The progressive and break structure nature of the change, which has led to the overcome of international human rights standards over domestic laws, has required governments to change approaches in the domestic legal order, in such a way that their national rules and procedures are compatible and coordinated with these superior rules. The Islamic Republic of Iran, as a member of the international community and committed to the provisions of some human rights documents, is also obliged to observe these standards. One of these human rights standards that has become a mandatory rule in the international community is the prohibition of degrading and humiliating punishments, including Flogging. In this study, the necessity of eliminating this punishment in penal crimes from domestic laws has been addressed using an analytical-descriptive method.

Through amending the Islamic Penal Code in 2013, article 234 of the Islamic Penal Code has been amended in relation to the punishment of the sodomy (which the Islamic Penal Code of 1370 punished his absolute death sentence). In the current law, the slaughter of the subject is conditional upon the condition of the guardian, the Onf or the non-applicable subject, and otherwise the penalty is considered to be one hundred whistleblowers. This great change in punishment has led us to look at the legal foundations of this article, in line with the provisions of the general rule of law, and the view that changing the punishment of this crime from severe to mild punishment would be a huge loss for society. Concerning the punishment of sodomy agents, we encounter two theories among the jurisprudents: the famous jurists believe that the punishment for sodomy in the case of anonymity and murder; in contrast to the unusual theory of jurisprudence that punish sodomy in the form of scapegoat, murder or furious, and if you do not know, he knows the creeps. In the article, which is based on the analytical method and using the library resources, criticizing the legislator regarding the disproportion between the sodomy punishment and the definition of sodomy, has examined the opinions expressed in jurisprudence and documented their validity. We believe that the punishment for murder for the subject is more consistent with the narrative and jurisprudential accuracy.

Illegitimate sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is one of the crimes punishable by ḥadd [fixed punishment] in the Islamic legal system, and the Qur'an has determined a certain number of lashes for the perpetrator. Jurisprudents, based on traditions and after that consensus, have described the types of adultery, the perpetrators of some of them, including adultery with incest, have been deemed deserving of death, and the same opinion has been reflected in the penal code. Jurisprudents sentenced the perpetrator of some types of adultery including incest by dividing some types for zināʾ (or zinā زِنی or زِنا, an Islamic legal term referring to unlawful sexual intercourse) to death (Arabic: قَتْل, qatl) based on aḥādīth (Arabic: أحادیث, singular: ḥadīth, narrations or traditions) and after that consensus, and the same verdict has been reflected in the penal code. Documentary and evidentiary problems of some traditions cited by jurisprudents put the authenticity of this fatwā (Arabic: فَتْوی, a legal ruling) in doubt. This article, with the aim of evaluating this fatwā in a descriptive-analytical way, has reread and analyzed the evidence referred by the murderers for this verdict, and as it is shown, the limited number of narrations in this regard, in addition to the evidence problems is in strong conflict with the narrations involving punishment(s) for this crime, and the narrations that involving qatl (death penalty), lacks acceptable preponderant point and thus, this fatwā is distorted. In contrast, the aḥādīth (Arabic: أحادیث, singular: ḥadīth, narrations or traditions) indicating the general punishment of adultery (Flogging) on an adulterer who committed adultery with maḥram (incest), in addition to the validity of the document, are in line with the Qur'an and therefore, they are qualified to be preferred in the position of conflict.

Legislative system in Islamic Penal Code (1392/2014) has mentioned an unfamiliar institution named "Designated Tazir" and made it difficult for lawyers and scholars to understand its notion and examples. The author believes that in law enacted in 2014 it has explicitly accepted the Principle of Legality in Tazirat penalties; therefore, to recognize specific instances of "Designated Tazir" only penal law must be referred to. This article aims to identify specific instances of designated Tazir punishments taking different views into account. Two criteria are highlighted: according to the first criterion, a designated Tazir must be explored in accordance with the principle of legality like other Tazir punishments. As for the second criterion, designated Tazir punishments are like Hudud, the specific instances of which must be identified in accordance with article 220 of the Islamic penal code. The author believes that neither of these two criteria is sufficient and suggestion such a mechanism is futile and baseless.

The accused persons in criminal cases sometimes Retract from their confessions, and therefore legal systems, depending on their origins, have taken different approaches to the validity of such confessions, depending on their principles. Jurisprudential schools do not have the same view on the impact of confession retreat, and this difference in approach has left its effects in the legal systems of countries affected by Islamic law. In the present article, with a descriptive analytical method, while analyzing the jurisprudential view on this issue and its reflection in the legal systems of Muslim countries, the approach of the Islamic Penal Code adopted in 2013 towards this issue based on the principles of Imami jurisprudence has been studied, and It is clear that, on the one hand, opposition to the effectiveness of retraction of confessionin in theft punishable by prescribed punishment, and on the other hand, Determining a specific Flogging and discretionary imprisonment for defendants who Retract their confessions in crimes punishable by Hodoud of stoning and Execution in Legislative criminal policy It is not justifiable.

