جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « criminal procedure law » در نشریات گروه « علوم انسانی »

Protecting witnesses against threats is a manifestation of adherence to the principles of fair proceedings and guaranteeing the rights of both parties in a criminal case, however, the practice of different countries in this field is different, the law of criminal procedure while developing several legal articles and also establishing executive regulations for the article 214 C.P.A. has taken a big step towards the implementation of this task. Although the protection of all kinds of life, material and dignified values ​​of witnesses in Iranian law is considered a positive point, but the challenges and basic questions regarding the quality of protection of witnesses of special security crimes and economic corruptions, vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, the need to pay full attention to The financial dimensions and the allocation of legal and psychological assistance and the use of the capacities of restorative justice and civil society as well as the quality of the conflict of these protective measures with the rights of the accused can still be proposed and need to be answered. From the library sources, in the process of comparative study and presenting numerous comparative examples, an attempt has been made to answer and present suitable examples to the Iranian legislator. Considering the numerous suggestions of the article, it is evident that, along with the necessity of practical application of legal regulations and executive regulations, the Iranian legislator should take serious and firm steps in order to adopt special protective measures for vulnerable witnesses, provide wider financial support to witnesses and provide legal assistance and take psychological counseling.

The precedent of the position of prosecuting attorney in Iran's criminal justice system and the assignment of a part of the prosecutor's duties and powers to this institution Is in a way that makes the relationship between the prosecutor and the prosecuting attorney inevitable, considering the investigative nature of Iran's criminal justice system in the preliminary investigation stage, the appropriate model of this The system type of the model Is a hierarchical relationship in which nonequivalent communication prevails. It is necessary to explain the hierarchical relationship between the prosecutor and the prosecuting attorney using established concepts and components in management science to create a solid theoretical support in the design of the desired model. The present study, using the analytical-descriptive method and collecting the required information in the library method, and relying on the relationship between the prosecutor and the prosecuting attorney in the criminal justice system of Iran, tries to analyze the pattern of hierarchical communication between the mentioned authorities and its pathology. The findings of the research indicate that this model, in spite of advantages such as organizational order and the coherence of the approach of observing citizen rights and equality and integrity in the implementation of the law, suffers from inefficiency and costly guidance and supervision, and insufficient attention to human ethics. And professional etiquette suffers. Despite the prosecutor's guardianship over the prosecutor's decisions through referral, guidance and supervision, the acceptance of the independence of the prosecutor, especially in the final decision and provision leading to arrest, not only does It not contradict the model of hierarchical communication, spatial independence requires accepting the possibility of a dispute between the prosecutor and the prosecutor and resolving the dispute by the court. The close relationship between the prosecutor and the prosecuting attorney with effective incentives to create an atmosphere of interaction between them, avoiding interference, is ineffective, successful mechanisms to reduce existing disadvantages by maintaining a hierarchical hierarchy.

One of the important manifestations of protecting individual rights is the right to a fair trial. Complying with the rules of competence is known as one of the mandatory rules among the principles of fair proceedings, the violation of which has been exceptionally recognized in the criminal procedure law of Iran and France in the form of deviation from inherent and local jurisdiction. The main question in this article is what is the basis of disqualification? In this article, with a descriptive-analytical method, we have investigated cases of deviation from jurisdiction in the criminal procedure law of Iran and France, and we have come to the conclusion that the two important viewpoints of individual rights and public security can be used as the foundations of deviation. He mentioned the qualification. Sometimes the government ignores the rules of jurisdiction in order to protect the rights of the accused in order to have a fair trial, and sometimes the government overrides the rules of jurisdiction for order and public security. The latter case is one of the cases that, due to its unclear scope, can cause the violation of the rights of the defendants.

The position of restorative justice in Iran's laws, until the approval of the Criminal Procedure Law approved in 2013, can be divided into two periods of legislative manifestations before and after the revolution, in which in the pre-revolutionary manifestations, we see the formation of institutions such as the Houses of Justice and the Arbitration Council. After the revolution similar institutions, including dispute resolution councils, are recognized as symbols and symbols of non-criminal (rehabilitation) effects in the fight against crime.The main question of this research is to examine the place of the restorative justice approach in the new criminal procedure law.The current research method, in terms of the goal, is a part of problem-oriented applied research, the method of collecting data and information is documentary and library, and the collected data and information are analyzed analytically and descriptively.The findings of the research show that the criminal procedure in the past was more security-oriented and paid less attention to the rights of the accused and the rights of citizens.With the emergence of the opinions of legal scholars as well as the emphasis of international organizations, Iran's criminal legal system also used the restorative justice model in the Criminal Procedure Law of 2012 and legal institutions such as abandoning the prosecution, filing the case,suspending punishment, and mediation in the Criminal Procedure Law in the prosecution phase. has been given and in this direction,it seeks a balance between the rights of the society, the rights of the victim and the rights of the criminal.

