جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « دیوان کیفری بین المللی » در نشریات گروه « علوم انسانی »

Severe breaches of humanitarian law are one of the jurisdictional of  international criminal tribunals ratione materiae. On the other hand, although the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols do not explicitly refer to human rights because refer to the situation of armed conflicts, but in the statutes of the international criminal tribunals, whether the International Criminal Court or ICTY or ICTR, The multiple effects of human rights and international humanitarian law are dealt with each other. In cases such as Prosecutor v. Kronjlak (2002) in the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia, the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights has been pointed out. The main question that has been done in this research in a descriptive-analytical methodology , according to the practice of international criminal courts, what is the mutual influence of international humanitarian law and international human rights? The result of the current research is that the rules of human rights, such as the right to a fair trial for perpetrators of international crimes, witnesses and victims, and not considering the immunity of accused government have penetrated into officials in international criminal proceedings. On the other hand, human rights and international humanitarian law collide with each other in one point “ humanity “ .

Nowadays, gender discrimination is not tolerated in any form as it goes against human rights. A testament to this is the conviction of “Al-Hassan” at the International Criminal Court.. He was accused of committing crimes against humanity for committing gender-based discrimination against women, including rape, forced marriage, and persecution of women and girls through the imposition of laws and directives that violated their fundamental freedoms. This study indicates that Al-Hassan’s actions in his position as the head of the Islamic police in Ansar al-Din meet the criteria for crimes against humanity. Reexamining this case raises the question of whether the enforcement of Islamic laws can involve the elements of crimes against humanity to cooccur. It appears that the actions of some Muslim militia groups, such as Ansar al-Din, could constitute a crime against humanity due to the presence of causation, actus reus, and mens rea elements. These behaviors are mere manifestations of a harsh and extremist interpretation of religion that contradicts its true purposes. While this cannot be attributed to all Muslim countries, reexamining this case can provide valuable insights for all Islamic governments.

The decisions taken by the International Criminal Court in different steps of the proceedings may face the resistance who are mainly political, military or security officials or their suzerain states. Resistances can be divided into two types of severe (Backlash) and mild (Pushback) in essence. The first type of resistances can cause the breaking up or invalidation of decision of this institution. In contrast, mild resistances not only do not seek to break up court, but can cause reduction or elimination of possible defects of the Court’s proceedings. However, instances of these resistances may overlap each other in practice. Terminating the membership in the court or lacking of cooperation of some African governments with this institution is considered mild resistances as long as it does not lead to the breaking up of the court or serious disruption in its work. The establishment a new courts and judicial parallelism, such as the African Criminal Court for the trial of Hissene Habre, sanction of the court officials, such as the cancellation of the visas of the court’s prosecutor in the case of American crimes in Afghanistan by the US government, withdrawing jurisdiction of the court that took places by Libyan government in the case of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and finally, obstructing along the goals of the court, which has been the policy adopted by various American governments as a non-member state of the court, based on the scope of their impact on the court proceeding and continuation of the activity of this institution or lack of it, can lead to either mild or severe resistances.

Establishing peace and security and preventing international crimes in the world has been one of the great dreams of mankind, so many efforts have been made in pursuit of this thought. With the occurrence of terrible crimes during the Second World War, the idea of creating the International Criminal Court has been taken into consideration once again, and thus the International Criminal Court came into existence. But the question that arises is what role does the International Criminal Court play in preventing international crimes? which answers this question in a descriptive-analytical way that the establishment of the International Criminal Court as a permanent and universal court is an important step in the process of fighting impunity. The court tries to prevent international crimes by creating a link between international peace and security and criminal justice, which we will discuss in this article. The main finding is that although the ICC can contribute constructively to legal change towards accountability and change in international law, its prospects for direct and meaningful deterrence of future crimes are slim. As a result, the current method of relying on ICC as a crisis management tool will be illogical and unfair.

