Prosecuting The Offenders On Monsanto's Public Opinion Court

The right to health is one of the corollaries of fundamental human rights. Victims of violation of this right, in the assumption that they commit ordinary legal persons who are immune from prosecution in domestic and international courts, try to inform citizens of their victimization through a symbolic trial in the community court. Through awareness-raising, they will be effective in preventing crime. Therefore, one of the reasons for such tribunals is the increasing spread of risks against humanity, against the environment and against human health. Because of the difficulty of coping with such wide-ranging threats, courts with a global dimension and symbolically sympathizing with the sensitization of public opinion, political actors makes the idea of ​​the formation of a symbolic court of public opinion to counter the effects of war crimes for the first time around fifty years ago was raised by philosophers and evolved over the years, which ultimately served to serve public health goals.
The present paper uses descriptive and analytical research and relying on library resources to explain the human risks associated with the products of a multinational corporation. According to the findings of the research, in the most recent event, an example of the threat to the right to health is first in the form of a symbolic court Reviewed and commented, and subsequently resulted in the actual condemnation of the harmful agent in the California court. In Iran, propaganda and the introduction of unauthorized and harmful products and services in the mass media, domestic and international, and virtual spaces are prohibited, and sixth-grade imprisonment or penal punishment and deprivation of occupational and social activities are punishable. Among the links between hazard knowledge and the orientation of this paper, one can observe behavioral risk-taking. One of the basic questions in this area is what should be done to reduce environmental hazards? One of the most effective means of helping public opinion is to sensitize the level of risk; relying on the broad functions of public opinion courts can be a new direction in the implementation of knowledge of hazards and the identification of environmental hazards and environmental hazards to people, political actors and decision-makers. Also, to act as an effective legal tool in order to achieve its major support goals and ensure the safety of human life and the environment as an effective legal tool. Considering the historical record and the evolution of the idea of ​​the Public Opinion Tribunal, it is well-documented that the use of the capacity of such courts can be an effective and effective instrument for maintaining and safeguarding health for all.