Criminal Law
Mohammad Hadi Zakerhossein
Abstract
The International Criminal Court is unable to prosecute all international crimes that fall within its jurisdiction. The situation selection falls within the Prosecutor’s discretion that is done by conducting a preliminary examination. In this filtering process, three factors are taken into account, ...
Read More
The International Criminal Court is unable to prosecute all international crimes that fall within its jurisdiction. The situation selection falls within the Prosecutor’s discretion that is done by conducting a preliminary examination. In this filtering process, three factors are taken into account, namely jurisdiction, admissibility and the interests of justice. Nevertheless, the Prosecutor prefers to extend its discretion behind the preliminary examination stage. Accordingly, the Prosecutor selects a situation not only to initiate an investigation upon conducing a preliminary examination but also to open a preliminary examination in itself. This article argues that the Prosecutor’s discretion to open a preliminary examination is limited to consider the jurisdiction requirement in a narrow manner, namely to exclude those crimes that are manifestly outside of the Court’s jurisdiction. Due to the role of preliminary examinations in combating the culture of impunity, the Prosecutor shall not adopt a conservative approach to open a preliminary examination.
Criminal Law
Amin Fallah; hasan hajitabar firozjaee
Abstract
The Code of Criminal Procedure adopted in 1392 with subsequent amendments and additions, except for crimes under the jurisdiction of the Judicial Organization of the Armed Forces, preliminary investigation of crimes of persons under 15 years of age under the jurisdiction of juvenile court and preliminary ...
Read More
The Code of Criminal Procedure adopted in 1392 with subsequent amendments and additions, except for crimes under the jurisdiction of the Judicial Organization of the Armed Forces, preliminary investigation of crimes of persons under 15 years of age under the jurisdiction of juvenile court and preliminary investigation of crimes of persons aged 15 to 18 years Shamsi, with the exception of crimes against chastity, has considered the 7th and 8th degree ta'zir crimes under the jurisdiction of a branch of the city's Public and Revolutionary Prosecutor's Office as the Special Juvenile Court. However, according to Article 315 of this law, crimes subject to the jurisdiction of the First Criminal Court, as well as the Revolution, in cases that are tried by multiple judges, if committed by adults under the age of 18, a special juvenile criminal court will try them. شد. However, this law is ambiguous in terms of competent authorities for conducting preliminary investigations and prosecuting crimes under Article 302 committed by minors and adults under 15 years of age. The authors, in this article, based on the legal standards and general principles of criminal law, come to this conclusion. It was concluded that in the case of persons under the age of fifteen, if the person is a minor, the preliminary investigation and trial of public crimes or revolution covered by Article 302 of this law will be carried out by the juvenile court, but if the perpetrator is under the age of 15, the reference Preliminary investigation and trial, the criminal court is a special case for juvenile delinquency.
International Law
Reza Maghsoudi
Abstract
Abstract: A judgment issued by a foreign country has been recognized and enforced if originating court has jurisdiction for hear the matter. This jurisdiction has been evaluated on the base of rules of addressed country. The key question is what are the criteria for accepting the jurisdiction of a foreign ...
Read More
Abstract: A judgment issued by a foreign country has been recognized and enforced if originating court has jurisdiction for hear the matter. This jurisdiction has been evaluated on the base of rules of addressed country. The key question is what are the criteria for accepting the jurisdiction of a foreign court at the voting stage? Some countries have jurisdiction over a foreign court, such as a domestic court. Others, by limiting the scope of jurisdiction of a foreign court, accept the jurisdiction of a foreign court only on the basis of strict criteria.. In Iranian law, only the exclusive jurisdiction of the Iranian court is considered as an impediment for recognition of foreign judgments. The need to meet the legitimate expectations of private individuals and to provide predictability in cross-border relations requires that the jurisdiction of a foreign court be defined as in the 2019 Hague Convention and that litigants be assured of the condition of recognition in other countries before the trial begins. The lack of uniform jurisdiction rules among countries to recognize foreign court judgments undermines the efficiency and usefulness of international litigation and makes it impossible for free movement of judgments between countries. The need to meet the legitimate expectations of private individuals and to create predictability in cross-border relations requires that cases of jurisdiction of a foreign court be specified and that litigants ensure that this condition is met in other countries before a trial can begin.
