria as well as the degree of alignment of the Iranian legislator with that study And existing regulatory gaps

physical and mental problems. In case crimes against fundamental rights, against physical integrity, against financial rights and against sexual integrity of persons with disabilities are committed, criminal responsibility policies must be supportive and protective of them; the most important law on the rights of persons with disabilities in Iran is the Law on the Protection of the Rights of Disabled Persons that was passed by the Islamic Parliament on 10 March 2018, and approved by the Guardian Council on 12 April 2018. Through the perspective of welfare and protection, this law requires all governmental and nongovernmental organizations to protect cultural, educational, economic, and social rights of people with disabilities. The adoption of this law is, in fact, a very positive step towards the promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities in Iran. Despite its positive points, there are some problems such as the lack of effective criminal enforcement guarantee as well as the lack of differential judicial and extrajudicial protection. On the one hand, Iran's criminal laws have only focused on the crime and the punishment for the offender, and thus the victim persons with disabilities have been forgotten and ignored by adopting a crime-based approach. It is while in the Modern Criminal Law, one of the major missions of the substantive and procedural criminal law is protecting the disabled persons though passing a regulation that involves the most protection for these victims. Therefore, what should be considered by the legislature is that the status of the person with disabilities should be under attention and thereby take their vulnerability to the occurrence of a crime as the strict position of the legislature. In this article, the authors aim to investigate criminal responsibility policies for crimes against the disabled persons as well as providing differential criminal, judicial and Moral protection of them with the analytical-descriptive method and finally analyze the problem of this vulnerable group of society

Citizenship is one of the most important social issues that has had various interpretations in humanities so far. These rights are sometimes interpreted as civil and political rights, sometimes human rights, and in some cases, social rights, as various humanities scholars have attempted to interpret these rights, each with their viewpoints and theories. Each of these theories has examined different aspects of citizenship law. This paper examines theoretically and empirically some of the social and cultural barriers to the practice of citizenship law in criminal law, including clerks, prosecutors, and court judges. Theoretical themes of this research are based on a set of views on citizenship law (TC Marshall Social Theory of Citizenship), social factors (labeling, pressure, ecological and relative deprivation theories) and cultural factors (cultural latency theories, cultural dissemination, and capital).

This study is applied in terms of purpose, and is cross-sectional in terms of time. The statistical population of this study consisted of all trained officers of Isfahan police, judges working in Isfahan Public and Revolutionary Courts, and judges working in Isfahan Criminal Courts. The sampling method in this study was non-probable. The sample size is based on Cochran formula with the highest volume (estimated accuracy d = 0.05, maximal variance pq = 0.25 and confidence level 95%) so that out of 22 cities of Isfahan province, a total of 359 persons including 280 judicial officers, 45 judicial authorities, and 34 judicial authorities of the courts were selected. The research instrument for data collection was a questionnaire so that its validity was confirmed by face, structure. The validity of the concepts was checked by using Cronbach's alpha coefficient.

According to some descriptive findings, prosecutors have the most positive attitude and clerks have the least positive attitude to the exercise of citizenship rights. Meanwhile, bailiffs' attitudes toward cultural and social barriers affecting the exercise of citizenship rights are greater than those of prosecutors and court judges. In contrast to the inferential findings, the more the bailiff's awareness of citizenship law and criminal procedure law is, the more positive their attitude toward enforcing citizenship law becomes will be. In the meantime, lower-level positions have a more positive view of citizenship enforcement. As prosecutors become older, their attitude toward the exercise of citizenship rights becomes more negative.The results of the correlation test of the research hypotheses show that with the increase of social barriers in abductors, the rate of enforcement of citizenship decreases and among the dimensions of social barriers. That is, the more the attitudes towards security-oriented approach and the perpetrators are, the more negative perpetrators’ attitude toward the implementation of citizenship rights will be. However, the existence of political and social considerations does not have an effect on the officers’ attitude to the exercise of citizenship rights. As barriers to culture increase, the enforcement of citizenship rights will decrease. Among the dimensions of these barriers, the greater the lack of cultural capital in the customs and the increasing imitation and disregard for their infrastructure leads to their negative attitudes toward the exercise of citizenship rights. In the meantime, the cultural delay does not affect the officers’ attitude to the exercise of citizenship rights. Therefore, the social and cultural barriers of the traders harm their attitude to the exercise of citizenship rights. These barriers to the attitude of judges and prosecutors to the exercise of citizenship rights are not significant.The reasons for the impact of social and cultural barriers on civil servants can be traced due to the complexity, multiplicity, and diversity of job duties, along with the many innovations of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the field of civil law to the duties of a civil servant.

