THE JUDICIARY’S LAW JOURNAL
Year:2017 | Volume:81 | Issue:98 |Papers Count:12

In order to militate against the impunity of perpetrators of grave and significant crimes having international character and also to prevent commission of international crimes, “the duty to extradite or prosecute” is provided for in various conventions and treaties. The duty is loaded with the meaning that the state in which the person accused of international crime has been arrested, must choose between the options of prosecution or extradition. This rule during the time since the seventeenth century when it was set out by Grotius in “The Law of War and Peace” book, have witnessed various developments. Being set on ILC’s agenda, this subject of international Criminal law has been attached with more significance. Despite frequent use of this maxim in various international conventions, there is no doubt about the treaty nature of this commitment, but its customary character is highly controversial amongst scholars. This essay is to scrutinize and analyze the mentioned different aspects of the obligation to “Extradite or Prosecute” (aut dedere aut judicare) in several international conventions and also, the possibility of having such a rule in legal system of Iran.

Increasing resort of people to the banks make them to access classified information of the customers such as financial status, balance of the account and personal information. In order to gain the trust of customers and prevent Personal and commercial losses and economic abuse, banks make these data confidential and refused disclosure of them. Although the protection of banking secrets is an inevitable principle concerning social necessities such as confronting crimes like money laundering, terrorism financing, tax evasion and the need for financial transparency, it is appropriable in such areas. These exceptions, however, varies from country to country but we seen more common trends in all.This paper shows the basis, sources, scopes and the effects of banking secrecy in Iranian law and note the necessities of legislation by that.

Use of Bail is one of decisions allowed for judiciary authorities within Criminal Procedure particularly during the pre-trial investigations and forensic searches in order to assure the accessibility to and presence of the accused or defendant for trial. However, at the same time taking any kind of Bail or pre-trial detention actually limits the accused’s rights and liberties or even, deprives him thereof. Therefore, this will be a scene of the dual status of criminal procedure again: to protect the society and to guaranty the rights and prerogatives of the defendant-which makes the case a reasonable ground to survey this challenge again. There are principles and frames like legality or limitations on pre-trial searches and forensic investigations which are provided to ensure the respect for rights and liberties of citizens. Amongst all, the principle of proportionality for bails and pretrial detention must be construed as a resort to restrict the appliance of public authority in unnecessary cases. In other words, the public authority must be merely restricted to the cases it is necessary to achieve a legitimated good according to the principle of proportionality. Therefore, if there is a goal of ensuring the accessibility and presence of the defendant then it must be restricted to the minimum level of penal intervention of state as far as the goal is obtained. This article is to provide an analysis of principle of proportionality with respect to other principles of public law and then, having an inquiry over the judicial practices of legal systems - particularly jurisdictions of the European Court of Human Right (ECHR), we shall try to assay for legal grounds of the principle in Iranian legal system.

Cyber space is regarded as a body of human connections that functions thorough computers and communications without any physical space. It provides not only numerous benefits, but also a new opportunity for committing criminal behavior. This article is to determine cybercrime jurisdiction. Actually, as cybercrime is not committed in a physical space, determination of competent jurisdiction is demanding. In order to determine cybercrime jurisdiction, two kinds of criteria are taken into account: one is criminal jurisdiction based on classic rules and another is based on cybercrime’s characteristics. Therefore, it is possible to determine competent jurisdiction regarding those criteria, however, in some cases like that the accused is abroad or crime is committed in that way, there is obstacle with internal competent jurisdiction. Strategically, it is seriously required to take into account international cooperation in order to realize criminal jurisdiction.

After industrial revolution in nineteenth century, some amazing improvements appeared in scientific field. Outbreak of these improvements in world society created a lot of new problems and made jurists to find solution. One of these accessions is firm offer. So about the effect of firm offer in the opposite of some jurists and lawyers we should say, offer is an unilateral juridical act that it doesn'tcreate any obligation for offeror, and he can withdraw of his offer in every time before acceptance. it means, it doesn't make any obligation, merely, by binding the offer with limited time. Unless, the offeror has extincted revocation right impliedly or expressly. So, about the tortious liability of withdrawer only by resort on the rule of la-zarar (or causing loss and damage is prohibited in Islam, through abusing one's own property) - according to this point that rule can be able to create ordinance - under some circumstances is obliged to compensate for another party's losses.