One of the orders can be granted by the judicial authority for access to the accused party and the possibility of compensating the injured party is the order to "obtain a guarantor by determining the amount of bail". A legal person can participate in all legal activities and consequently have civil and criminal liability. According to Article 221 of the Criminal Procedure code, a legal person can also stand bailing. However, the the letter of the sentence in the mentioned note causes legal ambiguity and may conflict with some basic laws. The present study examines the conditions and limitations of legal person's standing bail by descriptive- analytical method and data collection by library method. The result of the research is that in the case of standing bail by a legal entity, a distinction should be made. The standing bail of a state legal person is generally against legal rules and unjustifiable. Bail is acceptable by a non- governmental legal entity with two conditions: the bail of the accused party in the interests of the legal entity and with the decision of the competent authority at the level of management of the legal entity. standing bail by the endowment, depending on its legal personality, is subject to compliance with the terms of the endowment letter or the agreement of the endowed against the special endowment.

Fair Trial is the resolution of disputes in a legal, impartial, independent and observing all rights of the parties. In other words, the principles and rules of fair trial are fined in domestic law and international documents, including the Charter of Human Rights, the International Civil and Political Law Treaty, and other international documents. The presumption of innocence as the most fundamental principle, the principle of legality of crimes and punishments, the principle of equality of persons before the law and the principle of arms equality are among the most important principles of due process. Also, for the detention phase, the right to an interpreter, the right to be aware of the causes of arrest, the right to object to detention, the request for compensation resulting from false detention and other rights are the requirements of the proceedings at this stage. The most important conditions of fair trial in the preliminary investigations are the rights which be protected from the lawyer and the right to silence. In the trial phase, the lack of impartiality, independence and non-affiliation, documentation of rulings, equality between persons, presentation of evidence by both parties, publicity of the proceedings, the right to a lawyer, the right to appear in court, the right to question witnesses, the right to appeal and other rights should be guaranteed in order for a fair trial to be achieved. The Criminal Procedure Code of 2013 has made great progress in aligning and coordinating with international and regional documents in comparison with the former Criminal Procedure Code, although there are still flaws and gaps in it.

In the Islamic Republic of Iran, following numerous criminal procedures, the penal code was finally approved in 2013. This regulation pays great attention to detail. The principles of fair trial include principles such as general guarantees, including the right to litigation, Independence and impartiality of the reference authority, the equality of defense facilities, the availability of facilities and adequate defense time, the right to face trial, the right to appeal, the right to open proceedings, the right to be heard within the reasonable period of time, the principle of opposition or opposition, the principle of the legality of crime and punishment, the principle of innocence, The right to know the charges, with the reasons for it, the right to remain silent in the investigation and giving C, prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment during investigation, the right to confront witnesses and ask questions of the other side and so on. And finally, it should be noted that this law has paid a lot of attention to the principles of fair trial than the former laws.

For many years, all the attention was focus on the rights of the accused in the criminal procedure. It was justified by the defendant being defenseless before the prosecutor's office. In the meantime, the role of the victim in the advancement of the preliminary investigation process was underestimated and he was passive. With victim-oriented approach, some of the criminal justice systems targeted his role. In the Criminal Procedure Code of Iran, victim's rights have undergone major changes in the Code of Criminal Procedure, approved in 2013, in accordance with human rights standards. At the head of these developments are the right to security and the right to maintain identity. Our studies have shown that the approach of the Criminal Procedure Code of Iran, in comparison with the former laws, has taken into account a participatory and active role for the victim in the context of preparatory research. The prediction of the innovative rights in the law provides for the further participation of the victim in order to declare, disclose, prosecute and investigate the crime; including the explicit and transparent support of victim's security against potential threats and the need to maintain his identity.

Citizenship is one of the most important social issues that has had various interpretations in humanities so far. These rights are sometimes interpreted as civil and political rights, sometimes human rights, and in some cases, social rights, as various humanities scholars have attempted to interpret these rights, each with their viewpoints and theories. Each of these theories has examined different aspects of citizenship law. This paper examines theoretically and empirically some of the social and cultural barriers to the practice of citizenship law in criminal law, including clerks, prosecutors, and court judges. Theoretical themes of this research are based on a set of views on citizenship law (TC Marshall Social Theory of Citizenship), social factors (labeling, pressure, ecological and relative deprivation theories) and cultural factors (cultural latency theories, cultural dissemination, and capital).

