In the light of comparative law developments in recent years, the Criminal Procedure Code of 2013 has introduced numerous institutions and mechanisms into the Iranian criminal justice system that, through the emergence of a concurrent justice, prosecution of the accused is suspended in exchange for some of the orders suggested by the prosecutor or reconciliation with the plaintiff. Proper implementation of these strategies, which are interpreted as alternatives to criminal prosecution, has shortened the intervention of the criminal system and accelerated the resolution of disputes arising out of the crime, giving the accused an opportunity not to stay immune from criminal labeling without getting involved with the criminal process and compensating the victim’ s damages in a short time. Successors of prosecution, however, face challenges such as the ambiguous status of the defendant’ s rights. In fact, the nature of such proceedings raises many questions, including whether the right to defense in these proceedings differs from that of ordinary criminal proceedings? And are the defendants’ rights observed in the same way as classical rights? This article seeks to provide appropriate solutions to these rights for these methods by studying and criticizing the legal rights of the accused in prosecution alternatives.

Alternatives to criminal prosecution, which is a manifestation of the principle of proportionality of criminal prosecution, can be considered as the third way and the intermediate method of unconditional prosecution and archiving the case,In addition, the criminal is not left without prosecution and the goals of the punishments are achieved without the person entering the criminal justice system. In American law, which is derived from the common law system, the principle of having a position of criminal prosecution that alternatives to criminal prosecution It is a manifestation of this principle, it has a greater manifestation than the other principle,Because there, the prosecution of the accused begins when there is sufficient evidence against the accused and the public interest requires the prosecution. There are other sub-conditions, such as the benefit of the victim (unlike Iranian law, where the willingness of the victim is a condition in some crimes( and there is the observance of moral principles, all of which can be considered as factors of the development of this principle and, as a result, alternatives to criminal prosecution. As a result of the researches and studies, some aspects of alternatives to criminal prosecution were brought to the attention of the legislator in the approval of the Criminal Procedure Law approved in 2013. But this amount, it seems, is not enough and the application and implementation of this small amount also faces challenges which in this research with descriptive-analytical method, these challenges are in the form of cultural challenges (Tendency to punish and lack of attention to The goals of punishments) executive (absence of an organization to care for criminals and lack of financial credits to apply alternatives to criminal prosecution), legislative (It is not mandatory to file a character file in all crimes and apply alternatives to criminal prosecution with strict conditions) and judicial (inflation of criminal cases and weak training of judges) will be examined by looking at American law.

When a crime is committed a prosecutor, as agent of prosecution of crime, should decide about the prosecution. There are two ways regarding prosecution; principle opportunity, legal prosecution process. Each country recognizes one of this ways with respect to its penal policy, circumstances of crime and generally culture of society. Alternative of prosecution arising from principle opportunity which is aimed ascertaining victim’s rights and rehabilitation of offenders. Because of existing similarities between criminal procedure of Iran and France, evolution of alternative of prosecution will be discussed in this article.