Private Law
Koorosh Ostovar Sangari
Abstract
AbstractOne of the issues raised after the establishment of the Administrative Court of Justice was who can appear as a plaintiff in the Administrative Court of Justice and whether state agencies can appear as a plaintiff in the Administrative Court of Justice. According to the rulings No. 37, 38 and ...
Read More
AbstractOne of the issues raised after the establishment of the Administrative Court of Justice was who can appear as a plaintiff in the Administrative Court of Justice and whether state agencies can appear as a plaintiff in the Administrative Court of Justice. According to the rulings No. 37, 38 and 39 of the Court of Administrative Justice in 1368, state agencies can in no way be present in the branches of the Court of Administrative Justice as a plaintiff. This decision was approved by the General Assembly of the Supreme Court in No. 602 in 1374, but the question was raised that what is the task of the state apparatus in relation to matters within the jurisdiction of the Court of Administrative Justice? In 2007, the General Assembly of the Supreme Court, Decision No. 699, tried to somehow open this deadlock and find a solution to this problem. However, these votes of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court created other problems, hence the vote of unity. Procedure No. 792 was issued in July 2016 and has somehow annulled votes No. 602 and 699. The author believes that vote 972 is a positive development in the separation of powers of the Court of Administrative Justice and public courts.Keywords: Procedural Unity Vote, Jurisdiction, Administrative Court of Justice, Public Court,State.
Mohammad Jalali; Mohammad HasanVand; Ayob Miri
Abstract
By the Iranian Constitution, justice courts are considered to be the public authorities to deal with people’s complaints. Alongside these public authorities, the Administrative Justice Court (AJC) has been developed with the aim of “getting people’s right from the government” ...
Read More
By the Iranian Constitution, justice courts are considered to be the public authorities to deal with people’s complaints. Alongside these public authorities, the Administrative Justice Court (AJC) has been developed with the aim of “getting people’s right from the government” and “establishment of administrative justice”. Referring to the principles of the Constitution, one can to some extent make jurisdictional distinctions between the justice courts and the AJC. However, in the Iranian judicial procedure, which has a more precise look at the issue of jurisdiction, and explains the distinctions in a technical manner, the issued decisions indicate that regarding the jurisdiction of the AJC there is not a united procedure, and this disunity applies both to the AJC and public courts. The first question to be raised is whether all claims concerning the government’s civil responsibility should be made before the AJC, or in all cases in which the losers intend to demand compensation from the governmental institutions they first should refer to the AJC in order to ascertain the transgression; or in some cases they can directly make their claims before the public court. Abstracting the cases in which the conditions of the responsibility of the government are met, this study tries to discuss the above questions on the basis of the examination of judicial decisions. Finally, it comes to the conclusion that the general jurisdiction of public justice courts over all civil and criminal claims requires that the jurisdiction of the Administrative Justice Court should be interpreted according to the existing laws and in accordance with the philosophy of the formation of the AJC. Therefore, not all claims could be made before the AJC, and the individual claims for compensation against administration must be interpreted with respect to the nature of the claims, the position of the specific governmental office or department in relation to that of the individual, and the type of the administrative action.
Mahdi Esmaeili
Abstract
Terrorism is a phenomenon that has been challenging the security of many countries throughout the history, particularly in the last decade, and inflicted irreversible losses. One of the most important plans of all countries, particularly those that are victims of the terrorism, is to punish the terrorists. ...
Read More
Terrorism is a phenomenon that has been challenging the security of many countries throughout the history, particularly in the last decade, and inflicted irreversible losses. One of the most important plans of all countries, particularly those that are victims of the terrorism, is to punish the terrorists. According to statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the task of investigating this crime lies outside of the jurisdiction of ICC, and rests upon the governments. Countries that are victims of terrorism, such as Iran, use their criminal jurisdiction in an attempt to punish the perpetrators of the terrorist events. By accepting the principle of individual jurisdiction, Iran has taken important steps towards fighting against this heinous crime. The method that Iran has adopted for handling this crime is totally different from those adopted for the other crimes. This method is among the internal laws such as Iranian aviation and maritime laws.
