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

Justice is considered as one of the most complicated issues in the field of human relations, especially when steps are to be taken by the ICC in order to compensate for “victim’s damage” and “deal with criminals and punish them”. The complexity of this issue is intensified when the Court connects the realization of justice to the issue of peace, security and prosperity. The study of the concept of justice in the supplementary jurisdiction shows that the Rome Statute, by appealing to it, is trying to partially adapt normative pluralism to the performance of international criminal justice. At the same time, the concept of justice in the Rome Statute is based on different circumstances and situations. In addition, justice in its own special sense is based on the authentication of offender’s fault as well as the rehabilitation of the offender, and in its general sense also includes the interests (profits) of the victims. That’s why the Court in order to have a lasting impact on justice and peace, has established a unit to support victims and witnesses, as well as establishing a trust fund. The Court, meanwhile, enforces the retributive justice by punishing perpetrators of atrocity crime. Accordingly, the Court’s decisions were aimed more at deterring (preventive) with the aim of achieving peace and security rather than the proportionality of offence and punishment; thus, indications of compensation for inequality have been occurred, which is not the concept of retributive justice in its rulings.

The CAS which was established by the International Olympic Committee with the idea of becoming the “Hague Court for Sport” in 1984, is now around 600 cases per year. As its founders had intended, CAS has gone through the path of becoming a global institution, the judgments of which the international community of sport can rely on. The structure and rules of proceedings of the CAS has been amended several times during the past 4 decades of its existence, nonetheless, issues related to the principle of fair trial, including compulsory jurisdiction of the CAS, holding proceedings in public and most importantly independence and impartiality has always been amongst the challenges confronted by the CAS. By briefly addressing the basis of the need to apply the procedural safeguards by the Court of Arbitration for Sports in its proceedings, this essay analyzes the extent to which these safeguards are applied by the Court and concludes that there exists serious shortcomings with regards to the application of these rights by the Court.

At the whole we talk about fairness maxims of dispute resolution in this essay. From our view and based on principles of procedure justice any dispute resolution mechanism must have three important principles: equal treatment with parties to dispute, rationality in making decision and efficiency that this one contains access and possibility to reach to a dispute resolution and being tools for counter with procedural inequalities between parties in turn. According to access and possibility to reach to a dispute resolution parties should be able to reach to a dispute resolution mechanism. Proceeding on this method should be done by minimum costs and delay and based on the second criterion those issues making problem for parties for taking part in proceedings, which are not arisen of proceeding rules but have been created by one party inability to take part equally in process should be balanced or eliminated.

Abstract The right to fair trial is one of the fundamental human rights of humankind. Hence, this right has been now among constitutional norms and in the constitution of some countries it has been subject to constitutionalization. From a historical viewpoint, What important is the Mashruteh Constitution approach to fair trial, as a first constitution of Iran. The main question is that the drafters of this Act, what approach have to fair trial? This paper shows that drafters of Mashruteh Constitution and its complement (Motammem) dealt with “judicial security” and therefore recognized and constitutionalized a set of principles of fair trial such as legality, judiciality, privacy, judicial independence, access to justice, prohibition of unlawful arrest, etc. However, some other important principles such as presumption of innocence, access to a lawyer, prohibition of torture and etc were neglected. As a result, it can be concluded that the Mashruteh Constitution constitutionalized an incomplete version of fair trial.

Problem-Solving Courts with a specialized and independent structure were established in some countries with common law legal system to use the authority of courts to address the underlying problems of offenders and victims, the structural problems of the justice system, and the social problems of communities and finally to reduce the recidivism rate. However, because they reach only a small proportion of litigants compared to the traditional courts, the idea of applying core principles of problem-solving courts to traditional courts was put forward. This article, with a qualitative method, first examines the necessity of problem-solving approach in judicial system and then analyses the opportunities and barriers to applying problem-solving principles and practices in traditional criminal courts of Iran. The findings of the research show that some principles like changing traditional attitudes and role orientations of judges, prosecutors, attorneys, and other justice system actors is the basis for adopting problem-solving approach in traditional criminal courts of Iran and it can hardly be transferred, but enhancing the direct interaction between judges and litigants is the most easiest. Moreover, resource constraints (lack of time, money, and staff) and educational and electronic systems limitations pose serious barriers in implementation of other principles and effectiveness of problem-solving approach. Tangible results show that the application of these principles and indicators can help increase the quality and effectiveness of the criminal justice procedure and reduce its non-therapeutic consequences.

