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

Imamieh jurisprudents disagree about judge's responsibility, the liability of public treasury, lack of responsibility, when the judge's decision is void. Since the source of judge’s error can be different. The sentencing of responsibility or lack thereof is not the same in all cases. If the source of error is lewdness of witnesses so that after the testimony and issuing the sentence, the judge becomes aware of the fact that witnesses had been lawed. Then four theories are presented. The preferred theory is the responsibility of public treasury based on the principle of respect for Muslim blood. Also, if the source of the error is judge’s default on the subject matter or adaptation of the ruling on it, the public treasury will be the guarantor, unlike the case in which the judge neglects in a judgment and thus he will be the guarantor. Dominant jurists of Imamieh have also extended the sentencing of warranty to non-convicts. If the executioner's error in executing a judge's sentence is due to judge’s error, it will be like judge’s error. In financial cases, if an error is made while the object remains as the same, it will be returned to the original owner, and when it is perished, the person who has caused damage (the flashing) is liable, if the object has not yet reached the judge before delivery of the convicted. Otherwise, both of them become responsible because of pursuit of capture.