محمدرضا اعزازی

Human dignity and the legitimate freedoms of members of the society are one of the fundamental rights of nations, which the government, as a superior governing body, is responsible for observing. It is important to refer to the history of civilized societies and sacred religious texts that legitimate freedoms have been the concern of rulers and demanded by citizens for many years. The current form of power structure in most societies, which takes place in accordance with the separation of powers, requires the consideration of a large governing body to implement and facilitate the observance of these freedoms for individuals. In the process of criminal proceedings, compliance with some penal principles will guarantee the legitimate freedom of citizens during the proceedings and proceedings of the courts. In this research, by studying and verifying these principles, we will deal with the performance of the judiciary in protecting the basic rights of people in the society. These principles are briefly; The principle of acquittal, the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal laws, the prohibition of torture and the acquisition of illegitimate reasons, and the principles governing the determination of crimes and punishments.

According to Article 130 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the crime scene investigation group is responsible for revealing the dimensions of the murder mystery. In this research, which was carried out with a qualitative and library method, the investigation is divided into two main categories, police and judicial, according to the activities mentioned in the executive regulations on the scope of powers and duties of crime scene investigation, it is pointed out that the actions taken in Crime scenes are purely police in nature and are basically in line with law enforcement duties. On the other hand, the judge sometimes has demands about the manner of the crime and the quality of its commission, which were not previously mentioned in the report of the crime scene investigation team. This type of judicial investigation has a very decisive role in the decision-making of the judges of the courts, which according to the executive regulations of the crime scene investigation can be obtained through the investigations carried out at the crime scene and the opinion of the experts of the crime scene investigation group, so this result is obtained. It is possible that the mentioned group, using their powers, each according to their specialized duties, should answer two basic questions about the identification of the killer and the quality of the murder. Undoubtedly, achieving this goal, in addition to helping to convince the judge's conscience to issue a verdict, also solves the problem of delaying proceedings.

the protective jurisdiction principle is one of the four types of jurisdictions that, according to the principles contained in this principle, governments, in order to protect their security, independence, and integrity, have the right to deal with crimes that, due to the fact that they are oppose to the risks outside the territorial territory of that state, their basic interests. In Iran's penal system, the principle of real jurisdiction was accepted by the legislator in the General Penalty Law in 1973, and after the Islamic Revolution, despite changes in form and substance, it was approved in Article 5 of the Islamic Penalty Law 2013. the protective jurisdiction principle, despite its many functions and resolving issues surrounding the conflict of criminal jurisdictions, has brought challenges and ambiguities since its establishment in the international criminal system, some of which have attracted the attention of jurists and given them acceptable arguments and justifications. We have called this type "measured challenges". But some other challenges are related to the protective jurisdiction principle that have not been paid attention to in the international arena or have recently arisen due to the changes and developments caused by different periods of legislation and have been neglected in Iran's penal system so far. We call this type "unmeasured challenges". The main investigation in this article will be involved to the last part of the challenges

Punishment has two legislative and judicial dimensions. This criminal process leads to sometimes complex equations, which can be pointed out in comparative studies. In this research, which was carried out based on the descriptive-analytical method, by considering the criminal systems of different countries and analyzing the spirit of criminal laws in the field of crimes against family rights and duties, it was answered that the penal system governing crimes against How are family rights and duties? And what distinctive features does it have? Finally, the question of which is the optimal punishment system in this field was addressed. In the first step, by studying the types of punishment systems (crime-based, offender-based, and guideline-based) and in the second step, by referring to the family protection law and the 19th chapter of the Tazirat book under this topic, and counting the principles governing the spirit of the laws through criminal examples. , the ruling criminal system in crimes against family rights and duties was identified as a criminal-centered model. The key features of this approach are paying attention to the reality of criminals, considering the principle of individualizing punishments and the necessity of observing the principle of proportionality of crime and punishment. Finally, the optimal punishment model in dealing with these crimes; A guideline-oriented system was identified. In the guideline-oriented approach, in addition to reducing the confusion of votes in similar cases, it can increase their strength and provide a specific model for judges in choosing punishments.