The purpose of author in this article was to know how COOPERATION in CRIMINAL organization is, how they identify their members, what rules they have got, what factors cause CRIMINAL to do these crimes, why police are unsuccessful to deal with CRIMINAL organization, and what is the reason that CRIMINAL organizations are powerful. To answer these questions, we should know about CRIMINAL organization, because CRIMINAL organization follow crime as a way of living and sometimes they assume that they are apart from society and behave with each other and with group member friendly. They do most of their CRIMINAL activities in relate to other countries and without COOPERATION of other countries battle against CRIMINAL organization is impossible. But, unfortunately different countries have got different legislation system against CRIMINAL organization.So, CRIMINAL organization can use these gallops to escape from investigations and law in the case of commitment to crime.

In our time, the nation of going unpunished particularly amongst those offenders who are suspected of international crimes has caused major difficulty in the relations between the nations. Historically, those suspects of international crimes who were in possessions of enough power and immunity have never had to surrender to justice. In the latter part of the twentieth century therefore, the consensus of the nations was to enact laws and procedures such as making international crimes resistant against limitation of action provisions, obligation the nations to extradition, legal aid and assistant and establishment of International CRIMINAL Courts in order to prevent the international CRIMINALs to escape punishment. The Statute of International CRIMINAL Courts is an instrument, in the Part 9 of which entitled "international COOPERATION and judicial assistance" contains the requirement of carrying out the commitments by the nations in various forms. According to this Statute in order to cooperate with the Court all the member states are obliged to A Revue de Recherch Juridique, No. 45, 2007 enact laws in their domestic legal systems. The Part 9 also contains provisions in respect of requests for the arrest and handing over of the offenders, other forms of COOPERATION and the manner of interaction between the states and the Court. Nonetheless, the member states may in following the provisions of the Statute encounter certain constraints resulting from their previous commitments to other nations prior to their joining the Statute.

In international CRIMINAL law for the reason of legal and political obstacles against competence of international CRIMINAL courts, State’s Obligation to COOPERATION has been under consideration of lawyers and is a requirement of fulfillment of justice. Chapter 9th of statute of international CRIMINAL court relate to the regulation of State's Obligation to COOPERATION. The 9th chapter is related to State' s Obligation to COOPERATION, and we study common regulations of COOPERATION, legal dimensions of the common regulation and the relation between the articles of this chapter.As the general assembly of membered states consider suggestions and issue some declarations as the declaration of COOPERATION in the 1st statute reviewing conference, we consider this declaration and court' s report to assembly to know with COOPERATION of states and international organization to the court.

Establishment of International CRIMINAL Court (ICC) can undoubtedly be considered as the most significant achievement of the international community in its movement toward CRIMINAL justice. Such a mandate, however, cannot be achieved without support and COOPERATION with other international players. The present study will review the COOPERATION and support the ICC can receive from a regional arrangement such as the European Union. For this purpose, we will review issues such as the basis of obligations of the EU to support ICC, the major policies and the concrete actions adopted by the EU. The European Union as one important regional arrangement has defined its macro-policy toward ICC with a view to achieve two main goals, namely universality of the Rome Statute and effective functioning of the ICC. To realize those goals, EU has adopted certain measures including adoption of a common policy as basis of EU-ICC support; conclusion of a COOPERATION agreement as the basis for EU-ICC COOPERATION and several action plans to implement such documents. After a decade of support and COOPERATION, the EU policies and measures have provided a proper framework for such COOPERATION and support.

The legislator does not have the same ruling regarding the additional jurisdiction of specialized CRIMINAL courts in the face of CRIMINAL COOPERATION, and in cases where the persons involved in committing a crime are persons whose charges are dealt with based on personal jurisdiction in the jurisdiction of another specialized court, from the general rule of single trial contained in the article 311 CRIMINAL Procedure Law Deviation, which leads to multiple hearings by multiple specialized courts, which conflicts with the philosophy of a single trial in additional jurisdiction and will lead to the issuance of different opinions in a single crime. This research aims to prove that even though some of these special courts such as the special clergy court and the children's court or the revolutionary court with the children's or special clergy courts according to articles 31 and 13 of the charter of the special clergy court and Articles 303 and 314 of the CRIMINAL Procedure Law have a positive conflict turns out that the preference of each of them is the absolute preference, therefore, considering the importance of dealing with some crimes, such as crimes under the jurisdiction of the Revolutionary Court and the specialization of the proceedings, or in cases where the charges of each of the defendants are under the jurisdiction of a different special court, they can be dealt with together. Respecting the dignity and personality of the accused Also, in order to prevent the influence of political and influential people in the jurisdiction of the contract court, which can deal with the matter independently and expertly, taking into account all these cases

Microsoft Corporation has access to the emails of its users and their contents from the United States territory. However, this information is stored and held in a crossborder data center that is considered to be alien to the Microsoft Corporation and the territory where the center of its activity is located. Access of the United States is interference in internal affairs of the Irish government, which is location of the Microsoft data center. But location of the Microsoft and its ability to access it from the territory of the United States to the information stored by its users, even in crossborder is important and obtaining CRIMINAL jurisdiction for United States Courts. Whereas United States CRIMINAL law is effective and enforceable on the territory. Accordingly, the approach of the United States courts is not justifiable on the basis of territorial rules for access to cross-border stored data. The research question is, what is the mechanism of cyberCRIMINAL investigation in the cross-border data center and its challenges? Findings of the research show that approve of a treaty about legal COOPERATION in CRIMINAL investigations and adherence to its provisions are the only mechanism for access to the cross-border data center, whose implementation is facing serious challenges.