The principle of the legality prosecution of all crimes by the public prosecutor's office has been modified and supplemented with the principle of necessity of criminal prosecution, in such a way that today in the framework of the criminal procedure regulations of the legal system, the latter principle cannot be found.. Article 40 of the Criminal Procedure Law France stipulates that the prosecutor receives complaints and reports of crimes and evaluates their follow-up and prosecution, and immediately in the next regulations, alternatives to criminal prosecution and the rules governing them are discussed. The four alternatives to criminal prosecution ( simple case filing, plea bargaining, judicial agreement, and criminal compromise) in the French criminal procedure and the judicial procedure of this country have faced many ups and downs to the extent that the legislator in recent years tends to eliminate some of them and strengthening and making some others more efficient.1. Introduction On the one hand, criminal prosecution is related to the rights and freedoms of individuals, and on the other hand, to public order and security. Prosecution endangers the rights and freedoms of citizens, and leaving it disturbs public order and security. It is the conflict between two social values ​​in the manifestation and emergence of criminal prosecution that can challenge it; Today, in many legal systems, including France, the principle of the legality prosecution of all crimes is followed; But paying attention to considerations such as avoiding mere security in the process of criminal proceedings has made policymakers in the field of legislation and justice to identify and apply alternatives to criminal prosecution. MethodologyThis research has been done by the descriptive-analytical method and studying the laws and regulations of the French legal system. Results and DiscussionIn the French criminal proceedings, the traditional dual conflict between prosecuting and not prosecuting and case filing without the least criminal action has faded with the emergence of a third way that allows criminal response without prosecution; Because in case of decision not to prosecute, in the criminal procedure of this country, there will be other options such as simple case filing or alternatives to prosecution. Filing the case means that the prosecutor, after making a decision not to pursue a criminal case, issues an order to record the case in the courthouse; This method is used for minor crimes and basically for criminals without a criminal record. Perhaps the reflection of this approach in criminal law, that criminal measures should be used as a last resort in the face of crime, has strengthened the tendency to find and implement alternative measures to prosecution in legal systems. The four alternatives of prosecuting a public lawsuit, simple case filing, plea bargaining, judicial agreement, and criminal compromise, have been accepted in the French criminal proceedings process and the judicial practice of this country with many ups and downs.  ConclusionsWith the beginning of the era of public justice and the provision of prosecution and prosecutor's office in the criminal laws of countries, the principle of the legality prosecution of all crimes was accepted from the beginning. In the practical experience of implementing this principle, judicial practice followed the trend of not prosecuting petty crimes. Therefore, the principle of the necessity of criminal prosecution was predicted as a complementary rule to this principle in the framework of procedural laws.  dealt with it in a way that has less harmful effects and accelerates the possibility of resocializing the criminal and restoring the broken order. The doctrine and judicial procedure in France has not ignored this important issue and nowadays the principle of proportionality of prosecution and its requirements has been explicitly recognized in the criminal procedure law. The judiciary of this country has faced many ups and downs and in recent years the legislator has found a tendency to remove some of them and strengthen and make others more efficient, but these efficient and effective institutions have never been left aside and in Actions have not been unkind.  Selection of ReferencesBerger,V.,(2019), La jurisprudence de la cour européenne des droits de l'Homme , 12ème  édition, paris , sirey.Beziz-Ayache, Annie, (2020), Dictionnaire de droit pénal général et procédure pénale, 10ème  édition, paris, Ellipses .Borricand, Jacques, Anne-Marie Simon, (2019), Droit pénal et procédure pénale, 14ème  édition, paris, Dalloz.Bernard Bouloc (2019),procédure pénale, 16 ème  édition, paris, DallozBouloc,Bernard, Haritini Matsopoulou, (2016), Droit pénal et procédure pénale , 16ème  édition ,paris , Dalloz.Bouloc,Bernard,(2019), procédure pénale, 20ème  édition,  paris , Dalloz.Fourment,FranÇois,(2017), procédure pénale ,7ème  édition ,Editions paradigme.Guinchard, Serge et Jacques Buisson,(2020), procédure pénale, 15ème  édition paris, Lexis Nexis Litec.Mathias, Eric,(2016), procédure pénale, 5ème  édition, paris, Lexifac.Pradel, Jean,(2021), Manuel de procédure pénale,19 ème  édition,paris, cujas.Rassat,Michèle-Laure, (2017),procédure pénale, 15 ème  édition ,paris, Puf.

Alternatives to prosecution are the third way and middle method between the prosecution and unconditional archiving the case. Objects of punishment, in this method, Will be achieved without prosecution and punishment. Alternatives to prosecution are based on the cognitive school, criminology and practical considerations and In Islamic teachings, there are many cases applying this method in the process of prosecution and punishment of offenders. In English law, Alternatives to prosecution have more appearance, because the prosecution is based on public interest. Because of studies, in the adoption of the Penal Code of 1392, the Iranian legislator considered the effects of these alternatives. However, these alternatives, as they should, have not been developed. Lack of development in these alternatives is the result of numerous obstacles. Reviewing the U. K. law, understanding these obstacles and providing necessary solutions for them, justifies the necessity and purpose of the present research and could create a promotion in the criminal prosecution system using these alternatives. These obstacles can be expressed in the theoretical challenges (lack of ideas and replacing alternatives) and practical challenges (lack of practical mechanisms for the implementation of alternatives). Examples of such challenges include: not paying attention to the objects of punishment, Tendency to punishment, Police Restriction, lack of attention to the personality of individuals at the beginning of the prosecution of crimes and. . .