The higher education system is one of the structures of the social system that has fundamental missions, especially in training efficient human resources for society, and its legal structure is based on the rules and procedures of certain bodies. This research, which is written by descriptive-analytical method, with the belief that the actors of this sub-system need legal security to achieve the pre-planned goals, seeks to study its components in procedural justice. The fragmentation of decision-making authorities, heterogeneous rules and incoherent legal system in Iranian higher education show that the realization of the legal security standard for faculty members of some universities, especially from the perspective of guaranteeing it in the light of procedural justice, there are more challenges. Protecting the right to sue and access to the competent authority of the trial, observing the prohibition of retrial, the principle of innocence, openness of the trial, the possibility of defense or the need for equality of the litigants, the principle of impartiality, the right to object and appeal are some of the most important examples of justice guarantees procedures based on the principle of legal certainty in the field of higher education.

The purpose of this research is to identify the role of organizational justice as a concept in management science in preventing administrative corruption. The role of organizational justice in preventing corruption and strategies for prevention are as research issues. If distributive justice does not exist, according to Merton's theory of pressure, an employee uses illegal means such as bribery and embezzles in order to reach its goal. If procedural justice is not established, a kind of inferiority is felt by people and, according to Hirsch's theory of social control, two factors of commitment and belief in one is shaken toward the organization. And finally, if justice is not maintained, there will be grounds for social deviations such as lack of work and non-commitment. Several approaches are recommended, such as improving good governance indicators in the administrative system, focusing on cooperative criminal policy, and so on to prevent corruption.

After Punitive, Rehabilitative and Restorative models in the criminal justice system, recently a “worldwide trend” has been established in the judicial system of common law towards the use of more optimal and comprehensive methods, which has been respectively called “the Comprehensive Law Movement” in the USA and “Non-adversarial Justice” in the Australia. Accordingly, “Problem-Solving” or “Collaborative Justice” courts with reparative-therapeutic approach was established to address the underlying legal problems of defendant/offender. With a comprehensive look at the offender, victim and community, simultaneously use of therapeutic and community-based methods and mentioned triple models and without withdrawal traditional sanctions, these courts are trying to addressing defendants’ social, psychological, medical, and economic underlying problems. Meanwhile they seek to achieve the main purpose of the criminal justice system –crime prevention and rehabilitation of offenders- through minimizing the damages caused by laws, legal rules, legal procedures, legal roles and judicial practices. To increase the effectiveness of decisions, orders and verdicts, some criminal justice systems like Iran while keep traditional structures of present criminal courts and without using the specialized problem-solving courts has transferred some of the problem-solving principles directly to their laws or indirectly to their judicial practicies. This paper By using content analysis, analytical and descriptive method and library resources is trying to extract common principles of problem-solving courts and analyze the legal potentials of problem-solving in Iranian judicial system through a comparative study with Common Law System.

The collection of objective conditions in the trial process is a criterion for a judge to evaluate whether or not it is fair. Accordingly, the process should minimize the possibility of partiality. Therefore, the parties must be on the same status and the judge must pay equal attention to them. And this state of affairs is of paramount importance in the Islamic religious texts and legal literature. But because of putting the necessity of this point under question and stipulating the possibility of discrimination between parties in the event of differences in religion, it has been overshadowed. Reviewing some religious texts and scholars words, this article is to prove the necessity of equality between parties at the hearing regardless of any titles from the perspective of holy legislator.

Basically justice has different philosophical, ethical and legal aspects, but the evaluation of its implementation in various social processes requires objective standards. Judicial justice also requires to be fair and objective. Objectiveness of judicial proceedings requires that all facts be considered under previously established rules and procedures in order to make justice to be done. In other words, judicial proceedings is a way to discover the truth, and this can be ensured only through specific method consisting of specific rules and regulations, as in any other scientific research whose goal is to reach to the truth. So there is no way except due processes to ensure justice and fairness in judicial proceedings. And this is the main important means to secure basic rights and freedoms of human beings. The present work considers the significance of a fair trial, the importance of due process and procedural justice from the view point of the Islamic judicial doctrine. It attempts to illustrate fair trial and its procedural requirements have been strongly recommended by Islamic judicial doctrine.