جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « accused's rights » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

In contemporary societies, the inevitability of crime occurrence necessitates the involvement of competent authorities and law enforcement officers to address various criminal activities. The detection of crimes is a critical initial phase in the criminal proceedings process, as the cycle of legal proceedings does not commence, and perpetrators remain unpunished until a crime is discovered. This article explores the nature of crime detection and the foundations that establish its permissibility within the contexts of Islam and legal subjects.   Utilizing a descriptive-analytical method and drawing on library sources, the article delves into the nature of crime detection and its legal bases. Given that crime detection involves actions by law enforcement entities, it often conflicts with societal and individual rights, highlighting the existence of limitations on crime detection. Despite Islam and Imamiyeh jurisprudence emphasizing the principle of human dignity and the rights of the accused, the article contends that, in specific cases related to the body of Islam and sovereignty, the authorization and legitimization of crime detection are recognized.   The research findings indicate that despite limitations on crime detection, including the primacy of the presumption of innocence, the sanctity of the investigative process, and the respect for human dignity and honor, several bases justify the detection of crimes. The most prominent among these bases include the realization of public order and societal security, crime prevention, the enforcement of criminal justice, the safeguarding of moral values and public interests, as well as the protection of the rights of individuals and society.

Balancing the rights of the accused and Intermediary on the International Criminal Court is one of the serious challenges of Thomas lubanga Dyilo. The primitive branch prefers the accused's rights on Intermediary's right and even pays its heavy price by staying procedure until the Prosecutor also prefer the accused's right over other their tasks. But Prosecutor feel this precedent for Intermediary's security and the possibility of future collaboration stopping in risky International Criminal Court cases and to observe the requirements of a fair trial about accused without the impact. The Appeals Branch is also without evaluating the accused's or Intermediary right's priority over another, only criticize hardliner of primitive branch in staying proceedings and disobedience of prosecutor from the Court's orders and ruled to continue the procedure. Hence the Appeals Branch with his silence, does not offer any vision in giving priority to the rights of the accused on the Intermediary or balancing in other trials in the International Criminal Court.