جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « indirect cause » در نشریات گروه « علوم انسانی »

In crimes against persons through indirect cause, the perpetrator does not directly cause bodily harm. Rather, it provides an instrument to commit a crime. In these crimes, unlike some legal systems that consider fault to be necessary in order to verify the link between the causal behavior and physical injuries, in Imami jurisprudence, the main criterion is "odvan". "Odvan" can be defined as an illegal behavior by extrapolating the existing partial rulings about the causes of responsibility from jurisprudence books. Hereto two general rules regarding the role of "odvan" in such crimes could be explained. First, the rule of "non-responsibility of the owner in his property except with proof of odvan". Second, the rule of "responsibility of the perpetrator in other than his own property, except by removers of the responsibility". Islamic Penal Code, in the sixth chapter of the Book of Diyat, about the causes of responsibility is satisfied of translating the related issues and rulings from jurisprudence books in the form of partial rulings, and it has not paid attention to the role of odvan in crimes. In this research, an attempt has been made to revise the relevant general rules with the analytical descriptive method and to provide a scientific basis for solving this legal deficiency.

COVID-19 has greatly affected the social life in the present era and its dangerous consequences on people’s lives have been a serious social concern. One of the most important characteristic of this disease is that it is highly contagious. Obviously in families, which the couples are at the center, living in the same house and having many direct and indirect contacts, the possibility of transmission of this disease is high if one member contracts the disease. Despite the medical aspects of this issue, there are also important legal aspects. This article specifically seeks the answer to the question that whether the disease carrier is liable if they transmit the disease to their partner. For example, if the receiver dies, is it possible to hold the carrier responsible? Jurisprudence and legal studies show that if the carrier knows that they are carrying the virus, in some situations it constitutes a deliberate crime which can be punished but if the carrier does not know about it, it is not accepted that they are liable for compensation.

The civil responsibility of the indirect cause and the direct cause of Iran law has many similarities and differences with the intervening factor in the law of England. The expression of a variety of intervening factors as an independent and dependent intervener showed that an independent intervener is similar to the direct cause and the dependent intervener is like a poor direct cause. However, due to the changes introduced by Article 526 of the Islamic Penal Code of 1392, in the state of community, the indirect cause and the direct are both principally responsible and, with the difference in the effect of the amount of intervention, responsibility will also be relative, and the tendency towards material and objective factors in Iran law will be more than fraudulent factors and immaterial factors. The civil responsibility of cause priority effect, which is well-known in the community of longitudinal causes in jurisprudence and Iran law, is like the same civil responsibility of cause and primary factor against dependent intervener factor. The direct cause who are affected by the primary cause, committed the felony and hurt in Iran law in state having will is responsible, in contradiction to the procedure of England law, which is such a direct cause is dependent intervening factor and irresponsible.

Combination of direct cause (Mobasher) and Indirect cause (Sabab) is one of causes combination kind and notwithstanding that there is not any division in holy «Qur''an» and «Sunnah»، perhaps «Shiet Scholars» have made such invention in order to facilitate of the finding of tort feasor. The art of 332 of code civil of Iran and the art of 393 of Islamic penal code of Iran following the famous opinion of Islamic scholars، provided «the priority of direct cause (Mobasher) to indirect cause (Sabab)» and have made the question that: At the time، when the influence of both of them is equal in establishment of damage، why does the liability only bear on the direct cause? Art 530 of the new bill of Islamic penal code، in spite of the fact that it has not yet enforced، demonstrated that legislators are paying attention to this criticism، considering the fact that the lawyers do not accept this priority، furthermore، some of intelligent Islamic scholars، have criticized this provision. For this reason، in this research، we deal with the existing challenges of determining the responsible person.