The abolish themselves are skeptical about the capacity of criminal justice for crime control and believe that as long as there are easier and more human ways to control crime, punishment should not be used as a weapon in the first place. Abolitionism doctrine maintains that the formal system of criminal justice, not is less effective in the prevention of recidivism, but also criminogenic and label of crime causing him to commit crime again. Therefore, they advocates the non-interference of criminal law or, if it is investable, a minimal involvement in the process of trial. The findings of abolitionism in the criminal policy of different countries gave rise to decriminalize, depenalization and diversion. Deferred prosecution or non- prosecution is also a new concept in criminal procedure that is consistent with non-intervention criminal policy. This policy was proposed because of the failure of the traditional repressive approach of prosecution. Adversarial prosecution, judicialization and acceleration of prosecution, reduction in criminal population and regarding human dignity, selective prosecution of accuses are among the important consequences of the deferred prosecution. This article attempts to express concept and foundations of the deferred prosecution and investigates its manifestations in the Iranian criminal policy.

The high number of criminal dossier due to the limitations of the judiciary, both in terms of manpower and credit, and in terms of time, leads to inflation of the dossier and double pressure on judicial authorities and issuing wrong decisions, which prolongs the investigation process. Thus, in the legal systems of different countries, alternatives to criminal process have emerged over the last three decades to control the overcrowding and speed up the criminal response to petty crimes. In these alternative processes, the prosecutor enters into negotiations directly with the perpetrator, and after admitting their guilt and taking certain actions specified by the prosecutor, leads to the cessation of the public prosecution and the resolution of the case at the stage of the prosecution. In this regard, the leading research with a descriptive-analytical (critical) approach has examined the position of alternatives to public prosecution in the two legal systems of Iran and France. In the end, it was conclude that the Iranian legislature does not have a systematic and clear position on alternatives to public prosecution of natural and legal persons. According to the comparative study, it has been suggested that, considering the principle of the necessity of prosecution, more trust be placed in the prosecutors and that the mentioned alternatives be enacted in a separate chapter with the goals predetermined in the criminal code.

Nowadays, in order to increase the speed of prosecution of crimes, the legislatures have tried to place a foothold in the community, NGOs, government agencies and their employees in order to cope with the delinquency of the perpetrators and increase the protection of some victims. To this end, the acceptance of a position for the activities of the NGO's was in Article 66 of the 1392 (Rev. 1394), with the complete annulment of the indictment in criminal proceedings and the necessity of its legal analysis. On the one hand, the offense is compared with concepts such as complaints of crime and mass media reports that do not adequately address the issue of the separation of legislatures; on the other hand, the legislative prediction of a crime is based on examples such as the person who declares the crime, the crime of the proclamation And which competent authority receives the final recognition of a crime requires comprehensive recognition. Finally, the conditions that should be envisaged in the laws to increase the effectiveness of the declaration of crime are from the method of announcing a crime to guaranteeing non-proclaimed performances, declaring a crime with maladministration, as well as declaring a non-principled crime as important issues as the lack of The analyzes are perfect in them. In the same vein, it seems that the need for a precise and accurate prediction of a crime to be distinguished from a crime report, as well as a reference to the guarantee of non-prosecution actions for public statements, can provide effective judicial procedures.

Considering the benefits of alternative entities for the prosecution of infractions, the legislator has accepted their use in four mechanisms. However, since most of the accused are legal persons and the criminal responsibility acceptance for the legal entities is a subject of recent attention of the Iranian legislator, the law is silent about utilizing possible alternative entities for prosecution in the case of juridical persons. Therefore, the present descriptive-analytical research, evaluating the bases of prosecution alternatives and the legal conditions for their application, concludes that from the philosophical, criminological, and practical perspectives, according respectively to utilitarianism, labeling, and reducing the use of bail for legal sanctions theories, the possibility of applying prosecution alternatives to legal entities can be justified, from a legal point of view, some of the conditions foreseen in the alternative entities of prosecution, such as the suspension of penalty, and plaintiff pardon in pardonable crimes, can be applied to legal entities. However, applying other conditions such as crime-grading in cases where the punishment has not been sentenced for the legal entity, the record of an effective criminal conviction, the appointment of a competent person to declare consent, or the application of alternative entities on behalf of the legal entity in the cases stipulated in the law and applicable orders in the suspension of prosecution according to the nature of the legal entity is associated with challenges and uncertainties which by providing solutions suggests the urgency of differentiating alternative prosecution entities relative to legal entities.