جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "تعقیب کیفری" در نشریات گروه "علوم انسانی"

The role of the prosecutor in criminal detention is one of the important and controversial issues. Accordingly, the purpose of this article is to examine the question of what role does the prosecutor's office play in the management of criminal prosecution in Iran and the United States of America? The present article is descriptive and analytical and has investigated the mentioned question by using the library method. The findings indicate that the prosecutor's office in Iran is appointed and affiliated with the judiciary, while in the United States it is elective and affiliated with the executive branch. In both legal systems, criminal prosecution is managed by the prosecutor's office; With the difference that in America, by accepting the principle of having the status of prosecution, the prosecutor's office has wider powers in the management of criminal prosecution. Trimming the prosecutor's office in Iran and transforming this institution into a strong and efficient management of criminal prosecution requires that, first of all, While in the American legal system, the focus of prosecutors is on the management of criminal prosecution and the society is sensitive to the performance of the prosecution in the management of criminal prosecution and as a result of correcting the wrong procedures of the prosecution institution, it has become the desire and demand of the society regarding the correction of wrong procedures in the case of the prosecution. There is no such demand in Iran.

The concept of "resistance" has been one of the main concepts of the foreign policy discourse of the Islamic Republic in the era after the victory of the Islamic Revolution; This concept refers to the negation of any order based on the dominance of Western and Eastern powers and the rejection of regional and international arrangements affected by the dominance system on the one hand and the attempt to redefine the regional and international status of nations and societies that are Dominion has been oppressed. For this reason, the axis of resistance, which is derived from Iran's military-security, diplomatic and cultural efforts in the countries of Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, has been one of the most important indicators of the country's foreign policy discourse in the last few years, especially in the fight against ISIS. Martyr Qassem Soleimani's managerial and security role as the most important commander of the resistance field made his position prominent in this discourse, and with his testimony, Iran's hostile approach towards the commanders and perpetrators of this terror was intensified. For this purpose, this article seeks to find the answer to this question, considering the position of Martyr Soleimani in the discourse of the axis of resistance, on what basis is his criminal pursuit in the international law system based? In response to this question, as a hypothesis, it should be said that the criminal prosecution of the perpetrators and commanders of Qassem Soleimani's martyrdom is based on the discourse of resistance and based on the approach of negating domination and weakening it in order to promote the discursive position of resistance. From this point of view, it should be said that the approach of this article was legal; Also, this article has been collected by descriptive and analytical method and its data is documented.

It is clear that the right to health as one of the fundamental human rights has been extremely important in all periods of history, especially with the development of countries and the emergence of modernity. Violation of health rights has irreparable consequences for the general public of a society and may even lead to a human disaster.  With the epidemic of the Covid-19 (Coronavirus) virus around the world and the need for timely vaccination, the importance of the right to health has been raised more than ever. One of these violations is the violation by government officials. The research method in this research is a combination of descriptive and analytical. The data of this research is collected through referring to documents, regulations, books, articles, and field study, in addition to that, it is set in the statement of the existing challenges with a critical approach in the light of presenting suggested solutions with the researcher's inferential analogy. In this research, the laws and regulations of the right to health in Iran's legal system and its violations, challenges, and approaches, we discuss the possibility of criminal prosecution of government officials as a group of people involved in violating the citizens' rights to health. The findings of the research show that there is a possibility of criminal prosecution of government officials in violation of the citizens' right to health, but there are many challenges on the way, which we will examine in detail and the available solutions.

Today, the countries supporting terrorism have been able to organize and implement their actions wherever they want, using modern technology and equipment. Examining terrorism and jurisprudential titles related to this term, along with their constituent elements, provides the means to compare these criminal behaviors. A comparison that, by identifying the commonalities and differences of these titles, can evaluate the method adopted in dealing with the action of the United States of America in martyring Sardar Soleimani. The questions that the current research is meant to answer are: From a jurisprudential-legal point of view, what criminal title applies to the action of the United States in relation to this crime? What does terrorism have to do with intentional murder? Which method (proceeding in domestic or international courts) is suitable for the legal case of assassination of Martyr Soleimani? The findings of the research show that despite the absence of a legal pillar of the phenomenon of terrorism in the domestic laws, if this behavior leads to intentional murder, it is unimpeded to impose punishment, including retribution, ransom, and general aspects, on the perpetrators by the domestic courts of the capital. which is discussed in this article with the method of descriptive-analytical study.

The foundations and principles governing criminal prosecution include structures and frameworks that explain what prosecution is and why it is justified. Undoubtedly, understanding the social and philosophical foundations of every human establishment is essential. Accordingly, the logical and social structures governing criminal prosecution are of special importance. The purpose of this investigation is to find out what and why criminal prosecution is based on, and is designed based on its strength or weakness. This is because, on the one hand, in order to properly understand the criminal prosecution and its accurate evaluation, it is necessary that the principles, goals and principles governing it have been carefully examined. On the other hand, in order to get familiar with the process of prosecution, different methods of prosecution in Iranian and Turkish law, prosecution by the court (predominant method in Turkey) and prosecution by the prosecutor (the only method in Iran) have been examined.