Citizens as a part of society has rights that nowadays known as citizenship rights ,so that the citizens because of its presence and active role at making and management of society has obligation and duty ,so that in all of the public law area for citizen some duty has recognized ,but that which has the citizen at criminal law with due attention to sovereigntialitical nature of criminal law has dutes which does not acting citizens can use criminal sanctions. With review of criminal law can say that the citizen at criminal law as other area of public law has duty ,the duty to impeach the crime and to be witness and the duty to presence at court are some duty that can mention beside the knowledge of law and care of citizen health.

The contradictoriness is one of the fundamental principles in any proceedings. However, the concept of this principle in the criminal proceedings which has a fundamental difference with civil procedure especially because of existence of the preliminary investigation and the possibility of taking decisions without listening to statements and reasons of criminal claim parties, also the limits of implementation of this principle are not clear. So it is necessary to considering how to apply this principle, particularly in relation to the Criminal Procedure Act 1392, which seeks to further the adversarial criminal process such as a civil proceeding. contradictoriness in criminal procedure means that no decision against one of the public claim in any stages of the proceedings (prosecution, investigation and trial) should be made just after hearing testimony and considering evidences of public claim parties (accused and prosecutor). This principle is not explicitly mentioned by Criminal Procedure Act 1392 but the contradictoriness implicitly is accepted and the most important examples of implementation of this principle in this Act such as adversarial processing in the preliminary investigation stage in forgivable crimes and in the trial stage in the court, accessing to lawyer, prohibition of obtaining any defense bill, new document and evidence pursuant of announcement of termination of proceedings has been mentioned. However with regards to the unequal status of public claim’s parties and international documents emphasis on improving accused's status through using human rights instructions including applying of the principle of contradictoriness in the criminal procedure so here we will mention examples in the Criminal Procedure Act 2013 in violation of contradictoriness against accused.

“The conflict of evidences proving disputes (litigations or lawsuits)” is an occurrence which comes in to view in both proving criminal offences and civil offences; yet, its happening in proving criminal offences contains damaging (destructive) consequences which it requires more attention to take away. Although with considering the Islamic Penal Code of Iran and principles resolving conflict in Uṣūl al-fiqh science, it is possible to be presented general solutions to stop this mentioned occurrence (solutions such as option (takhiyr), lapse, the primacy or supremacy of law and etc.). But it is the duty of a judge to accord every of these solutions with the different cases of the conflicting evidences of proving disputes (litigations or lawsuits). The method of this research paper is the descriptive-analytic for its issue. Because of the difference (distinction) in the legal system of the Hadd offences in comparison with other offences, it has concentrated on the cases of the conflict of evidences proving crimes which deserve (require) Qisas, Diya and Ta’zir and a proper solution for every case has been determined by the paper. The importance of this research is that the effectiveness of the presented solutions (which has been determined by the Islamic Penal Code of Iran) depends on selecting and implementing every solution appropriate to the conflicting case which has happened. Therefore, it assists a criminal judge to stop this conflicting happening and help him to execute justice better. As the research finding, it should be stated that types of crime, types of proofs and cases of conflict are three important components for choosing an appropriate solution to end conflicts which they are necessary to be regarded by judges to secure (guarantee) justice.

The reasons of requirement of outness of mortgage subject with an analytic and critical view in Imamiye and Iran law is studied in this article. The reasons of writing this article are counting the reasons of requirement of outness of mortgage subject and studying the validity rating of them and also determining qualification of mortgage of doubt, interest and other financial rights. We were encountered to the question that why the renown Imamiye jurisconsults emphasized on the outness of subject of mortgage and accounted the mortgage of doubt and interest void, and the civil law has followed them? The result shows that the outness of mortgage subject has no convincing reason and the mortgage of the properties without corporal and outer base should be account valid. Therefore, it’s suggested that in the future reforms the legislator should eliminate the outness of mortgage subject by reforming article 774 of civil law, and prescribes the mortgage of doubt, interest and other financial rights so as to make an efficient support over the owners of such properties and especially over the creators of intellectual properties.

