Article 310 of the Iranian civil procedure code explicitly refers to the “ interim order” and provides “ in cases which need urgent decision making, the court can issue an interim order on the request of the beneficiary person. ” So, it seems that the article prescribes interim order in urgent cases in addition to the urgency, which the court realize it, essentially the beneficiary person should deposit some money as likely damages. In CRIMINAL procedure code, the legislator does not explicitly refer to interim order. But, in some other laws including in note 1 of article 690 Islamic Penal Code 1996 somehow refers to the urgency and provides that “ the judicial authority, by writing a minute will issue an order of stopping the operations of the trespasser till the issue of a final judgment. ” The question is that whether in CRIMINAL MATTERS, concerning the crime as public claim, the judge can issue an interim order? Whether the subject of the note can be considered as an example of interim order? Whether the legislator has basically considered interim order in CRIMINAL MATTERS? If there is a possibility of issuing the interim order then what are the conditions for issuing it? What are the competent authorities to issue such an order? What are the similarities and differences between the interim order in civil procedure and CRIMINAL procedure? This article considering the hypothesis that in CRIMINAL cases the legislator has paid attention to urgent cases and there are differences and also similarities between interim orders in CRIMINAL and civil cases, explains the various aspects of the interim order in CRIMINAL MATTERS and responds to these questions.

The purpose of this article is to explain the basics of women's gender differences and legal approaches regarding considerations and gender differences in law. This research, with analytical-descriptive method, aims to investigate these differences and the reason for their creation. In addition, it is an attempt to measure the impact of gender justice as an independent factor on the peaceability of societies and development in international documents. Among the most important challenges of gender difference in crimes against physical integrity, lack of policy making based on gender justice, lack of agreement on the definition of gender justice, patriarchy in policy-making institutions, gap between research and policy-making institutions, etc. The results of the research showed that the basis of the gender difference in crimes against physical integrity is not the superiority of the male sex over the female or the discrimination between the two in terms of gender, but the basis of this difference is due to the difference in their creation, duties and roles, etc. The purpose of this article is to explain the basics of women's gender differences and legal approaches regarding considerations and gender differences in law. This research.The purpose of this article is to explain the basics of women's gender differences and legal approaches regarding considerations and gender differences in law. This research.The purpose of this article is to explain the basics of women's gender differences and legal approaches regarding considerations and gender differences in law. This research.The purpose of this article is to explain the basics of women's gender differences and legal approaches regarding considerations and gender differences in law. This research.

The purpose of this article is to give a comprehensive and clear presentation of the international human rights ftamework relevant to the right to a fair trial. This article also has focused on the right to a defence and the rights of the defence in international human rights law.The legal sources referred to in this article are the major international legal instruments dealing with the right to a fair trial. In order to find examples and more detailed explanations, it also refers to the case-law developed by some of the international bodies in charge of looking at complaints from individuals, i.e. mostly the United Nations' Human Rights Committee, in charge of applying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) from 1966 and the European Court of Human Rights, which is the most relevant international human rights mechanism for more than forty European countries.Some of the international standards that the article refers to are actually legally binding for the countries which are parties to them; that is the case of the ICCPR Others are belonging to the category of soft law, as for example the basic principles on the role of lawyers established by the United Nations, which are not as such legally binding, but participate in creating a larger legal ftamework.It is this fiamework which is presented in this article in order to understand the coherence of the safeguards that have been put in place concerning CRIMINAL proceedings. It is important to point out at the fact that the right to a fair trial has both overall implications and very concrete and detailed implications. As to the overall implications, the right to a fair trial hangs over all other human rights and it can be advocated that all human rights comprise procedural rights as an inherent part of their effective protection. The very concrete, detailed implications concern among others more technical arrangements of proceedings before domestic courts.The article begins with some short introductory remarks on the right to a fair trial (I), then it envisages the right to a defence (II) and the rights of the defence or defence rights (III). It shall be underlined that this article only deals with CRIMINAL proceedings. As a matter of fact the relevant provision of the ICCPR focuses on CRIMINAL charges and proceedings; in an European context, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) relates in the first place to proceedings concerning the determination of "civil rights and obligations". However, most of its provision concerns, as in Article 14 of the ICCPR, CRIMINAL charges.

The CRIMINAL MATTERS as decisive factor (which is determined the limitation of behaviors, principals and justice procedural rules in the CRIMINAL and nonCRIMINAL examinations) is an outcome of new human rights. Determining the concept and philosophy of the MATTERS and the criteria governing it and the necessity of accepting this concept in the legal system of Iran is one of the subjects that’s worth considering. The European Convention on Human Rights (E.C.H.R). In this legal establishment, all the violations which are the guarantee of the executions with the nature of the CRIMINAL enforcement, have the guarantee of the justice procedures. If the committed violation corresponds with the one of these criteria: the description of the violation in the CRIMINAL laws, the nature of the violation, the aim of the executive guarantee and the extent of the executive guarantee, the mentioned violation will be the CRIMINAL MATTERS. Iran as a member of the international society, which signed this International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 december1966, should consider the above guarantees.