Godarz Eftekhar Jahromi; Ebrahim Eslami
Abstract
With the advent and development of information and communication technology, human life has undergone fundamental changes. Some human behaviors which have been traditionally criminalized in every society, today take place in the form of criminal ideas in a language specific to the computer systems or ...
Read More
With the advent and development of information and communication technology, human life has undergone fundamental changes. Some human behaviors which have been traditionally criminalized in every society, today take place in the form of criminal ideas in a language specific to the computer systems or through online network. Thus there is a new world called cyberspace in which traditional boundaries have become meaningless. Perhaps some crimes against persons are planned and committed far from the residence of the victims or it is possible that ones’ usual means of everyday life are used as criminal tool against him/her or others. Today, cyber terrorism as an international crime has become the subject matter of controversies among international lawyers and the main question in this context is determining the courts’ jurisdiction which in turn poses another question as to application of procedural law rules in this respect. Traditional rules and principles regarding jurisdiction have been challenged by criminal acts which are committed through cyberspace. This paper seeks to provide an appropriate answer to the question that in the case of transnational cyber-crimes, how and to what extent courts of a given State may claim and exercise jurisdiction and on the other hand in the case of conflict of jurisdiction which rule or rules should apply to resolve such a conflict. Providing an appropriate answer to the question requires dwelling on international standards governing conflict of jurisdictions and studying practices of those states which are pioneers in combat against cyber-crimes.
Mohammad Emami; Mahasti Soleimani
Abstract
Since the establishment of the administrative court of justice, there has been a dispute over actionable claims in this new court. The ambiguity of law in this context has led to conflicts in legal doctrine in introducing diagnosis criteria of actionable claims in that court. These two elements ...
Read More
Since the establishment of the administrative court of justice, there has been a dispute over actionable claims in this new court. The ambiguity of law in this context has led to conflicts in legal doctrine in introducing diagnosis criteria of actionable claims in that court. These two elements -ambiguity of law and conflicting legal doctrine– has affected the decisions made by the court's judges. The present study tries to examine and evaluate the diagnosis criteria of actionable claims in the court from the perspective of law, doctrine and judicial proceeding, using a descriptive–analytical method and with a fundamental consideration of the limits and the type of jurisdiction of the administrative court of justice. It attempts, therefore, to yield a right approach to the court's jurisdiction and the related diagnosis criteria of actionable claims.
Seyed Yaser Ziaee
Abstract
Jurisdiction is one of the inherent features of sovereignty. Extension of sovereign interests over the territorial borders has rendered to emergence of some criteria for extraterritorial application of jurisdiction. Extraterritorial jurisdictions can be recognized in three aspects: Legislative (prescriptive), ...
Read More
Jurisdiction is one of the inherent features of sovereignty. Extension of sovereign interests over the territorial borders has rendered to emergence of some criteria for extraterritorial application of jurisdiction. Extraterritorial jurisdictions can be recognized in three aspects: Legislative (prescriptive), judicial) adjudicative) and executive. Legitimacy of these jurisdictions depends on historical, philosophical and conceptual view to jurisdiction in public international law. We can gather pro and anti views to the legitimacy of extraterritorial jurisdiction in academic legal texts. However advocates of extraterritorial jurisdiction don’t deny the undesired consequences of this jurisdiction. So it is important that we find a proper solution for problems of extraterritorial jurisdiction. It is suggested that ‘Extraterritorial international jurisdiction’ and ‘modified universal jurisdiction’ can play a role instead of extraterritorial legislative jurisdiction and ‘transnational law’ and ‘mutual legal guarantee’ can play a role instead of extraterritorial judicial jurisdiction.
Abbas Pour Hashemi
Volume 67, Issue 44 , September 2003, , Pages 89-97
Mostafa Elsan
Volume 67, Issue 44 , September 2003, , Pages 119-140
