نشریه دیدگاه های حقوق قضایی
پیاپی 73-74 (بهار و تابستان 1395)

The Basis of the right is defined as the man’ obligation to follow the law in a society, and also the sources of the law are defined as the rules and credit propositions of a school. The issue attempts to answer the questions that why Human Begin should be law- bound or law- abiding? and what is the ground for the law- obedience of the human? The answer to these questions may be made from two divine and non- divine points of view. The latter one doesn’t recognize any role for the divine will in the law- obedience of the human. This approach defines the basis of the right in the form of an invisible force or motivation directing the human to follow the rules; consequently, the primary source of the law- under this thought- is the law legislated by the human’s will regardless of the divine will.
However, when the human calls God the present the All Mighty, the Knowledgefull and the Alive and believes in God’s creative will confined to creating things, in law- giving will confined to ordering rulings and the power of regulating behaviors confined to call for actions and omissions, then there should be the God’s will along with the human’s will concerning the issue of law- abiding. so, we should ask to what extent the law-giving will of God has the influence in the legislative will of human.
Therefore, the wisdom of human thinks and contemplates on the role of God’s will when the ground for the law- abiding the obligation of human is sought. The wisdom shall order to obey God as indefinite being as the wisdom has reasoned and proved its indefiniteness on the basis of the reasoning, calling the operation of the human’s will within the creative God’s will.

Following the occurrence of international crimes in the territory of yugoslavia and Rwanda, UN security council established international criminal tribunals and after a while international criminal court was presented so that it be an answer to crimes, perpetrators as responsible and healing victims. But because of the aforementioned courts couldnt ignore the accused rights, regulations predicted in tribunals statue. Among these rights are the defenses such as mental disorder is considered to be an exclude for responsibility and if it is proted lead to punishment reduction or exculpation. Also the rictims have to consider justice as done so that making peace and calmness be accepted as the aims of international criminal justice. But the return of acquittal or people that have endured reduced punishment to regions where serious international crimes took place without any medication to eliminate their dangerous state cant be coordinate with the mentioned aims. Whereas the jurisprudence and regulations of international criminal courts about mental disorder defense hasnt taken consideration not only the accused rights but also vicitims benefits.

According to the rule of parties initiative, parties are free to terminate trial and procedural law respects the freedom of their will, although restrains it depending upon some circumstances. however, withdrawal of a case when there are multiple plaintiffs or defendants, may raise complicated issues which the Act does not have any solution for them and their suitable rules should be inferred by Legal analysis and considering various data such as being solidarity among plaintiffs, divisibility or non-divisibility of litigation, the solidary obligation of defendants and severability or non- severability of the claim. If there is not solidarity among plaintiffs and the claim is not severable, it is not permissible to withdraw the statement of case or claim; because this challenges the continuity of litigation in respect to the others. If the defendants are liable solidum, discontinuance of claim regarding to one of them does not diminish the others solidary liability and they are still liable to plaintiff, so continuing the process accord to principles of procedure. After the end of parties’ negotiation, if some defendants disagree with withdrawal of claim by plaintiff, the trial continues with their presence

Repentance is known as one of the fundamental concepts in Islamic criminal law and as a legal excuse. This issue which creates a border between Islamic laws and secular criminal schools, stands on some infrastructural propositions and human imagination of God. repentance has been considered in the attitudes of religious scholars in both scopes of theologically and legally for a long time. Lawyers recognized it as a legal issue from the perspective of decriminalizing policy, and theologians considered it as an element and attributeit to certain divine attributes with a educational approach. This article starts with the jurisprudential, philosophical and theological analysis of repentance. In radial of that, it illusterates Islamic criminal norms rationality extra historically and realistically in lines of jurisprudence’s dynamismis explained. Based on it, boundary of repentance and the approaches of Islamic criminal Laws.

Government seeks to manage every aspects of society including financial affairs, in order to exercise its sovereignty. This management requires keeping and using financial information of citizens which is used in process of credit scoring. On the other hand, financial information of people is known as a part of their privacy and cannot been breached without legal permission, so that legal principles and Constitution is violated. Therefore, explanation of legal foundations of credit scoring will illustrate possibility of establishing such an entity, its competences, manner in which information is released and its validity.
This article try to study legal rules and documents in order to understand legal foundations of credit scoring process.
Finally, the result is that according to the principle of legality of public affairs and need for protecting privacy of people, only law is entitled to establish and define the nature of this entity and it appears that establishing a government institution is the best choice. In addition to the law, consent of individuals and entities is capable to legalize the process of rendering information to credit scoring bureaus and obliging people render this information to credit institutions.

Apart from believe to be conflict or comfortability between nations and government, having regard to developing of Government functions, it is shown increasing of taking decisions and acts by government. These decisions and acts may both meet missions of government and provide with advance and improve for people and country, while could be caused damages and loss for some people and could result to liability of government. Although the complaint about the actions and decisions of government officials and agencies is in the jurisdiction of the Administrative Justice Court, and compensation for damages caused by actions and decisions of state authorities and authorities after confirmation of occurrence of the violation subject to the limits of their laws and authority is in the jurisdiction of the public courts. nevertheless, It can be seen that, firstly, some branches of the general Courts hear a compensation order without the need for confirmation of occurrence of the violation in the Administrative Justice Court, and sometimes Administrative Justice Court, issue a compensation order in addition to confirmation of occurrence of the violation. secondly, in determining the elements of liability in the Divan Divisions There is no unilateralism and, thirdly they act in parallel In the course of litigation, so that the boundary between the jurisdiction of the two references is not exactly clear. in January 19, 2016 The Supreme Court issued a decree No. 747 on establishing a procedural unity with respect to one of the examples of this issue, which answered a part of this question. This article tries to determine, in accordance with the above-mentioned judgment, how to litigate the responsibility of the state and demand compensation for individuals caused by decisions and actions outside the scope of the law and the powers of the state apparatuses in accordance with the principle of jurisdiction of the public prosecutor's office and The Court of Justice provides standards.