نشریه قضاوت
پیاپی 94 (تابستان 1397)

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (“North Korea” or “DPRK”) missile activities have changed into an international challenge. North Korea has tested up to 180 different types of missiles since 1984. Although no conventional rule prohibits States from missile testing, some customary rules and general principles of law frame testing behaviours and impose limitations on it. In respect of North Korea's missile tests, UN Security Council has taken a prominent role and since the Security Council becomes sensitive to North Korea's nuclear activities, its focus on its missile tests has increased. In addition to imposing sanctions, the Security Council acts with ambiguity in respect of suspending or prohibiting DPRK missile program. By overall analyzing the issued resolutions what we reached is that the true intention of UNSC is to limit and suspend the DPRK missile program rather than prohibiting it.

The decision of the International Court of Justice in case of Belgium against Senegal about the breach of article 6 and 7 of Convention against torture about the obligation to prosecute or extradite of the ex-president of Chad is important from different dimensions due to the fact that it shows the obligation of the international community about prosecution and extradition of international criminals. This decision indicates the jurisdiction of Belgium about the prosecution of Hessne Habre for the crime of torture. The prohibition of torture has been accepted as jus cogens and therefore the immunity of a head of states is not accepted accordingly. The members of international society have responsibility toward prosecution and extradition of international criminals. In contemporary international law, there is no immunity for international criminals. The procedure of the International Court of Justice in case of Hebre confirms the obligation of the states to prosecution or extradition of Hebre for the crime of torture. Now we can see obvious consensus in the international community in the prosecution of the crime of torture as a common principle in binding international documents.

Iran civil code (article 607) has explicitly regarded the deposit contract as a bare contract in which mustandi (trustee) receives no money from mudi (depositor) for protecting the thing(s) entrusted to him. In this study, we will investigate if being free of charge, as explicitly mentioned in the civil code, is the requirement of substance in deposit contract or it is possible to agree to the contrary by the parties of the contract. In other words, what is the performance guarantee of the condition in which the trustee agrees with depositor to receive money for protecting the thing(s) entrusted to him? Is this condition valid or it has no legal effect, and if it is of no legal effect, does it nullify the deposit contract too? What is the reason for mentioning free of charge in article 607 of the civil code? According to the findings of this paper, it seems that the primary target and main element of the deposit contract is only protection of the thing entrusted. As jurists and lawyers believe, the aim of the deposit contract is to subrogate another person to retain a thing. Therefore, the requirement of substance of deposit contract which is also the main aim of concluding the contract is retention and protection of the depositor's thing(s) by the trustee and being free of charge is a requirement of absoluteness in the deposit contract and not a requirement of substance. Thus, if the parties of the deposit contract agree otherwise, it does not nullify the contract.

In the process of money laundering, the perpetrators of the crimes converted money generated from their illegal acts to legitimate fortune by committing acts of deception and this matter causes major economic losses in any given country. In fact, the rules of money laundering are combined with other financial and business criminal methods.  Therefore, countries have set up laws to combat this type of criminal activity in order to maintain and support their economic system, and this has led to the formation of a group called “Financial Action Task Force” (FATF) within the international sphere. In Iran, the anti-money laundering law was enacted in 2007, but due to lack of expertise in drafting its provisions, it cannot be implemented effectively.  The question that arises is that what are the disadvantages of the anti-money laundering law? According to the library research, it seems that the lack of consistency of the anti-money laundering law, the lack of attention to the "transnational" character and the "organized" nature of this crime, the transfer of supervision over the fight against money laundering to a non-judicial body, conflict with other "civil and criminal laws", the inappropriateness of the "money laundering with a prescribed penalty" and the lack of prediction of suitable strategies for cooperation with other countries in the "jurisdiction and international bodies", may be considered as the defects of this law. Of course, it is hoped that the challenges of this law will be resolved with the help of professors and experts, and also by reviewing the laws of other countries in the area of combating money laundering. In the end, the author, looking at the "Law on money laundering and the proceeds generated from crimes” of Afghanistan as adopted in 2014, has provided effective solutions to the amendment of the provisions of the anti-money laundering law.

The term "misconduct" is one of the most important innovations in the lawmakers' bill protecting children and adolescents, which covers many acts against the physical, mental and psychological integrity of children and adolescents. The legislator in the bill has tried to give a new insight and explain the related words and terms. Therefore, the first clause of the article deals with the definition of the term “misconduct”. Misconduct from the point of view of the bill is "any intentional act or forbearance that endangers the physical, mental, moral, or social health of children and adolescents, such as assault, confinement, sexual misconduct, insult and a threat to the child or adolescent or to place them in difficult and unconventional conditions." Based on this, the importance of evaluating the status of misconduct in jurisprudence and law is of particular importance. Considering the importance of international documents to children's rights, examination of abuses in these documents is also necessary.

According to the jurisprudential law "confession of the people against themselves is permissible", and anyone confessing a right to another will be required to acknowledge it and if the confession has the elements prescribed for valid confession, in accordance with the rule of "prohibiting denial after confession", it is not possible to revoke it as verified by jurisprudents and lawyers unless under certain circumstances, such as proving the invalidity of the underlying claim(s), mistakes and etc. in which, under article 1277 of the civil code, confession may be denied or revoked. This principle is also stipulated in article 173 of the Islamic penal code of 1392, but in two instances, the confession may be denied or revoked, and there are where a person admits the commitment of a crime that its punishment is stoning to death and blood vengeance by talion. There is also a third exception that the law is silent about, that is, the mutual confession to the murder. However, there is no consensus among the jurisprudents in this regard. A group believe in the falling of blood vengeance by talion and blood money and the payment of blood money from the treasury, and another group believe that blood vengeance by talion and blood money must be honoured.

The principle of personal criminal responsibility is one of the advanced and well-known principles in contemporary criminal law, which compliance ensures justice and nulla crimen sine lege. An overview of the history of ancient Mesopotamia law, where the sun of legislation rose for the first time and its luminous ray swept away the whole world, illustrates the bitter fact that in ancient societies, the impersonal criminal responsibility which is one of the characteristics of the private vengeance period governed the criminal relations of the people. But in many of the ancient statutes of that era, the principle of the personal criminal responsibility was recognized directly or indirectly. Although the royal orders were sometimes shadowed by these laws and did not allow law enforcement. In the divine religions of the Near East, the aforementioned principle is predicted and emphasized. But in some cases, especially in the Zoroastrian and Jewish faiths, the aforementioned principle was ignored, and many exceptions violated the rights of those who had no role in committing crimes and the cycle of delinquency. In Islam, this principle was established fourteen centuries ago as one of the early rules of the Shari'a, in the book and the Sunnah, as predicted and confirmed by the Prophet (PBUH) and the infallible Imams.