Genocide is one the most important International Crimes that has been adopted by the Rome 1998 Statute of the International Criminal Court and set out punishment for it in this international instrument. The crime of genocide has been conceived as mother of crimes in the doctrine. Taking place this crime in China against Uyghur Muslims has been under debate in these years. Recent report of Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy about the Uyghur genocide allege signifies important of the issue and has attracted attention of the media and global society.This article attempts to investigate the issue through scrutinize the questions bellow: has the Actus Reus of the crime of genocide in events sequence concerned with Uyghurs proven? Does it verifyrequisite jurisdictional threshold for initiate investigations by the Prosecutor of ICC? What is the responsibility of Chinese authorities for the crimes mentioned above?In this article, intellectual effort was exerted in order to reach valid answers for the questions about the Uyghurgenocide in Xinjiang region. Based on the documents and reports of different International authorities and organizations, it was revealed the the Actus Reus of the genocide was committed.Although normative and legal possibilities in Rome Statue provides proper conditions for investigating the issue, a bulk of practical obstacles and serious impediments cause the ICC prosecutor refrain from carrying it out. This study also confirms Chinese officials’ international criminal responsibility- at the national and local level- and their mercenaries’ for the Uyghur genocide.The method used in this study is analytic-descriptive one specially analysis related international documents and reports in order to evaluate elements of the crime of genocide.

The victim is an element whose rights have been violated by committing a crime. Although it seems obvious that the perpetrator of the suffering of crime is the most important element of the criminal justice process, this notion has not always been realized not only in domestic law but also in international criminal law. Despite the neglect of the victim in the documents of the old specialized international criminal courts in the new generation of these courts and especially in the law and procedure of the International Criminal Court, the victim has enjoyed an important position in the preliminary investigation, trial and execution, but the challenges and shortcomings There are some in this regard. Deficiencies that must be judged in terms of important developments in favor of the victims. But one cannot ignore the fact that the Court has greatly curtailed the historic opportunity to grant criminal justice to individuals in the international community against perpetrators of international crimes.

The Al-Aqsa Storm operation on October 7, 2023, carried out by the military branch of Hamas, namely Al-Qassam, represents an unprecedented military action in the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While Hamas's actions may be justified based on the occupation and the right to self-determination, Israel's response to this operation has been extensive, devastating, and unprecedented, to a degree that cannot be considered legitimate defense. The killing of thousands of innocent civilians, the use of prohibited weapons, the destruction of medical centers and hospitals, the collapse of the health system, the all-encompassing siege of Gaza, and the lack of access to vital goods such as food, water, and medicine have led to widespread famine. The destruction of homes and the forced displacement of the people of northern Gaza to other areas are among the blatant atrocities committed by Israel, which could be assessed as the actus reus element of the crime of genocide.
This article seeks to address whether the actus reus and mens rea elements of genocide (specific intent) have been met in light of recent Israeli military operations against the Palestinians (the people of Gaza). Through a descriptive and analytical examination of official reports, doctrine, and international jurisprudence, it concludes that, based on Israel's actions, especially the killing of members of the group, both the actus reus and mens rea elements of the crime of genocide in the Al-Aqsa Storm operation on October 7, 2023, have been fulfilled in a manner that establishes grounds for the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Consequently, the International Criminal Court could exercise its jurisdiction in this case.
The people of Gaza are an integral part of the Palestinian nation and government, united by a common and historic goal and struggle for liberation from occupation and colonization. Their shared nationality, ethnicity, and religion, as well as their continuity of goals, align them as a group protected under the Genocide Convention of 1948 and the Statute of the Court (6).
In addition to the deaths of Palestinians resulting from Israel's military actions, they face immediate risks of starvation, lack of water, and disease due to Israel's enduring blockade, inadequate aid distribution, and extensive restrictions on essential resources caused by the destruction of Gaza's infrastructure due to Israeli attacks. The coordinated and consistent statements of Israeli authorities, operationalized through military orders, serve as compelling evidence of intent.
The pattern of Israeli attacks and actions against the Palestinian population in Gaza since October 7, 2023, including collective punishment, forced disappearances, and the use of famine, water, electricity, and fuel cuts as tools of war, along with public statements by high-ranking Israeli government and military officials, collectively indicate Israel's genocidal intent. The behaviors, circumstances, and presumptions used by ad hoc international criminal tribunals to establish the specific intent of genocide align with the actions of Israeli authorities and can serve as a legal basis for potential proceedings against them.
Currently, the court's prosecutor, Karim Khan, has emphasized the importance of investigating the situation in Gaza, ensuring justice for the victims, and upholding the rule of law. While the prosecutor's actions have been articulated in a series of speeches and not as official actions, no preventive statement regarding Gaza has been issued by the court prosecutor. Member states of the Court, such as South Africa, Bangladesh, Djibouti, Bolivia, and the Comoros Islands, have recently referred the situation in Gaza to the Court, citing genocide as one of the concerns. However, due to the cautious approach of the prosecutor, an official decision regarding genocide does not appear imminent. Nonetheless, a provisional order issued by the International Court of Justice in the case of South Africa against Israel concerning the genocide of the people of Gaza, based on the Convention on the Prohibition and Punishment of Genocide, could potentially alter the court prosecutor's cautious stance.