The victim of crime plays an important and essential role in criminal prosecution. In forgivable crimes, criminal prosecution will not be possible without his will and in such crimes, the victim can play an important and active role in criminal prosecution. In the present research, "Participation of the victim in the judicial process: basics, challenges and solutions" the following results were obtained with the descriptive and analytical method. Victim participation faces two types of challenges in criminal prosecution. Personal challenges related to the victim himself and in between, victimized fear, shame of the victim, family and friendship considerations, the victim's lack of awareness and the victim's inability are among the most important reasons for the victim's non-participation in prosecution. Structural challenges related to the structure of the criminal justice system, including the lack of proper communication between the victim and the authorities and mediation of officers and employees and judicial service offices, the authority of the prosecuting authority, secrecy and non-arbitrary nature of some of the proceedings and prolongation of the prosecution are among the most important structural challenges. Iran's criminal justice system in the field of structural challenges has tried to increase the victim's participation in criminal proceedings, but regarding the personal challenges related to the victim, this system doesn’t enjoy a desirable situation.  Eliminating the grounds of fear and shame in the victim, allowing the victim not to be pursued, helping to preserve the identity of the victim, the removal of intermediaries between the victim and the criminal justice authorities, and the improvement of the legal knowledge of officers and employees can contribute to most of the victims involved in the criminal proceedings.

Reliance to Provisional Measures in the ICSID Arbitration Tribunal to suspend criminal prosecution is a new issue in international investment law. The host state will prosecute a foreign investor after to start investing disputes in the ICSID Arbitration Tribunal to prevent from international arbitration. Therefore, the study of different dimensions of this approach is important and one of the aims and subject of this paper.

The research method is descriptive-analytical and critical to answer a question by relying on the ICSID Arbitration Tribunal’s procedure. Research question is what are the effect of the ICSID Arbitration Tribunal’s Provisional Measures in denying the host state’s sovereignty in prosecuting a foreign investor?

Research findings show that the imposition of Provisional Measures, acceptance of the investment agreement, reliance of the parties on the international arbitration mechanism before disputes arising to ignore the host state’s sovereignty in prosecuting foreign investors at the same time as the international arbitration begins, so that fair arbitration will be carried out while maintaining equality of arms.Keywords: Host State, Criminal Prosecution, Foreign Investor, ICSID Arbitration Tribunal, Provisional Measures.

One of the Shariah and legal duties of the citizens is to pay alimony to the persons who are liable for it. If a person does not fulfill this obligation, the persons liable for alimony can claim their rights through filing a lawsuit, and the court will condemn the obligated person and oblige them to pay alimony. Since non-payment of alimony sometimes causesirretrievable harm to the family institution and the life of the alimonyobligors, not paying the alimony has been criminalized in Iran's judicial system for a long time, and the person who refuses can be prosecuted through a criminal lawsuit. Of course, this statement does not mean that a person who is obligated to pay alimony is subject to criminal prosecution and punishment simply because he does not pay alimony, but this category is contingent upon a number of conditions. Some of these conditions are specific to the wife, some are reserved for relatives, and some others are shared by all persons liable for the alimony. However, the qualities and details of some of these conditions have not been sufficiently examined and sometimes it has been debated among lawyers and resulted in the conflict of judicial opinions. Therefore, conducting the current research is one of the essential needs of the judicial system.In the current research, the authors have explained and described these conditions with a descriptive-analytical method.

Justice is considered as one of the most complicated issues in the field of human relations, especially when steps are to be taken by the ICC in order to compensate for “victim’s damage” and “deal with criminals and punish them”. The complexity of this issue is intensified when the Court connects the realization of justice to the issue of peace, security and prosperity. The study of the concept of justice in the supplementary jurisdiction shows that the Rome Statute, by appealing to it, is trying to partially adapt normative pluralism to the performance of international criminal justice. At the same time, the concept of justice in the Rome Statute is based on different circumstances and situations. In addition, justice in its own special sense is based on the authentication of offender’s fault as well as the rehabilitation of the offender, and in its general sense also includes the interests (profits) of the victims. That’s why the Court in order to have a lasting impact on justice and peace, has established a unit to support victims and witnesses, as well as establishing a trust fund. The Court, meanwhile, enforces the retributive justice by punishing perpetrators of atrocity crime. Accordingly, the Court’s decisions were aimed more at deterring (preventive) with the aim of achieving peace and security rather than the proportionality of offence and punishment; thus, indications of compensation for inequality have been occurred, which is not the concept of retributive justice in its rulings.

