علی صادقی

The principle of res judicata is widely accepted in numerous legal systems, including Iran's, where it has enshrined in Article No. 13 of the National Criminal Judiciary Law established in 2013. This principle serves as a basis for nonsuit judgments in criminal matters. In this study, we delve into the conditions for applying this principle in criminal law and jurisprudence, examining various examples where disputes arise and exploring the conditions for its application. One essential condition is the finality of the ruling, regardless of whether it ends in a conviction or acquittal. Another condition is achieving unanimity among adversaries, which can prove challenging. A third condition is the unity of cause, as in the case where a civil lawsuit precedes a criminal one or vice versa. The legislature, in Articles No. 16 to 18 of the Islamic Penal Code enacted in 2013, delineates various scenarios. A fourth condition is the unity of subject matter, prompting debate over whether it pertains to the unity of external actions or the unity of the title of the crime. Through jurisprudential and legal analysis, it becomes apparent that the criterion hinges on the integration of external actions, elucidating that multiple legal titles do not warrant trial de novo regarding a claim for a single act.

In the context of religion and original Islam, woman is considered as a sacred being and an individual who has the ability to evolve continually, and thus some of the laws, from which some degradation of women is induced, are facing numerous problems for each of which there exist an appropriate answer demonstrating that none of them has the ability to prove the rulings of Islam on the humiliation of women. By examining the original Islamic texts and first-rate Muslim scholars, the present study has answered such doubts. Unquestionably, women have a special place in Islam, and thus accusing Islam of having an instrumental view toward women as well as accusing Islam of lacking enough pertinent religious texts in the discussion of understanding religion is a completely-fabricated entity by the ill-wishers and claimants of Islamic thought

There are many foundations in the word of the jurists for expert witness validation. Acceptance of them has specific effects, especially on the scope of expert witness validation and its circumstances. In this research, while criticizing the basics of the credibility of the expert evidence, such as accuracy because of witness validation, unique news, obstruction, assurance and judges awareness, prove that the correct basis in the validation of expert witness is wise way.Based on this expert opinion on the external issue of the subject, because of existence wise way, it is an independent reason for proving issues and its not just way for the judge awareness, but in proving crime and citation, according to lack of the same way between the Imams and wise men, in referring to the expert opinion, the wise is not an independent reason but merely a sign of based on suspicion that along with other signs can be a documentary for judges awareness. In matters of judgment – such as determine Arsh- expert evidence is not validation, but it can not described as an argument.

Only 12 cases from hudud are mentioned in the Islamic punishment law of 1392, and of course under the article 220 of civil law. Other hudud punishments are referred to the other legally valid sources and fatwas (legal opinion issued by a jurisprudent).
Therefore to examine the hudud involved in the article 220 CL, one should refer to the sources in Feqh (jurisprudence).
Through observing faqih's words (experts in figh), it is found out that according to the most of faqihs' viewpoints, punishments of some offences like apostasy, prophecy claim and wizardry are from hudud punishments and they are involved in the article 220 CL.
Some offences such as trading freemen, getting married to dhimmi(non-Muslims living in Islamic state) women without permission from the Muslim wife, and kissing a boy lustfully, although according to a few of Faqihs are counted as hudud punishments, in viewpoints(punishments decided by the judge of a canonical court).
Also in faqihs' word for some of the criminal designations sauch as Mustahil Moharramat (one who introduces Haram (forbidden) as legitimate), bandit, burglar, suffocater and exhumer has been determined fixed punishments (hadd) like execution and cutting of hand. But these cases are not independent and are referred to one of the hudud titles.