On October 7, 2023, Palestinian militant groups led by Hamas launched a surprise attack named "Operation Al-Aqsa Storm" against Israel (El Deeb, 2023). This attack began with a barrage of rockets targeting southern Israel. According to Hamas' announcement, its purpose was to respond to the desecration of Al-Aqsa Mosque, the growth of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, settler violence in the area, and the siege of the Gaza Strip (Crescent International, 2023). In response, Israel declared a state of war and launched a counter-operation called "Operation Iron Swords" with the aim of destroying Hamas, freeing hostages, and controlling the Gaza Strip. After clearing Hamas militants from its territory, the Israeli army conducted extensive aerial bombardment of the Gaza Strip, followed by a large-scale ground attack. During this operation, Israel ordered the evacuation of the northern part of the Gaza Strip and launched nearly 29,000 bombs, rockets, and chemicals, causing damage and destruction to nearly 307,000 homes (Jared & Shah, 2024). Experts claim the scale and speed of destruction of protected objects, such as residential buildings in Gaza, is among the most severe in contemporary history (Evan, 2024). The violent confrontation resulted in the displacement of nearly the entire population of 2.3 million in Gaza. More than 24,000 Palestinians were killed, with over 10,000 children and 7,000 women among the casualties (Abou-Ghazala, 2023).This significant civilian death toll and destruction of buildings and urban infrastructure have led to numerous accusations of war crimes against Israel due to its actions against civilians during the conflict with Hamas. A "war crime" is a violation of the laws of war and can lead to individual criminal responsibility. Important conventions such as the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, and the Rome Statute, define what acts are considered war crimes.The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established to deal with war crimes according to Article 1 of the Rome Statute.As a non-member observer state in the United Nations, Palestine ratified the Rome Statute on April 1, 2015 (Abedini, 2014: 333). Following this ratification, the Palestinian government came under the jurisdiction of the ICC. However, the Israeli government has not joined the Rome Statute and, due to its non-recognition of an independent State of Palestine in the international arena, has not accepted the court's jurisdiction over Palestine.Therefore, the initial question of this article is whether the ICC has jurisdiction over Israel's alleged war crimes. If the answer is yes, then based on what rules can the court condemn Israel's actions in the 2023 conflict as war crimes? This research explores these questions.The first part of this study addresses the issue of the court's jurisdiction in dealing with alleged Israeli war crimes, thereby considering the recognition of an independent State of Palestine. It then examines the existing regulations by analyzing current rules and the membership of both Israel and Palestine in the relevant conventions. Once the competence of these regulations is clarified, the second part presents examples of Israel's alleged war crimes in the 2023 conflict, categorized as crimes against persons and crimes against protected objects. The author attempts to reconcile the acts committed by Israel with the relevant regulations.This research aims to prove the jurisdiction of the ICC and identify the applicable regulations in potential proceedings. It will define crimes against protected persons and objects by applying the Rome Statute, Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols clause by clause, ultimately arguing that Israel's actions in the 2023 conflict constitute war crimes.Words can be used to construct the cruelest weapons, yet they can also be the most effective deterrents. Ironically, Israel, a nation that has garnered significant international sympathy through its use of words in recent history, now stands accused of committing a brutal massacre in Gaza.This article sought to analyze the bare facts of the Israel-Gaza conflict through a legal lens and demonstrate how the Israeli army's actions might be considered war crimes under existing regulations.The research identified the ICC as the most competent authority in the international arena to pursue war crimes investigations. Therefore, the first step was to establish the court's jurisdiction in the 2023 Israel-Palestine conflict. In doing so, the article acknowledges an independent State of Palestine, positing that the Israel-Palestine conflict is an international one. Consequently, it concludes that the Court