It is possible that the legal entities which become dissolved before or during the process of the criminal procedure to be merged with other legal entities or converted into another legal entity. Each of these conversions which occurs in the structure and nature of the legal entities impacts the process of the criminal procedure against this entity such as arraignment, explaining charges, preliminary in the investigation, issued writs, etc. The present note with the descriptive and analytic method and with applying the library tools will assess the changes in the current criminal prosecution of the legal entities. The legislature in the present regulations only with enacting article 692 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure has implicitly observed the matter of involuntary dissolution and considered it nolle prosequi, (Latin: to be unwilling to pursue) or suspension of execution of sentence according to cases but it has not observed necessary consideration in other cases such as voluntary dissolution, merge and convention. It makes judicial authorities confront obstacles in action and it may follow results such as conflict of the issued judgments, the continuation (Prolongation) of the procedure and even impunity of the legal person. Therefore, for dealing with the voluntary dissolution of the legal persons, merge or convention along with malice of these entities it is necessary that the legislature with careful consideration deprives the delegates of the legal entities to form and register new legal entities and also these entities meanwhile sentencing are banned from arbitrary institutions such as suspension of the execution of sentence, deferral of issuing a judgment, etc.

Considering the importance and effects of pretrial detention in Iran and the United States, it is important to consider the need for fair trial in this regard. In this article, in order to examine the fairness of the pretrial detention in these two countries, the presumption of innocence and equality of arms are considered as two essential principles for a fair trial as a basis. The examination of the presumption of innocence shows that the defendant's detention is not consistent with this principle, therefore, in both countries, measures such as limiting the issuance of a proceeding, the right to compensation and the right of appeal are anticipated. The study of the principle of equality of arms in this case shows that the detention of the accused is not consistent with the principle, Especially in Iran, where prosecutors can sometimes order pretrial detention. In American law, the judge who is neutral can issue this order. In both countries, there is a right of access to a lawyer in order to strengthen the defense rights of the accused at the time of his detention.

According to the principle of the necessity of criminal prosecution, upon the occurrence of a crime, the prosecutor, as the prosecuting authority, is obliged to prosecute the accused; but over time, society and public opinion have reduced their sensitivity to certain crimes and are reluctant to be prosecuted by the prosecutor. This can be due to the nature of some crimes, which, in principle, do not disturb the social order and security, or in the event of damage, the negative consequences of prosecuting crimes from the community point of view are far greater than prosecuting them. This situation compels the prosecutor to abandon the prosecution in the light of the principle of appropriateness or appropriateness of the criminal prosecution and to use the alternatives of the prosecution, such as the suspension of the prosecution, the filing of the case and criminal mediation; Because criminal law is a tool to achieve the goals of social policy, and consequently, social acceptability is the legitimacy of prosecution. In this case, the pursuit is expedient. In this article, we seek to examine how the prosecutor achieves public order and social security with expediency.

The present research is a research article and the result of the author's studies and researches in the form of library documents. And after reviewing the contents related to the title of the article and the necessary filings, it has been compiled and arranged.

The findings of the study indicate that in the light of the expediency of the prosecutor and by observing the conditions, both the interests of individuals and the interests of society are provided. By preparing public opinion as well as regulating the pursuit of expediency, one can hope for the effective establishment of public order and social security. The objectives of the investigation are to examine the expediency of the prosecuting authority in relation to the establishment of public order and social security at the community level and to answer these questions. What is the relationship between the prosecutor's expediency in dealing with crimes in maintaining public order and social security? And finally, what is the authority of the prosecutor in assessing the expediency of criminal prosecution in relation to the establishment of public order and social security?

The main message of this research is how the prosecutor achieves public order and social security with expediency. The prosecuting authority does not make the prosecution commensurate with the mere consideration of an interest or benefit. Rather, in order to convince himself and justify the judicial action, by evaluating the values ​​emphasized by the society, in some cases, it is possible to consider several benefits or interests of the victim / offender and the interests of the society separately or together; Then refrain from pursuing the accused; And may use other measures as an alternative to prosecution.

