Private Law
Mohammad Sadegh Mahdavi Rad; Mahmoud Habibi; Ismail shahsavandi; Alireza MASHHADIZADEH
Abstract
Proceedings of retrial in criminal and civil cases are different, it means that in criminal matters only the convicted person, the prosecutor executing the sentence and the Attorney General of the country have the right to request the retrial proceedings in civil matters according to articles 426 to ...
Read More
Proceedings of retrial in criminal and civil cases are different, it means that in criminal matters only the convicted person, the prosecutor executing the sentence and the Attorney General of the country have the right to request the retrial proceedings in civil matters according to articles 426 to 441 of the Iranian Civil Procedure Law; First of all, the reasons for requesting re-trail are the reasons listed in Article 426. Secondly, according to Article 441, no one except the plantiffe and their successor can request a retrial. Thirdly, the request is limited by the deadline. Fourthly, unlike in criminal matters where the request is submitted to the court and the district court prescribes a retrial, in legal matters the retrial petition is submitted to the court that issued the final judgment and the court that issues an acceptance order and retail the proceedings. The legislator of Egypt has also recognized the retrial of proceedings in criminal matters in articles 441 to 457 of the Egyptian Criminal Procedure Law and considers the purpose of the retrial of proceedings in criminal matters to prevent the judge or the court from causing losses to the accused due to a mistake in issuing a sentence. Therefore, the request for retrial by the public prosecutor's office is requested by the convicted person and in the case of the death of the convicted person by the wife or one of the relatives of the deceased, the retrial in civil matters is considered by the Egyptian legislator from articles 241 to 247 of the civil procedure law, which is often with the prescribed directions
Hasan Mohseni
Abstract
Today Conflict Resolution Counsel (CRC) which was aimed to achieve conciliation between people, pursuing conciliation and dispute settlement among private and public nongovernmental identities under supervision of Judiciary and this matter caused to become a first degree of jurisdiction by its relative ...
Read More
Today Conflict Resolution Counsel (CRC) which was aimed to achieve conciliation between people, pursuing conciliation and dispute settlement among private and public nongovernmental identities under supervision of Judiciary and this matter caused to become a first degree of jurisdiction by its relative competence. This situation that required to resolving the vagueness of its dispute settlement procedure has not concerned in 2008 act about CRC and caused some difficulties on the possibility or non-possibility of attack on its or public tribunal judgments which later is rendered after appeal such as revision and tired persons apposition. This is the subject of this paper.
Behnam Youssefian Shorehdeli; Layla Rasooli Astani
Abstract
Notwithstanding all the existing safeguards and preventive measures, in many cases, criminal justice systems do in fact punish the innocent. The Article deals with the issue of compensating those who, while having been wrongly found guilty by a final judgment of the judiciary, are nevertheless subsequently ...
Read More
Notwithstanding all the existing safeguards and preventive measures, in many cases, criminal justice systems do in fact punish the innocent. The Article deals with the issue of compensating those who, while having been wrongly found guilty by a final judgment of the judiciary, are nevertheless subsequently exonerated as innocent people and found to be victims of a miscarriage of justice. After considering the relevant provisions in international instruments as well as a number of foreign legal systems, the Article examines the existing provisions in the Iranian legal system. We find that, despite clear guidance in the Islamic jurisprudence and in violation of the Iranian Constitution and Iran’s international obligations, there are major shortcomings in current legislation, impeding the actual process of examination of claims and of paying due compensation to the victims of wrongful conviction by the State. In order to overcome the said problems, we propose that the responsibility of the State be recognized for all the damages suffered by the victims, and that the concerned compensation be promptly made from the public treasury, whether or not any public official or third party may be liable for causing the wrongful conviction. After paying the damages, the State will have of course the option to bring a claim against any faulty person or official. Our proposal does not violate any provision of the Constitution, since the provision contained in Principle 171 of the Constitution according to which faulty judges are to be held liable, does not necessarily mean that the victim has to bring a claim against the concerned judge, but instead, can also be interpreted to include the liability of the judge to the State. Moreover, we propose that in order to facilitate and accelerate the procedure for just compensation of the wrongfully convicted, further appropriate measures be taken, which shall include revision of Article 30 of the Act of Supervision of Judges’ Behavior (2011).