THE JUDICIARY’S LAW JOURNAL
Year:2010 | Volume:74 | Issue:71|Papers Count:10

A lot of claims in courts are directly or indirectly related to property transactions. In spite of the importance of these transactions and the legislator’s efforts to clarify the law, the procedure shows contradiction of decisions and uncertainty about the destiny of such transactions. In Iranian legal procedure, the relative predictability of legal claims, a characteristic of organized legal systems, does not exist that much in claims regarding informal transactions of properties; the gap between legal and judicial approaches is also wide. A court thinks of voiding and another of enforcing it just as an ordinary contract. In such conditions, it is difficult to observe the rights of the claim parties and also the third party. We believe that the concept of “A ordinary contract not being demonstrative” can be a balanced guarantee for relationships among people. That means a contract being effective between the claim parties and not demonstrative with respect to third parties; unless the third party is aware of the contract. The current essay investigates this entity and its reflection in legal procedure.

After a verdict is issued, it has some effects; it has exeptio rei judicate; and sometimes becomes enforceable; claim parties use its demonstrating power. Sometimes the effects are confined to the parties involved and other times they are not. The result of the court’s judgment, as a legal entity which is obtained following special formalities, is capable of being used and relied on against all citizens.For the cases in which the effects of the verdict are confined to the claim parties, we can speak of the privity principle. Except for the claim parties, there is no profit or loss.

The victim is one of important elements of crime and a critical factor of determining punishment in criminal systems. Victim’s characteristics have always been noticed. Despite the assertion of laws and claims of executors of criminal justice on equality of people against the law, today victim’s religion and race is a fundamental factor in determining punishments in criminal laws and the procedure of criminal justice executors. These characteristics have acted sometimes to mitigate and sometimes to aggravate the punishment. This paper has tried to study the role of victim’s religion and race in determining punishment by looking at criminal laws and legal procedures in Iran and England.

Protection of witnesses is a set economic, security, educational and psychological actions which the criminal justice system takes to improve participation of witnesses in judgment procedure. Such programs, a common process in the world countries and also international courts pertaining to organized crimes, terrorist crimes, crimes against humanity and war crimes, are performed in three major ways; protection-security, protective- psychological and programs to hide the identity of witnesses. On the other hand, today defensive rights of the accused is an integral part of a fair justice according to international, regional and internal laws and cannot be confined unless for a good reason; because this is a legacy the human society has achieved by hard endeavor and after centuries of judgment. At first sight, performing some of the programs like hiding the identity of witnesses and excessive protection of them is in sharp contrast with some rights of the accused like asking witnesses or the principle of equal opportunities. The issue can be minimized taking special actions and as a result, the principles of fair justice can somewhat be guaranteed.

In concluding electronic contracts, many of legal issues imaginable in the real world can be posed; such that the same judgments can be made in both physical and electronic cases and just the appearance may sometimes differ. Despite this, sometimes new cases are put forth that could not have occurred in the real world and their occurrence, due to the intrinsic characteristics of cyberspace, is restricted to electronic contracts. One of the cases in which just the appearance has changed and traditional judgments still apply for electronic instances, is misrepresentation.

Legal procedure is not always ideal and some occurrences may cease its natural routine meanwhile. This is often mentioned as unexpected accidents. Among all kinds, unexpected accidents resulting from confession as one of the most important evidences include unexpected accidents pertaining to the confessor, subject of confession, and unexpected accidents related to the party favoring confession. Unexpected accidents pertaining to the subject of confession, due to doubts about whether the standards of argument are compulsory, happen more often. Although this does not mean weakening the role of claim parties. Accepting these arguments, which cannot be restricted to certain cases, is contingent upon existence or nonexistence of some pillars.