In some cases, to discover the facts, FOREIGN arbitral tribunals need to obtain evidence from third parties located outside the arbitral tribunal's seat and in another country's territory. Sometimes due to the lack of general jurisdiction and authority, they have to use the judicial assistance of the national COURTS of FOREIGN countries. In many advanced legal systems, including the American legal system, this authority is provided for the COURTS to assist the international arbitral tribunals in providing evidence to FOREIGN arbitral tribunals to obtain evidence, including testimony and submission of documents, judicial assistance and acceptance of representation. The present study aims to answer these questions with a descriptive-analytical method, judicial assistance of national COURTS in acquiring evidence for FOREIGN arbitration COURTS and accepting judicial representation based on which legal rules are possible. Moreover, based on international commercial arbitration law, do the national COURTS of Iran have the possibility of providing judicial assistance and accepting judicial representation in acquiring evidence from arbitration COURTS whose headquarters are outside the country's territorial territory? Since in most countries, the discourse of arbitration involves two distinct systems consisting of domestic and international arbitration, in this study, only the International Commercial Arbitration Law was approved in 1376, and the international arbitration rules of some countries have been discussed. The provisions of domestic arbitration, except for a cursory glance, are ignored in the second part so that the field of research stays in the international arbitration system.

The increase in sanctions during the last two decades has created numerous legal issues in contractual disputes, especially in national COURTS. It is clear that national COURTS of the sanctioning country, take into account the sanctions enacted by the FOREIGN government, and in case the sanctions conflict with the rights and obligations of dispute parties, they adjust the final verdict in compliance with their internal sanctions laws. Nevertheless, the question is whether a court can, in the process of describing, interpreting, and applying the legal and contractual obligations of the litigants, consider, sanctions imposed by FOREIGN countries or entities in its decision-making process to issue a judgment in the case. In this article, an attempt has been made to examine this legal question with a case study of the approach and procedure of German COURTS that have significant contractual relations with Iranian individuals. The findings show that the COURTS of this country, in contractual disputes in which there is an element of sanctions of FOREIGN origin, do not refer to private international law and the rules of conflict of laws, and directly use the capacity of the domestic substantive laws of Germany. Simultaneously, they pay attention to the considerations of German FOREIGN policy to issue the final verdict in such cases. German COURTS also pay attention to the goals and interests of the European Union's FOREIGN policy and European values in the decision-making process to give effect to sanctions of FOREIGN origin.

According to customary international law, FOREIGN states are immune to judicial prosecution in domestic COURTS of other countries. Such immunity was first exercised in the United States in Schooner Exchange vs. McFaddon case on the basis of courtesy, not as a fundamental right. Since that time, decisions made by the US COURTS with regard to immunity of FOREIGN states have been influenced by decisions of the Department of State. Since early 20th century and after the beginning of extensive intervention by the state in market economy, despite Washington acceded to the limited immunity of FOREIGN states, that immunity was still influenced by decisions of the Department of State. The Congress passed a law in 1976 on the immunity of FOREIGN states in order to increase latitude of the judicial authorities in investigating cases which came under the immunity of FOREIGN states independent to the Executive. Based on that law, FOREIGN states were granted absolute immunity to judicial competence of the US federal and state COURTS unless a case was considered one of the exceptions which were mentioned by the law of immunity. However, the US COURTS continued to take orders from the Department of State. This paper uses content analysis method to discuss compliance of judicial and legislative authorities of the United States with the executive power: a system which is more influenced by political pressures than the rule of law.

In the Code of Criminal Procedure adopted in 1392 in the field of execution of sentences and in the discussion of respect for the rights of convicts and convicts and supervision of prisoners, useful measures have been taken. The purpose of criminal proceedings is to achieve the realization of the crime and its attribution and the realization of the criminal responsibility of the accused and the punishment or security and educational measures for the convict to be implemented in a timely manner so that no criminal remains unpunished and unreformed in society. Execution of the sentence, lack of access to the residence and residence of the convicted person, failure to introduce the convicted person to execute the sentence by the guarantor or guarantor, imprisonment of the convicted person, or obstacles of judicial origin can be mentioned as lack of supervision over the lawsuit and notice The judge also sentenced corporal punishment, including life imprisonment and corporal punishment for amputation and flogging, or negative punishment and restriction of liberty, rights and dignity, including imprisonment, deportation and deprivation of residence in the border strip and expulsion or expulsion from the country. Compulsory residence in a certain place or financial punishment, including blood money, fines, confiscation, confiscation and destruction of property, is supervised, and the case will not be closed until the sentence is carried out.