This study is applied in terms of purpose, and is cross-sectional in terms of time. The statistical population of this study consisted of all trained officers of Isfahan police, judges working in Isfahan Public and Revolutionary Courts, and judges working in Isfahan Criminal Courts. The sampling method in this study was non-probable. The sample size is based on Cochran formula with the highest volume (estimated accuracy d = 0.05, maximal variance pq = 0.25 and confidence level 95%) so that out of 22 cities of Isfahan province, a total of 359 persons including 280 judicial officers, 45 judicial authorities, and 34 judicial authorities of the courts were selected. The research instrument for data collection was a questionnaire so that its validity was confirmed by face, structure. The validity of the concepts was checked by using Cronbach's alpha coefficient.

According to some descriptive findings, prosecutors have the most positive attitude and clerks have the least positive attitude to the exercise of citizenship rights. Meanwhile, bailiffs' attitudes toward cultural and social barriers affecting the exercise of citizenship rights are greater than those of prosecutors and court judges. In contrast to the inferential findings, the more the bailiff's awareness of citizenship law and criminal procedure law is, the more positive their attitude toward enforcing citizenship law becomes will be. In the meantime, lower-level positions have a more positive view of citizenship enforcement. As prosecutors become older, their attitude toward the exercise of citizenship rights becomes more negative.The results of the correlation test of the research hypotheses show that with the increase of social barriers in abductors, the rate of enforcement of citizenship decreases and among the dimensions of social barriers. That is, the more the attitudes towards security-oriented approach and the perpetrators are, the more negative perpetrators’ attitude toward the implementation of citizenship rights will be. However, the existence of political and social considerations does not have an effect on the officers’ attitude to the exercise of citizenship rights. As barriers to culture increase, the enforcement of citizenship rights will decrease. Among the dimensions of these barriers, the greater the lack of cultural capital in the customs and the increasing imitation and disregard for their infrastructure leads to their negative attitudes toward the exercise of citizenship rights. In the meantime, the cultural delay does not affect the officers’ attitude to the exercise of citizenship rights. Therefore, the social and cultural barriers of the traders harm their attitude to the exercise of citizenship rights. These barriers to the attitude of judges and prosecutors to the exercise of citizenship rights are not significant.The reasons for the impact of social and cultural barriers on civil servants can be traced due to the complexity, multiplicity, and diversity of job duties, along with the many innovations of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the field of civil law to the duties of a civil servant.

The new criminal procedure law in 570 articles and 230 notes approved by the session of 4/12/1392. The Legal and Legal Commission of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, in accordance with the eighty-fifth principle of the constitution, which was submitted to the Islamic Consultative Assembly under the bill, was approved by the Parliament The trial was conducted for three years in a public hearing dated 19/11/1390 and approved by the Security Council on 26/12/1392, dated 3/2/1393 under the number 20135 in the official newspaper of the country, and in line with Article 569, After six months from the date of publication in the official newspaper of the country comes into force. In this paper, we will review the achievements and innovations of the new law in a legal manner. Due to the wide-ranging discussion of the present study, we will find it in a case-by-case manner.

One of the functions of criminal procedure is support of the rights and individual freedom. In some situations, restrictive actions such as detention to keep public order and detect a crime is inevitable. This action is against the principle of the innocence and therefore must be used as a last resort. To achieve mentioned purpose and also fair justice, on the one hand at this essay will be emphasized that detention warrant must be issued only by a “neutral, detached and independent” judge and also detention being adversarial proceeding and making distinguish between investigatory authority and judicial judge will be emphasized. On the other hand, detained person at necessary situations in the legal manners must object to the detention before an independent authority. According to comparison studies, judicial authority must be considered the objection as soon as possible in the adversarial proceeding and in presence of detained person. It is noted that this process must be hold in the multiple judges system and obtained a suitable decision. It is obvious that the use of comparison studies in the both of fields could assist us in seeking fair model for the proceeding of issuance and objection to detention warrant as the most serious action against individual right before issuing certain verdict.

Nowadays, the participation of non-governmental organizations are considered as a one of a good elements of the governance from the economic, social and cultural points of view. The mentioned participation in legal system can play a prominent role in the efficiency and public confidence. The new criminal procedure law aiming at operationalizing the above objectives, has officially recognized the Pursuing the Public Action in a special category of crimes by these organizations. Although the position of these organizations has been cited in the text of law as a “crime reporter”, extensive authorities such as presenting an evidence and protesting to an award which was made have been granted to them. In fact, the law -due to discretionary spending in this arearefused to name them as a “plaintiff ". Probably, due to the predicted authority, the law considered an "intermediate" role between plaintiff and crime reporter. In some cases in which a crime has a specific victim, the consent of victim or his/her legal guardian is necessary and required. The matter which has been neglected in the law is the mechanism of supervision for the activities of these organizations. I hope it becomes possible to clarify the failures of this law by its implementation and then take the better step under the light of the experiences.