Investigating CRIMINAL MATTERS ,which is an important result of new human rights and European court initiative of human rights is known as an important element of incompliance with the article;6 of  European convention of human rights. To recognize CRIMINAL MATTERS and it's criteria will have an important result which shows that disciplinary and  administrative offences are not only un penal and out of supporting article:6 of convention ,but also ,some of these sanctions ,since ,apparently have lack of CRIMINAL description but regarding court they satisfy penal.Realizing sanction nature of dismissal which is of this type of sanction also, study of concept and criteria of CRIMINAL MATTERS is the subject of this investigation.

One of the most important issues in CRIMINAL law is the subject of evidence. Because according to the principle of innocence, punishing individuals requires proving illegal behavior by presenting evidence. Among the arguments, confession has unique characteristics and indicators that play a decisive role in all legal systems in terms of probative power. The importance of the position of confession in the Iranian legislative system is such that it is mentioned with special interpretations such as the Queen of Reasons and Seyyed Al-Binat. For this reason, in addition to the importance of the need for in-depth study, it can be viewed from various scientific and methodological perspectives and evaluated from the perspective of thinkers and theorists. Max Weber's theory of rationality is one of the sociological theories that has been influential in the field of law and especially legislation. In the present article ، an attempt is made to evaluate confession from the perspective of Max Weber's theory of rationality using a descriptive-analytical method. The result of this article shows that although manifestations of rationality can be seen in important rules such as assessability and biodegradability of confession in the Iranian legislative system. But in contrast to the legislator's definition of confession, acceptance of recourse to confession, the need for confession before a judge and multiple confessions in some crimes, in addition to contradicting the two rules, with the indicators of Max Weber's theory of rationality such as evaluation, comprehensiveness, objectivity and tangibility Confession is not in line either.

One of the most important topics with a significant effect on the manifestation of legal justice is a matter regarding proving grounds, which the sentence legislator is required to explain with more clarity. The Islamic punishment law, approved in 1392 (2013) considers these grounds to be confession, witnessing, oath, vows, and judge’ s knowledge. As we know, among proving grounds, confessions have special standing to the extent that it is called the “ queen” of legal reasons, such that as soon as there is a confession, the judge is required to issue his verdict based on it. In the present article, considering the Islamic punishment law of 1392 (2013) we attempt to determine the position of the judge’ s knowledge in proving CRIMINAL MATTERS, and whether we can consider it the “ higher reason” or the “ queen” of reasons. Is there a reason that has a higher position among CRIMINAL proving grounds? The results of the analyses indicate that for the first time, in the Islamic punishment law of 1392 (2013), while keeping the proof value of the other grounds, the legislator has considered judge’ s knowledge in a higher position than the other CRIMINAL grounds including confession and witnessing.

The Principle 167 of the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran has obliged judges to deal with all cases in any circumstances on the basis of written laws and it has also allowed them to refer to sources of Sharia (religious rules) in the cases of shortcomings, ambiguities, inconsistencies, and Lack of relevant rules. Since sharia's sources lack the characteristics of written laws in the form. of procedural nature, it seems that the Principle 167, considering other Principles of the constitution and also Principles of Legality of crime and Its punishment and non-punishment of crimes defined under new laws, should be limited to legal MATTERS. Some also hold that the Principle 167 extends to CRIMINAL MATTERS but only as far as the punishment of crime is concerned and not in relation to the determination of crime. In this paper, first the intention of the legislator for codification of the principle 167 is analyzed and then practical problems associated with this Principle is discussed.

All legal disputes must eventually reach a conclusion, and the principle of res judicata serves as an effective guarantee to achieve this purpose. The foundation of the res judicata doctrine lies in preventing the re-litigation of claims and avoiding conflicting judgments. In CRIMINAL MATTERS, this principle is further complemented by the principle of ne bis in idem, a fundamental human right and an aspect of the right to a fair trial. Res judicata is a mandatory legal doctrine closely tied to public order. Thus, not only are the parties entitled to object to the reopening of a settled matter, but judges are also obligated to uphold the principle. However, for various reasons—such as the unwillingness or ignorance of the parties, or judicial negligence—multiple proceedings on the same subject may occur, resulting in inconsistent judgments. Mechanisms like cassation and retrial are provided by civil procedure codes to resolve judicial contradictions. In CRIMINAL proceedings, beyond the necessity of overturning judgments during appeal or cassation, Article 474(4) of the CRIMINAL Procedure Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran (2014) has recognized conflicting judgments as a new ground for revision. This provision acts as a legal mechanism to address violations of res judicata. Therefore, the term "same charge" is interpreted as referring to the "same conduct." Due to the severe nature of CRIMINAL punishments, CRIMINAL revision is restricted to convictions. This limitation has created significant challenges in addressing certain instances of conflicting judgments.

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.