one of the most important issues surrounding COURTS, which are established as a result of the international community's participation with the legal and judicial system of country where the international crimes are committed and in order to be more effective against impunity of international offenders, is their relationship and co-existence with the International Criminal Court, on the one hand, and the national COURTS of the countries where crimes are committed. Undoubtedly, the systematic co-existence of these institutions and O Abstracts 263 their mutual influence on each other leads to the development of the local and international judicial system. In this co-existence, the hybrid mechanism of criminal procedure can be achieved by removing the gaps in international and domestic criminal justice, not as an alternative, but as an appropriate complement to the International Criminal Court and national COURTS to countering impunity for international crimes and serious human rights violations. uch a mechanism moves towards balancing the two fundamental principles of international law: the international commitment to ending the impunity of international crime and the need to respect the sovereignty of states.

2With the development of new technologies, smart contracts have become popular among people as a new type of legal contracts, and their use may cause disputes between the parties. the smart contract is the source of disputes between the parties once disputes arise from smart contracts between parties and they refer to the law court to resolve them accordingly. Additionally, it is considered one of the most important proofs of claim. Therefore, to accredit these contracts, the parties must be aware of their nature as a rationale. However, library studies, analyzing Iran's laws and regulations, and features and mechanisms of smart contracts indicate that the contracts, as electronic evidence, are essentially electronic documents with attributes such as being inscribed, invocable, and retaining a signature; it is, therefore, conceivable to refer/submit such instruments in law court given the requirements for invocable electronic evidence, such as authenticity, accessibility, and assignability, are implicated in the contracts. Consistent with the probative value,  although they are potentially closer to the concept of secure electrical reason, but such contracts are likely to be considered standard electronic evidence, deniable and dubitable, or maybe secure electronic evidence, which is likely only to be claimed for falsification.

The necessity of Judicial security or Justice is that no one be prose cuted, tried, or punished for the same crime or conduct more than one time. Ne bis in idem is one of the important principles of criminal proceeding in internal systems that has entered into the international law field and has a special position. This principle has also been specified in statutes of the international criminal COURTS both ad-hoc and permanent. According to being better of international proceedings than internal proceedings and presumption or possibility of fair trial and without exercising influence, the international criminal COURTS decisions are absolutely possessing Res Judicate but the reverse is not so, and if a country proceeds against one of the international crimes in the internal COURTS, the International criminal COURTS can try such a person again, and its only reason is observing some of the most important fair trial indicators and preventing not being punished of perpetrators of the international serious crimes.

Credit of FOREIGN court sentences means a sentence issued by FOREIGN COURTS including (international and domestic COURTS of countries) against public crimes with the credit of universal jurisdiction based on the positive conflict of jurisdiction whether according to conviction or acquittal. If universal jurisdiction is concerned about a crime, even though that crime have a punishment (Moharebeh or corruption on earth), our country`s COURTS do not have the right to address the issue again. However, when an Iranian who has committed a universal crime while was investigated and punished by a FOREIGN court, if this person is found in Iran, with respect to personal jurisdiction, Iranian COURTS can investigate him. Also, a person with a universal crime can escape punishment by relying on his ignorance of some crimes or his ignorance of the subject. It seems that, in the case of acceptance of non-validity of Iranian's COURTS about universal jurisdiction if the committed crime has been subject to punishment and the person has withstood the sentence outside Iran, and that sentence is not compatible with Shriah concepts such as lack of forgetting punishments, but with respect to international interest, this problem can be solved by depending on alternative sentences.

In the absence of an international court with jurisdiction over the perpetrators of piracy, these are the domestic COURTS that establish their jurisdiction over it. In recent years, many countries have enacted laws or revised their laws for the trial of pirates. Concerning Iran, the criminal COURTS are competent to try these offenders on the basis of territorial, universal and personal (active or passive) principles in certain cases. But, in other cases, this jurisdiction is not applicable to piracy. This paper shows that, like some other legislation, the Iranian laws must be revised in order to be applicable to all kind of pirecies perpetrated in our era.