The Military Action Of The United States Of America In Martyring The High-Ranking Military Officials Of The Country Of Iran, Qassem Soleimani, On January 3, 2020, The Issue That Was Raised Among Iranian And International Lawyers From The beginning Was The Legal Response Of Islamic Republic Of Iran Government To This Incident. Contrary To What It Claims, The American Military Action In This Incident Does Not Comply With Preventive Or Preemptive Elements And The Conditions Of Legitimate Defense And Is An International Violation. The Feasibility Of Judicial Pursuit Of Criminal Liability And Civil Liability Resulting From This Illegal Act In The International Criminal Court And The International Court Of Justice Is The Subject Of This Article. Despite The Non-Membership Of Iran And The United States In The Statute Of The International Criminal Court, Iran Can, By Persuading The Iraqi Government To Accept The Court's Case Jurisdiction, Provide The Possibility Of Exercising The Court's Jurisdiction Over This Case, But Even In This Case, The Case Of The Assassination Of Lt. Gen. Soleimani Cannot Be Pursued Within The Framework Of One Of The Four Crimes Under The Court's Jurisdiction. The Most Effective Legal Mechanism Is Pursuing The Civil Responsibility Of The American Government For This Criminal Act According To The "Convention On The Prevention And Punishment Of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Political Missionaries" (1973), Which The Governments Of Iran And The United States Are Members Of. And Also Preventing The Establishment Of A Mixed International Court, Especially Through The Conclusion Of An Agreement Or The General Assembly Of The United Nations Or The Organization Of Islamic Cooperation. This Convention Prohibits The Commission Of Certain Crimes, Including Murder, Against Persons Under International Protection. It Has Predicted A Dispute Resolution Mechanism That Will Eventually End Up In The International Court Of Justice.

The growth of international crimes is an important factor against international security. However, consensus on the seriousness and danger of these crimes has always become an important challenge among governments, and this has made dealing with these crimes difficult. In this regard, various international organizations such as the International Criminal Court and Interpol have been established by governments to deal with international crimes, and their relationships and limits of cooperation are the challenge of this research.

This article is written in a descriptive-analytical way.

Although there are many international crimes in the international arena and governments face challenges in facing them, not necessarily all of them were considered by the founders in the process of establishing the International Criminal Court. In addition, what challenges the investigation and prosecution of the crimes committed by the International Criminal Court are the jurisdictional limitations of this court, which include subject, time, place, supplementary and personal jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the role of Interpol in dealing with international crimes is expanding. Although the governments have not reached a consensus regarding international crimes, Interpol does not face the limitations of the International Criminal Court in prosecuting many crimes and has the possibility of prosecuting many crimes contrary to the International Criminal Court. Although the scope of activities of Interpol and the International Criminal Court are not the same, they can take important measures in order to deal with international crimes in the same common scope.

The purpose of this article is to investigate the possibility of using the capacity of international institutions and organizations in order to preserve the territorial integrity of Iran against the intervention of extra-regional powers in this field. Based on this, the main issue in the research is: How Iran can use the capacity of international institutions and organizations, such as the International Criminal Court, to deal with the possible aggression of the major powers that support the UAE. To use its territorial integrity? Using the structuralist analytical framework, the hypothetical answer of this research is that "the government of Iran has changed its positive attitude towards international organizations and active participation and membership in organizations such as the International Criminal Court and emphasized while winning the trust of the actors of the international community towards themselves, it will prevent the formation of consensus and finally encroachment on their own land". The results of the research indicate that the United Arab Emirates has been able to bring the big extra-regional powers (including 5 permanent members of the Security Council and the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council) with it in support of its demands during the last two decades. Iran should also try to deal with them by changing its attitude towards the issue. The research method in this article will be descriptive-analytical. Based on this, the method of data collection is based on the type of library research and the use of existing documents.

The main issue tried to be investigated in this article is what is the structure and process of the preliminary branch of the International Criminal Court? This article is descriptive and analytical and the mentioned question has been investigated using the library method. The findings indicate that the existential philosophy of the establishment of the preliminary branch, in the face of the prosecutor's office, is that countries at the time of the Rome Statute, wanted to establish an institution that could protect the prosecutor from any suspicion of non-compliance with the standards of justice and fairness. Therefore, with the establishment of the preliminary branch, the way is closed to any doubt in the performance of the duties of the prosecutor. The preliminary branch of the International Criminal Court is an advanced judicial system that has been able to meet the goals of a standard trial to some extent by the interaction of the prosecutor's office in the preliminary investigation phase, by issuing the necessary licenses and regulatory policies. The result is that at the stage of starting the prosecution and conducting the preliminary investigation, if the prosecutor does not want to observe the principles of justice and fairness as an impartial judge, he can easily start the prosecution against a country and this is the preliminary branch that prevents this.

