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

Explaining the accusation and taking defenses from the accused are among the important issues that determine the fate of the continuation or termination of the preliminary investigation. The question that is raised in this regard is whether, according to the Criminal Procedure Law approved in 2012, it is possible to explain the charge of absenteeism and obtain initial defenses from the lawyer of the absent or fugitive accused? The findings of the research indicate that first; Addressing the accused's lawyer on a temporary basis and until the accused's arrival or presence to hear the first defense is not allowed or prohibited by law, like hearing the last defense of the lawyer from the client. Secondly; There is no fundamental difference between hearing the first defense and the last defense of the accused, and both types of defense can be taken at the same time, therefore, the lawyer has the right to present defenses at both stages. Thirdly; Despite the fact that the addressee of the "Final Accusation Explanation" and the criminal bail order complains about it, but according to the spirit of Articles 3 and 94 of the Criminal Procedure Law approved in 2012, with the aim of reducing the delay of the proceedings and the speed in conducting preliminary investigations, regarding " The client should create a procedure to explain the temporary charge to the lawyer to take the initial defense and determine the fate of the criminal case, and this is not inconsistent with the provisions of Article 178 and Articles 190 to 199, 262 and 263 of the Criminal Procedure Law. This research examines the subject in a descriptive and analytical way.

As ratification of new laws and regulations really needs refinement and expurgation and as the necessity of analyzing such laws is crystal clear, the resent paper is to level a fundamental criticism on the penal rule of declaring war against God (mohārebeh) and corruption on the earth (ifsade filardh). The main question of this research is that why the criminal acts of declaring war against God and corruption on the earth have been mentioned as two separate criminal subjects? The research hypothesis is created based on the Fourth Principal of Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran and seems that categorizing these two crimes under the same subject and category lacks reliable reason. Therefore, the existence of Innamā (showing limitation) and wāw (showing linking), the same subject in the word yuhāriboon and yasoon and interpreting this verse for the accused, as well as considering jurisprudents' opinions and concluding the traditions on the issue of mohārebeh all entail that these two issues enjoy the same rule which corresponds the criminal act.

Because of the prominentce role of indictment in criminal proceedings, it is important to discuss legal frameworks witch can strengthen the status of indictment. Apart from Article 66 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1392 there are various provisions that can much better illustrate the status of indictment. On the one hand, Indictment is similar to concepts such as crime complaints and crime reports, that have not properly separated by the legislators, and On the other hand, attention must be paid to the criminalization of indictment in aspects such as personality of indictor and the process which can strengthen the behavior of indictor. However, a form of theoretical and practical development of resort to indictment can be obtained accurately in the criminal laws; because a kind of protection for indictment’s position is to classify instances of indictment, for example non indictment, postponing indictment, prevention of indictment and delay or lack of attention to the prosecution of a reported crime. But these classifications are probable and without integrity. Consequently, it seems that paying comprehensively attention to legal backgrounds and lack of legislations about indictment can improve objects of this legal institution and effectiveness of indictors