In the case of multiple potential parties of litigation, some delicate issues can be raised that is able to prevent judge from trying substance of the claim. If there is solidarity among plaintiffs, every plaintiff can litigate. In the absence of solidarity, severability or non-severability of relief has a determining role in permitting individual litigation and is the test for adjudicating the substance of the action by judge. In Iran’s law various plaintiffs with common or similar issues of law or fact, are not allowed to sue against common defendant in one statement of claim, but in American law such a device with the title of compulsory or permissive joinder has been devised. The absence of joinder in Iran’s law is followed by inefficiency, wasting resources and sometimes conflicting judgments that undermines judiciary’s reputation. In the case of various defendants and their solidary obligation, the plaintiff can start an action against all or some of them, but when there is no solidarity among them, severability of relief is the test for litigating against some of them. Whenever there are many potential plaintiffs and defendants, depending upon solidarity among plaintiffs and defendants and relief severability, miscellaneous assumptions can be drawn that are governed by different legal injunctions.

One of the most fundamental philosophical issues, which is examined in political philosophy and philosophy of law, is confrontation of right and expediency. One side of this confrontation are people and their rights who expect the recognition of minimum fundamental rights, like the right to a fair trial, which belongs them under the humans dignity and personality. On the other side, society by the aid of its representatives, while trying to produce minimum resources for people and securing their welfare, has also a glance to its maintainance and continuance, by complying with some interests. This confrontation between humans rights and community interests, arrives its summit in terrorist offences and this, forms the most important philosophical base of differential criminal proceeding in terrorist offences. On one hand, suspects of terrorist activities want a fair trial as an undeniable right for human kind and on the other hand, political and judicial authorities seek to retain security of society, and see suspending and ignoring terrorist suspects’ rights, as one of resorts for achieving this aim. They regard suspension and ignorance of this group’s rights, as securing security. After explanation of this confrontation and its quality in terrorist offences, in this essay, is tried to produce logical resorts for its resolution.

In new era with the loosening of patriarchal and extended family foundation and the increasing popularity the nuclear families, about natural guardianship mentioned in Iranian Civil Code, has been emerged some questions and problems. Articles 1180 and 1181 Iranian Civil Code provides: "a minor is under the natural guardianship of its father or paternal grandfather". In Iranian Civil Code does not natural guardianship right to her minor child. In year 1353 the Iranian legislator understand this problem and enacted Family Protection Act and in article 15 provide the special natural guardianship for mother. However, this rule did not last and after the rescission of this rule, paternal grandfather alongside of his son was special guardian of his grandson. In year 1391 Family Protection Act for granting the natural guardianship right to mother has taken a fresh step. This rule confirmed by Council of Constitutional Guardians. Hence we in this article decide with answer to following question, prove our hypothesis: whether position of natural guardianship is able concoct for mother? Whether this position in case of encounter to natural guardianship right of paternal grandfather is precedence? Hypothesis of this paper is that after death of father natural guardianship right is belong to mother and she has guardianship right to her minors. This guardianship is precedence than guardianship right of paternal grandfather. In any case that father has guard to minors, as well as mother has this right. Her guardianship is parallel to father guardianship and preeminent than paternal grandfather guardianship.

Identifying criminal liability for legal entities is one of controversial issues in criminal law. A party is considered as one of the most important legal entities whose criminal liability is important, from different aspects. The paper primarily defines concept and background of political parties; then, discusses legal conditions for activity of political parties, after explaining their legal personality and determining the time for formation of legal personality in substantive and affirmative terms. Necessity of identifying criminal liability for political parties, and also foundations of such kind of liability from theoretical and legal points of view are among those subjects discussed, in the paper. Meanwhile, making separation in activities pertaining to political parties, some strategies have been proposed to determine criminal liability for political parties; so that, uncertainties and objections to Islamic Penal Code in explaining criminal liability would be removed. Following subjects are among those issues dealt with here, in the paper: rules and regulations governing crimes performed by political parties, identification of responsible person in those crimes pertaining to political parties, correlation between penalties imposed on real person along with legal entity, those penalties imposable in this respect, and the way these penalties are imposed. Also, references have been made to some articles of the “Law on Activities of Political Parties and Political Groups”; while, making emphasis on necessity of its review and prioritizing legal approach over other political categories, etc.