نشریه پژوهش های حقوق تطبیقی
سال بیست و هشتم شماره 1 (پیاپی 123، بهار 1403)

The crime of espionage is one of the main high-risk crimes that endangers the foreign security of countries and faces the security-oriented criminal policy of all countries, and repressive punishments are usually applied to it, because while violating the independence of countries, it makes them vulnerable to foreigners.The purpose of this article is to discuss the crime of espionage in Iran's criminal laws and shortcomings to address it, which necessitates revision and amendment to the current regulations . This research is a library study in terms of its practical purpose and research method, descriptive, analytical, and information gathering method.The crime of espionage has been addressed in various codes, such as the Islamic Penal Code, the  the Punishment of Armed Forces Crimes code, and the Law on Cyber Crimes code, , and the analysis of these laws reveals the ambiguity and contradictions in different articles, which shows the fragmented and partial view of the legislator in this field. It is necessary to review the crime of espionage in different criminal codes under a comprehensive system. The examination of the new bill of the Penal Law also shows that this bill has not  solved the problems raised.

Fraudulent phoenix occurs when the managers of a company, with the aim of avoiding some or all of its legal obligations, declare the company bankrupt and continue their business by creating a new company. One of the most important debts that remain unpaid during this operation is the company's tax debt. In section 198 of Iranian Direct Taxes Law, the legislator has held managers jointly and severally liable for paying the company's taxes. The subject of this research is to discuss the similarities and differences between the legal systems of Iran and Australia in relation to the liability of managers for tax debts arising from fraudulent phoenix activities. The result of the research shows that in Iran, unlike Australia, it is not possible to release managers from the responsibility of paying taxes of a bankrupt company under any excuse or defense. Also, while in Iran managers are responsible for paying all sources of taxes, in Australia directors are only responsible for paying taxes in which the company is the tax collector and not the actual payer. Nevertheless, there are similarities between the two systems in terms of responsibility of managers and stipulation of other restrictions for directors. Given the inflexibility of the regulations in Iran, it is suggested that the legislator changes the basis of manager’s liability to presumed fault liability and provide the opportunity of defense for managers who have taken all reasonable measures to fulfill their tax obligations but have not succeeded. It is also necessary to establish regulations regarding disqualification of directors who have been involved in the bankruptcy of numerous companies.

Although the development of the use of information technology in commercial transactions especially in international type, is economically favorable, but it has not been widely accepted by stakeholders. This is also true regarding the electronic substitutes for possessable trade documents, such as bills of lading and insurance policies. One reason for such a phenomenon is that, these substitutes, legally do not have the special functions of their paper counterparts; due to the lack of specific requirements regarding their formation and the non-regulation of the relationship between "possession" and "electronic trade documents". Therefore, it is essential to eliminate such an obstacle. Consequently, this article, with a different method from other researches that have only examined the legal aspects of a certain type of electronic trade documents and also with an analytical and comparative approach, examines the existing legal solutions to equate functions of electronic substitutes with paper documents and the requirements that are necessary to implement each of these solutions. The result of such an analysis is that there are two main solutions in this regard: First, determining the requirements for the formation of electronic trade documents and equating the "control" of electronic trade documents with the "possession" of paper trade documents. Second, Identifying the electronic substitutes as possessable objects, provided that certain preconditions have been met. Finally, Due to the lack of appropriate regulations in Iran's legal system and based on the findings of this article; a suitable regulatory framework has been proposed.

Assembled goods are goods that are made by assembling prefabricated parts. If damage is caused by the assembled product, the injured party usually files a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the final product due to easier access. The defendant may argue that he relied on actions or omissions of component manufacturers or raw material suppliers to exemption from liability in this research, we answer the question that on which basis is the producer of the part is responsible to the injured party? In order to answer this question, the legal system of the United States has been studied first, and by extracting the model of this legal system based on the judicial procedure, the issue has been discussed in Iran legal system. Finally, it was concluded that in the American legal system, the general principle is that if the manufactured part is non-defective before distribution, the part manufacturer is not responsible. However, in exceptional cases, the component maker is responsible for compensation to the injured party, and for these cases, four models have been followed by the courts of this country. In Iran's legal system, inspired by the model obtained from the American legal system, the manufacturer of the part is responsible in case the component is defective and there is a certain causal relationship between the defect and the occurrence of damage, in contrast in cases of design defects and or issuance of warning by the component manufacturer, the responsibility of the part manufacturer is assumed.

ex-ante judicial supervision over prosecution and investigation is one of the new developments in criminal procedure. This supervision is the use of supervision by court judges or independent expert judges outside of the Prosecutor's Office over the actions and decisions of the Prosecutor's Office, including the investigator, especially actions that impact individual rights and freedoms in the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings. Ex-ante supervision is recognized in the criminal justice system of Italy, and Germany; however, in Iran's law, ex-ante judicial supervision has been considered only case-by-case in some articles of Iran's Criminal Procedure Code, without being correctly extended to all decisions that are related to the rights and freedoms of individuals in the pre-trial stage. This article aims to explain the ex-ante judicial supervision comparatively taken in Germany and Italy and examine their differences with the existing supervision in Iran using analytical and descriptive methods, and at the same time, it is comparative with library collection tools; done. The findings of the research indicate the need for Iranian legislators and legal doctrine to pay attention to the issue of ex-ante judicial supervision over prosecution and investigation, such as in Germany and Italy, in an explicit and precise manner, and to prevent the centralization of powers of prosecution, investigation and supervision in the hands of the prosecutor's office to improve the quality of criminal justice and Prevention of judicial errors and violation of people's rights with these broad powers that were given to the judiciary.

Considering the vulnerability of the personality of children and juveniles accused of violating criminal laws it is crucial to avoid the institutionalizating delinquency through labaling. To achive this, differential measures should be employed when addressing their accusations. Although the principle of public proceedings -comprisingboth "holding hearings in public" and "publicity of judgments"- is considered fundamental for transparency of the proceedings,  Adjustment of the aforementioned principle such as holding non-public of hearings on the charges against children and , while publicizing their judgments.is needed to guarantee fair proceedings and safeguarding the rights of acused children and juveniles and avoiding labaling them as criminals. International human rights system, through human rights documents and especially their judicial and supervisory institutions, established mechanisms to such as non-publicity of the trial of children and juveniles and the holding of hearings without the presence of the public and the media in national courts to achive above mentioned goals; . However, in the publication and accessibility of decisions issued by specialized courts for children and adolescents. the principle of publicity of judgments with the observance of the principle of anonymity has been recognized by the international human rights system. Although Iranian Criminal Proceeding System, non-publicity of the judgments of the children and juveniles courts, respecting their anonymity and privacy, is based on a judicial instruction and not by means of legislation , the legislator's approach regarding the non-publicity of criminal trial for children and juveniles as well as the exclusion of parents and legal guardians from this rule, can be construed in accordance to international human right system measures taken regarding their participation in the hearings of this group of defendants..