ali ahmadifar

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.

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

udges' Behavior in 2011, it was necessary to suspend judicial services in all criminal proceedings. Under recent law, suspension from judicial service is permitted only for intentional offenses and unintentional offenses or financial convictions that require the pursuit or enforcement of a warrant for arrest or detention. The fact that the suspension of judges under the new law due to job immunity can be more useful to them is an issue that the present article seeks to examine. Also, in order to better examine the issue, first the cases of suspension in intentional, unintentional crimes or other necessary cases have been investigated. Based on the results obtained, suspension of judicial service is necessary in all intentional offenses and in unintentional offenses or in cases of financial convictions that the prosecution or execution of a sentence requires the arrest or detention of a judge. Although the suspension of judicial service prevents the employment of judges and thus reduces the rights of the accused judge, but considering that this issue prevents the summoning, arrest and detention of judges before the suspension, therefore, the existence of immunity prevents the summons, They will be arrested