Criminal investigation authorities are in sensitive positions, and this doubles the importance of the process of criminal procedure. The process for obtaining the truth requires the confrontation of the adverse parties. This can guarantee the impartiality, without which real justice is not possible. This requires the presence of adverse parties in the criminal trial process so that both sides have the authority to respond. Modern criminal law condemns the adoption and enforcement of criminal execution of judgment in the absence of the defendant. Only in rare cases and with certain conditions is the enforcement of judgment prescribed. Despite the challenges facing this principle, the effects and their resulting consequences shall be in the direction of the interests of adverse parties. Although it may lead to limited negative consequences, some coping strategy should deal with them. Fair trial can be achieved by regarding this principle. However, some exceptions have been imposed to the principle in cases of special interests. In this paper, substantial aim clarifies the importance prediction and enforcement of the principle of adverse parties presence in the criminal trial in the international documents and national law.

The relation between an authorized contract and transfer of another’s property is one of the subtle and, at the same time, important issues of civil law as well as criminal law, which has doubly increased the legislator’s silence, numerous contradictions in legal texts, bewilderment of intellects, and confusion in comprehension. There are various probabilities apt to come up concerning the relation between these two positions, such as divergence; equality; generality and peculiarity in some respect (min wajh), and absolute (muṭlaq) generality and peculiarity. Since the recognition and distinction of these two topics creates significant practical outcomes, as for instance in case of conviction of “transfer of another’s property” that would prompt punishment for fraud, and since there is no distinct criteria in statutory regulations and legal writings for making distinction between an authorized (fuḍūlī) contract and transfer of another’s property, it is tried in this article to clarify their similarities and differences so that it may inspire the legislator to provide personal criterion in law.

In most legal systems of the world, the rule of multi-title offences is an accepted one whereby the punishment is the most serious when an act can come under a number of offence titles. However, it is subtly related to some other legal concepts such as specificity, contradiction, inclusion, appropriation and forcive judges. In most of time, distinguish between them is confused which can have serious repercussion. The purpose of the present article is to clarify the differences between multi-title offences with similar legal cases in a detailed manner to show how each can be enacted in the proper context. The paper shows how, in many cases, punishments can be wrongly determined and how the legislators can be effective when misunderstandings happen.

One of the most important crimes in the criminal law is “descriptive crimes” which don not occur except the perpetrator has that description which the legislator has mentioned. Sometimes the legislator has stated a special description without determining its scope and the occurrence of the provisions (like “the description of the state officials” is designated a separate chapter of crimes in many criminal codes). In Iran، chapter13 of the Book5 of the Islamic Criminal Law (codified 1375) relates to the violations of the state officials to the rights of the government whereas the law is silent to the definition of the state and the state officials. In this research has been attempted to study the bases of the penal and criminal codes (countries such as France، Lebanon and Jordan) to define the right concepts of the state and the state officials in the criminal codes. At the end it is revealed that these two concepts have a more extensive meaning than the state and the state officials in administrative laws. Besides، the paper is going to explore the exact realms and limitations of these descriptions and its different types in the criminal codes (in a separate definition).

One of the vague issues in relation to cases involving drug abuse is the necessity of determining the purity of drugs. Gaps in related laws have created confusion for judges. Some believe purity levels of drugs used by criminals must be considered in the processing of their cases as well as in their punishment. Since the harsh processing sometimes involves death and life, the controversy is especially significant. This article explores dimensions of the said controversy. The aim is to help legislators and judges in their decision-making informed by law. Based on the present work, determining purity seems to be necessary.

The concept of contradiction is important in the interpretation of legal and religious laws because the legislator uses the concept of contradiction in many laws. In law texts, this concept has been referred to as condition, attribute, goal, limitation, number and title. As each of these concepts has been treated separately, it has caused an increase in the volume of the relevant law texts. This does not seem to be a proper policy because all of these concepts constrain the law in similar ways. Therefore, one can discuss them under a general umbrella term introduced as the concept of constraint in the present article. All these concepts are used somehow to limit or to constrain the subject of a law. The question that can be raised is whether a law is actually nullified as the constraints mentioned in it are removed? This article explores ways of studying and researching concepts related to contradiction. It expects to introduce a new approach that can be used in the current practices of law and jurisprudence in Iran. The findings of the present work indicate that the concept of constraint is actually a unitary one and one cannot rely on lexical variations in the related literature. The intentions of the legislator may be arrived at by considering both the superficial lexical items used and their logical implications.