Following the failure of the African Union Peace and Security Council to suspend Bashir's case by the Security Council, the International CRIMINAL Court issued a second arrest warrant for Bashir. International CRIMINAL Court pursuant to the decree of States Parties of the Rome Statute to arrest and hand over Bashir's request that cooperate with the International CRIMINAL Court. African Union on the situation in retaliation for the failure to stop the arrest warrant for Bashir decides At least ask member states to arrest and hand over Bashir not cooperate with the International CRIMINAL Court. This situation makes that Bashir without fear of arrest, the States Parties to the Statute including Chad, Kenya and travel. Position on the priorities of host governments to maintain peace and stability in Sudan and the obligation to comply with the orders of the African Union in terms of membership in the Union, makes the Statute of the International CRIMINAL Court in the capacity to deal with the situation and exercise its jurisdiction to arrest Bashir use And subject to the Assembly of States Parties to the ICC and the UN Security Council report.

The COOPERATION of Parties and non-parties with the International CRIMINAL Court is one of the most important factors for the realization of justice by this institution. The commitment of states in this area is based, as the case may be, on the Statute of this institution or on the Security Council resolution, or both. When referring the situation by the Security Council, the basis for COOPERATION for non-member States, is the resolution of this council, and for States Parties, is the statute. If the resolution of the Council entails the commitment of the members to cooperate, then both the statute and the resolution shall be considered as binding sources. This article, while investigating the legal foundations of a commitment to COOPERATION of non-member states with the Court, concludes that although the Security Council is able to impose obligations beyond the statute to non-member states, it has not yet exercised its discretion with regard to the cases of Sudan and Libya. Therefore, the commitment of such states to "full COOPERATION" with the Court should be regarded as a commitment based on the Statute.

Judicial CRIMINAL policy is one of the most important components of CRIMINAL policy aimed at protecting victims and those at risk, particularly vulnerable individuals such as children. However, the judiciary, which implements judicial CRIMINAL policy, cannot fulfill this critical duty alone and requires COOPERATION from other institutions outside the judiciary that have relevant responsibilities aligned with their capabilities. Although judicial CRIMINAL policy is based on a broader strategy to combat irregularities, it mainly manifests through judicial orders and decisions. The implementation of all judicial orders and rulings sometimes exceeds the judiciary's capacity, with only non-judicial institutions possessing the necessary resources and abilities for enforcement. Adopting protective measures for specific offenders, especially children and adolescents who are more vulnerable due to their social and psychological characteristics, is of great importance. This legal support has been emphasized since decades ago, formally reinforced in 2002 with the enactment of the Child and Adolescent Protection Law. Nevertheless, this law had serious deficiencies. In 2020, the Guardian Council approved a new Child and Adolescent Protection Bill, consisting of 51 articles and 15 notes, which introduces fundamental changes compared to the previous law. This legislation, by establishing institutions such as specialized courts and police for children and adolescents, brings about a significant transformation, particularly within the Iranian legal system. These laws serve as a new framework for addressing juvenile offenses, aligning national laws with the provisions of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child and other UN documents. The judiciary's responsibilities in this regard, particularly in CRIMINAL support and crime prevention, are in line with constitutional principles. Effectively executing these duties can contribute to achieving social justice for children and adolescents and improving judicial processes in this area. The division of responsibilities among various judicial institutions will also lead to increased specialization and enhanced performance in the realm of CRIMINAL policy

In accordance with the Article 77 of the Constitution, the treaties and international agreements of the Islamic Republic of Iran must be approved by the Islamic Consultative Assembly and based on the implications of the other articles of the Constitution including Article 91, these treaties will be considered by the Guardian Council so as not to contradict with Sharia and Constitution. The Guardian Council usually declares the substantive treaties including those on COOPERATION in CRIMINAL matters (extradition, transfer of convicts and CRIMINAL assistance) inconsistent with Sharia, because their acceptance requires approval or enforcement of non-Islamic laws and regulations, or sentences issued by the non-Islamic courts of the mutual government. These treaties become law with the insistence of the Assembly according to Article 11 of the Constitution by the Expediency Council. Final decision of the Guardian Council’ s members is based on the majority of their votes and the views of minority jurist members regarding the non-contradiction of these treaties with Sharia do not reflect in their final decision, which the author attempts to clarify in this paper. It seems dynamics of Shia jurisprudence, grading of government interests and the authorities of Vali-e-Faqih require the treaties not to be in inconsistent with the Sharia norms and hence, their approval in the expediency Council has no legal justification.