According to the Islamic Penal Code, one of the judge's authorities—and in some cases, obligations—is to impose a lighter punishment (Akhaf). The application of the lighter punishment rule becomes controversial when the punishments are of different types, such as Flogging versus imprisonment or imprisonment versus fines. Legal doctrine offers two criteria—personal or typological—to resolve this issue. Given the importance of the matter, this study, using library-documentary data collection and a descriptive-analytical approach with content analysis, seeks to answer the question: What are the jurisprudential and legal grounds for employing the personal criterion in identifying the lighter punishment? The findings indicate that the personal criterion, in addition to being closer to criminal justice and not contradicting public order, especially in cases where the crime is proven by confession or admission, has substantial textual and jurisprudential support. Therefore, using the personal criterion to determine a lighter punishment is both permissible and legitimate, and in some instances, due to the necessity of precaution, protection of Muslim lives, the principle of leniency, and the principle of avoiding harm to believers, its observance may even be considered obligatory.

This paper focuses on a number of American stories which helped educate people and bring about legal or social change.There are many stories which caused major or minor legal and political change, particularly, in the United States. Some of them are written by Herman Melville, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Upton Sinclair and Sidney Kingsley. After the publication of White Jacketby Melville the novel was distributed to the U.S. Senate which consequently outlawed Flogging on naval vessels. Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin is another notable example of a literary text which triggered an enormous social change in America; in this case, the Civil War and the abolition of slavery. Sinclair’s The Jungle was influential in obtaining passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act. Kingsley’s play, Dead Endraised awareness about poverty and the inadequacy of housing in the slums of New York City and was responsible for the Wagner Housing Bill which was passed by the U.S. Congress to provide financial assistance to the States and political subdivisions for the elimination of unsafe and unsanitary housing conditions. There are many such stories which helped ameliorate American society and this paper will discuss these works and their social and political backgrounds.

Torture is among the most significant crimes against human rights. The basis for the illegitimacy of this act lies in the affront to human dignity. Both the Convention Against Torture and the regulations governing torture in Islamic and Iranian law regard torture as an inhumane act that is contrary to human dignity and honor, and they prohibit its commission. However, there are significant differences in both the definition and the manifestations of torture between Islamic law and international documents. Although the Iranian Constitution prohibits all forms of torture, whether physical or psychological, the Islamic Penal Code only prescribes punishment for physical torture. On the other hand, in Iranian law, certain corporal punishments such as stoning, amputation, and Flogging exist, which, according to the Committee Against Torture, are considered forms of torture. In general, any form of oppression, injustice, murder, aggression, violation, torment, harassment, insult, humiliation, degradation, or harm without cause to others or oneself that results in physical or psychological harm or distress is absolutely forbidden in Islam, and the perpetrator is deserving of punishment. Islamic sources such as the Quran, Sunnah, intellect, and consensus clearly indicate the prohibition of torment, torture, and the violation of human dignity.

The Safavid period (1501–1736 CE) represents one of the most significant epochs in Iranian history, during which the penal system and methods of punishment were systematically implemented to consolidate sovereign authority and maintain social control. In this era, punishments such as Flogging, branding, amputation, execution, and various forms of torture were employed not only as instruments of justice but also as tools for instilling fear and suppressing dissent. This study, relying on the accounts of European travelers such as the Shirley brothers, Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, Jean Chardin, Giovanni Francesco Gemelli Careri, Adam Olearius, and the Venetian ambassador, examines the implementation of punishments and penal mechanisms during the Safavid period. These sources, being closely acquainted with the Safavid court and its administrative apparatus, provide a vivid depiction of the severity and extent of punishments in this era. The findings of this research indicate that criminal violence in the Safavid period was utilized not merely for the enforcement of public order but also for strengthening the authoritarian foundations of governance. Through the analysis of historical data, this article reconstructs a portrait of the legal and penal realities of the era based on direct observations and precise descriptions recorded in European travelogues.

Introduction: Although war injuries have been reported to be a risk factor for viral hepatitis, few studies on the health status of former prisoners of war (POWs) from this perspective have been published. This study presents 5 former POWs with viral hepatitis.Methods: This study reports the demographic data and the records of physical examinations and laboratory findings of 5 Iranian POWs with viral hepatitis at Tehran Hepatitis Center in 2004. Also, previous relevant literature is reviewed and discussed. Results: Three patients were infected with hepatitis B virus (inactive carrier) and 2 with hepatitis C virus. All had been injected with non-disposable syringes and subjected to torture or Flogging, and some had undergone surgery during captivity all were asymptomatic and were diagnosed by screening.Discussion: This study cannot relate viral hepatitis in these 5 patients directly to their captivity; however, it suggests iatrogenic transmission of viral hepatitis in this population. Further studies are recommended with screening of viral hepatitis in POWs so the patients can be treated effectively, transmission rates can be reduced and certain cases of liver transplantation can be avoided. The confirmation of such a hypothesis could be useful, in addition, pave the way for future compensation claims for our former POWs and their families.