One of the accusations against the Zionist regime is committing the crime of genocide in the Gaza Strip. According to the 1948 Convention on the Prohibition and Punishment of Genocide, member states are not only required not to commit or incite genocide but also have an international obligation to prevent the commission of genocide or incitement to genocide as an independent criminal act. Committing war crimes in violation of the Four Geneva Conventions (1949) and crimes against humanity contained in the Rome Statute (1998) of the International Criminal Court by the Zionist regime are also other cases that point out the need to review the judicial mechanisms to pursue and file a lawsuit against this occupying regime. The main question of the current research is that, considering the need to deal with the impunity of international crimes, in the current international system, what are the effective mechanisms for pursuing and prosecuting the violators of human rights and humanitarian rights attributed to the Zionist regime in the Gaza war after October 7, 2023?. This research examines mechanisms such as the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, national courts based on universal jurisdiction, and regional and special courts with an analytical-descriptive method.

IRGCQuds assassination Force commander by the US didnt comply with any legitimate defense elements and is a international violation. the courts jurisdiction in the perpetrators criminal responsibility of this terror is important. According to the legal procedure of the ICJ, America's arguments regarding the assassination will be not accepted. America claims this action was done as legitimate defense.While the court has emphasized that legitimate defense is possible against armed attacks.Although Iran, Iraq and the USA arent members of the Statute of the ICC, the assassination of the IRGCQuds Force Commander and his companions was referred to the ICC by the Security Council and at the request of the IRI. the prosecutor of the ICC can request a hearing, and this path is smooth for the member states of the statute. the main responsibility in prosecuting crimes is the jurisdiction of the court with national courts, and in case of the unwillingness or inability of national courts or the absence of an independent and efficient judicial system, the ICC will exercise jurisdiction in this matter. courts jurisdiction is complementary to the national courts, but it cannot be considered their substitute .Therefore, the national courts have the main jurisdiction in this case

On the morning of January 3, 2020, the US government assassinated Sardar Soleimani, commander of Iran's Quds Force, and his entourage, as well as a high-ranking Iraqi military official. This terrorist act, which took place on Iraqi soil, violates many international rules, However, it is important to note that according to the legal structure of Iran, which is based on the jurisprudence, referring to jurisprudential sources, especially the Holy Quran, to establish a system of response is extremely important. By referring to jurisprudential sources, at first aspect, the two rules of Retaliation and self-defense in this field can be examined.This article, through analytical and descriptive methods, first examines the possibility of relying on these two jurisprudential rules and then examines the principles of the accepted rule from the perspective of the Qur'an. With this statement, the main question of this research is that considering the challenges in international law regarding the fundamental violation of international rules by the United States on the subject of the martyrdom of Sardar Soleimani, to what extent can the capacity of Quranic principles be used in the field of response?The results of this article show that according to the US approach in the international arena and its presence in the Security Council, the possibility of judicial review is limited and therefore the subtlety of the rule of restraint is suggested.

The forced migration of the Palestinian people has been part of a systematic policy to suppress and control the Palestinian people since the establishment of the Zionist regime in 1948. This hostile policy has been followed since the formation of this regime and reached its peak in 2007 with the siege of Gaza and the worsening of living conditions and the facing of the people of this region with all kinds of security, military, health and humanitarian threats. The purpose of these actions was to de-Palestinize the occupied territories, prevent the formation of resistance groups and the forced migration of the Palestinian people from their ancestral land by the Zionists, which is still being pursued by them. Forced displacement is a clear example of a crime against humanity in international law texts and human rights statements, and many resolutions have been created and condemned in various regional and international institutions and organizations regarding this phenomenon. In the most recent case of cruel forced migration of the Palestinian people by the Zionists, we can mention the Al-Aqsa storm. Operation "Al-Aqsa Storm" took place to condemn the years of oppression, suffering and displacement of the Palestinian people, a response to the disregard of the Palestinians' indisputable rights to their ancestral land, the lack of the right to self-determination and many legitimate and indisputable freedoms of the Palestinian people, which were violated by the Zionist regime with Cruelty, excessive and unjustifiable violence and the continuation of genocide and displacement of the Palestinian nation were answered. The current research aims to analyze the documents, agreements, articles and provisions in the texts and conventions related to international law and human rights, to deal with the issue of forced migration from the perspective of international and humanitarian law, and the degree of conformity of the findings to examine the rights of the current situation of the Palestinian nation.