The evolution of substantive laws and forms in different societies is a reflection of criminal thought. Historical studies by law scholars have shown that the political, cultural, religious, and geographical structure of societies has been the main cause of the formation and modification of laws and the style of dealing with crime and justice since its inception. The evolution of justice systems reflects the evolution of human thinking on one of the most important issues in human societies. The presence and role of prosecution authorities in different historical periods has been the focus of different jurisdictions, and accordingly, the laws of the jurisdiction of countries have changed frequently. These changes focus on one's interests, social issues, and sometimes both. Prosecution has long been regarded as one of the key pillars of criminal justice. In this regard, the evolution of the role of the prosecuting authority in different historical periods should be studied and extracted through criminal proceedings. What changes have been made during the prosecution process? On the other hand, what are the differences between the prosecution authorities in the signatory countries that currently have the prosecution system? And what is the cause of those differences? In order to answer the questions raised at the outset, it was necessary to examine specifically and precisely the history of the accusative justice system from the outset of the Sumerian and Babel governments. In this regard, the principles and characteristics of this system were studied in a specialized manner. During different periods and based on various political and social changes, the legal and governmental view of the criminal systems and the status of those involved has greatly changed. Studying the role of the prosecutor assigned to a particular person at different times and in different countries, and therefore using the term prosecuting authority, requires investigating the position of other prosecutors and criminal systems. The role of prosecution authorities in the prosecution phase of the prosecution process has also been specifically explored in the context of the evolution of the two countries, the United Kingdom and the United States, due to their avoidance of disclosure.

Although the Islamic Penal Code (enacted in 2013) has clearly recognized criminal liability for legal persons, only nine articles have been adopted in the Criminal Procedure Code (enacted in 2015) to investigate these crimes. Since, for many years, criminal responsibility for legal persons was not adopted in Iran’s Law (except for some few cases), it was not a big challenge to deal with these crimes. After recognition of criminal liability for legal persons in the Islamic Penal Code, many challenges will arise from a formal perspective in conducting preliminary investigations into the allegations against them; given that legal persons are abstract in meaning and considering the fact that provisions adopted in the Criminal Procedure Code are essentially natural person-oriented. Presumably, these Challenges may include how to summon and prosecute a legal person, voluntary annulment of a legal person during preliminary investigations, issuance of judicial orders, and using certain favorable institutions such as filing a lawsuit or suspension of prosecution. The present study tries to analyze challenges through analytic-descriptive method and introduce recommendations to deal with them. These recommendations may include: Specifying suitable legal sanctions when legal person’s representative ignores presence in court; making judicial orders compelling; and consideration of legal sanctions to prevent violation of these orders.

The extensive grounds of terrorist’s unpunishment, specifically in the newly-founded and governmental crimes, has affected the frequency of these terrorist acts and has led to the increasing development of their anti-human practices in regional and global levels. The unprecedented order and official terror of internationally protected persons, including the commander of the Quds Force by the US president, is the example of a crime that has violated treaties, customary rules and international legal principles and the new forms of terrorism, which could be imitated  by other states’ presidents, threatens the peace and stability of the international community. Considering that the terrorist act was committed in the territory of a foreign country with the aiding and abetting of alien’s nationals, the victim's country is not easily able to prosecute the commanders who ordered and perpetrators of that incident. This is due to the fact that the terrorist act has occurred outside the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran and therefore the principle of territorial jurisdiction, which is the basis for the determination and recognition of the competent courts and law, cannot be enforced. Overcoming this fundamental obstacle and finding legal solutions to achieve the governing rules and the competent authority by exploring the jurisdictional aspects of international institutions is a challenge that has been addressed in this article through a descriptive-analytic method of study. Strategies such as applying the principles of substitute competence, using the capacity of the relevant states’ cooperation, legal capacity-creating based on the measures tested in the world community, constitute applicable responses for solving the problem.

In the light of comparative law developments in recent years, the Criminal Procedure Code of 2013 has introduced numerous institutions and mechanisms into the Iranian criminal justice system that, through the emergence of a concurrent justice, prosecution of the accused is suspended in exchange for some of the orders suggested by the prosecutor or reconciliation with the plaintiff. Proper implementation of these strategies, which are interpreted as alternatives to criminal prosecution, has shortened the intervention of the criminal system and accelerated the resolution of disputes arising out of the crime, giving the accused an opportunity not to stay immune from criminal labeling without getting involved with the criminal process and compensating the victim’s damages in a short time. Successors of prosecution, however, face challenges such as the ambiguous status of the defendant’s rights. In fact, the nature of such proceedings raises many questions, including whether the right to defense in these proceedings differs from that of ordinary criminal proceedings? And are the defendants’ rights observed in the same way as classical rights? This article seeks to provide appropriate solutions to these rights for these methods by studying and criticizing the legal rights of the accused in prosecution alternatives.

Transitional justice refers to the ways of addressing the large scale or systematic Human and Humanitarian Rights violations in periods of transition from conflict and repression, that the normal system of criminal justice, due to the extent and severity of violations, is not able to provide them adequate and appropriate response. The mechanisms of transitional justice are different, depending on the circumstances prevailing in the transitional society. Transitional justice, is useing in different societies as a way to confront the legacies of oppression, war and violence. This, is accomplishing through mechanisms like criminal prosecution, truth-seeking, reparation, and institutional reforms. This paper, along with the conceptualization of transitional justice and the introduction of its various criminal and non-criminal mechanisms during the transition period, examines the acceptability of these mechanisms in transitional societies and their validity in terms of International Criminal Court.