جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « اشتباه حکمی » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

According to Iranian criminal law, Afghanistan and Imamieh jurisprudence are one of the conditions for the realization of murder that the perpetrator intended to murder a particular offender and achieved his goal. However, in cases such as murder in the belief that Mahdoraldem was in spite of the conditions for murder, Imami jurisprudents and the Iranian legislator have considered it involuntary homicide. The main issue of this study is that from the perspective of criminal law of Iran, Afghanistan and Imami jurisprudence, in what case does the belief and belief of the perpetrator affect the psychological element of murder, it causes its change from intentional to unintentional? The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of contrary belief on the psychological element of murder in Criminal Law of Iran, Afghanistan and Imamieh Jurisprudence. For this purpose, analytical-descriptive research method with a bookhouse approach has been used. The obtained results indicate that according to Imami jurisprudence, in two cases contrary to belief, it changes the psychological element of premeditated murder to pseudo-intentional. One is a mistake in the subject of crime, whether his belief is conventional or unconventional. The other is a mistake in ruling the issue, if his belief has been achieved through conventional means. Iran's legislator has also accepted this by following Imami jurists. But in Afghanistan's criminal law, the thematic mistake and the wrong sentence resulting from the wrong belief of the perpetrator change the murder to pure error.

Error of law of an administrative official means ignorance of the law in the sense that the administrative official has a misunderstanding of the law or gives an interpretation contrary to the purpose of the legislator. But the important issue is how the judicial review occurre. In English law, in the traditional approach, only jurisdictional errors and error of law on the face of the record were reviewable from all types of Intra vires errors, but in the new approach, error of law in the broad sense of ultra vires is one of the causes of judicial review and was abrogated the distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional; so all the errors of law are reviewable. In French law, all types of administrative official’s error of law are reviewable, too. In Iranian administrative law, judicial review on error of law has not been explicitly provided, but it seems that it is possible to use the two bases that provided in the law for judicial review: "legality" and "departure from the limits of authority", although this is not same in the competence of the General Assembly and the branches. In the present research, by studying England and France legal systems in judicial review on error of law, rules and judicial procedure of Iran have been studied and to Identify this concept and judicial review on it, a solution from other legal systems is presented to provide the possibility of judicial review of the administrative official’s error of law in the administrative law of Iran in full.