Since the cyberspace has changed the concept of national sovereignty and political independence of states, the international community is obliged to react to it and protect cyber sovereignty. Thus, within the framework of international law, the international community has foreseen the national jurisdiction to prosecute violations of cyber sovereignty in accordance with international criminal law as well as ancillary jurisdiction with due regard to governance considerations. At the first step the Tallinn's talks expanded the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court by defining cyber-aggression as a violation of international peace and security and the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states (national sovereignty). The enhancement of the authority of this institution in accordance with customary international law in line with international criminal policy of countering impunity is done in order to maintain and restore international cyber peace and security.

Membership and withdrawal from the ICC are subject of applicant state’s will. Member’s state’s obligation to cooperate with the ICC and to ignore its political relations with other states is one of reasons to withdraw from the ICC. However, withdrawal from the ICC membership is subject to formalities that its observance may detract from applicant’s state’s objectives. The South African state is an example of this situation, which has taken steps which has no precedent at the ICC level. Examining the theoretical dimensions of these measures are subject of this article. The research question is what are the challenges for the South Africa’s failure to cooperate with the ICC and its obstacles to withdrawing from the ICC Statute membership? The findings of this study show that the South Africa’s experience in citing mechanisms set forth in the Statute for non-cooperation and withdrawal from its membership without regard to their functioning and compliance with their requirements are self-centered and doomed to failure and void. This is an experience that exists under the same conditions in other member states of the ICC, and in order to avoid its consequences, the requirements of the ICC’s Statute must be observed.

Public proceedings are one of the principles of fair proceedings, the limitations and exceptions of which are of great importance and sensitivity. The nature of these limitations and exceptions are important issues that have received less attention in the shadow of the principle of public proceedings. The purpose of this article is to examine the exceptions of public proceedings in criminal jurisprudence, Iranian criminal law, human rights documents and international criminal law. This article is descriptive and analytical, and the library method is used to investigate the mentioned topic. The findings indicate that in jurisprudence, the acceptance of the principle of public proceedings can be inferred, but there is no mention of its exceptions. In Iranian criminal law, at the discretion of the court and in cases such as children's court, public decency, public order and security, religious or ethnic sentiments, and private lawsuits, if the parties to the lawsuit request, the proceedings are closed. In human rights documents, ethics and public order and national security of governments are exceptions to public proceedings. In the statutes of international criminal courts, issues such as public order or morality and security, protection of witnesses and victims, compliance with the expediency of justice, and protection of documents and information are exceptions to public proceedings. Although in international documents, these exceptions are stated in a general way, but the general and non-transparent statement of these exceptions in the domestic laws of countries, including Iran, cannot be defended.

Eyewitness testimony is one of the most important evidences in criminal law. The purpose of this article is to investigate the comparative attitude to witness testimony in jurisprudence, Iranian criminal law and the International Criminal Court. Based on this, the question of the article can be raised as follows: What is the attitude towards the testimony of witnesses in Iranian jurisprudence, criminal law and the International Criminal Court? This article is descriptive and analytical and the mentioned question has been investigated using the library method. The findings indicate that the testimony of witnesses is of great importance in Iranian jurisprudence and criminal law and it is considered one of the important reasons for proving a crime, so that witnesses may be summoned to testify. In the International Criminal Court, the testimony of witnesses is also important, but the testimony of witnesses is voluntary and there is no compulsion in this regard. The most important effects of the type of attitude towards witness testimony are manifested in witness support. In Iran's criminal law, various mechanisms have been considered, such as non-disclosure of witness information, hearing testimony through remote means and executive protection measures. These actions in the International Criminal Court are different in some cases, such as non-disclosure of witness statements and in some other cases, such as the adoption of executive measures, although the International Court has limited possibilities in the field of adopting executive measures to protect witnesses.