On September 22, 1980, Iraq launched an invasion against Iran. The Iraqi army, trained and influenced by Soviet advisors, had organic chemical warfare units and a wide variety of chemical materials and delivery systems. The continuous use of chemical weapons by Iraq against Iran during the war was indeed in violation of Iraq's obligations under 1952 Geneva Convention Protocol and also the principals of international humanitarian law. However taking a look at Iran-Iraq war demonstrates that two aspects of Responsibility in this case could be distinguished. While the perpetrators of war crimes are responsible for the acts in their Individual capacity, the State is also responsible for its international wrongful acts. In this article the different aspects of the case will be examined in theory and practice.

Background and Aim: Since the beginning of the Iranian contemporary legislative period, there is no specific law on sports activities and therefore lawyers have resorted to legal foundations and principles in order to justify the events resulting from sport operations. Materials and Methods: The descriptive-analytical approach has been chosen as the method of the present study. Ethical Considerations: In order to organize this research, honesty and confidentiality have been observed. Findings: . In 1973, for the first time it was established that events resulting from sport operations are not a crime provided that it is not a violation of the rules related to that exercise. This provision was repeated in the following rules with little modifications. The reason is the social expediency, the victim’ s satisfaction, custom and habit and attention to the important position of sport in excellence of ethics and the emphasis of the constitution. The perpetrator is an athlete and sports action means the group of actions taken within the framework of a sport. The main condition for justifying operations is compliance with the rules related to sport specially the regulations of sports faults. The athlete cannot also exploit the law’ s permission to harm others. The lack of athlete Responsibility is limited to the time of exercise and that the sport should not be contrary to Sharia norms. Conclusion: As a geberal rule, there is no Criminal Responsibility for athletic operations.

Criminal Responsibility age has always been a controversial issue in Criminal law. One of such controversies is graduality or suddenness of Criminal Responsibility. According to most Shiite jurisprudents, Criminal Responsibility age in Islamic penal law is based on religious maturity age, i.e. 9 for girls and 15 for boys. Now, a number of questions arise here: Is founding the basis of Criminal Responsibility age on religious maturity correct? Is the age of religious maturity a religious matter or a natural one? Is it gradual or does it happens suddenly? This paper studies the Criminal Responsibility age ofthe girls from different aspects, evaluates the existing related laws, suggests that this age is gradual and varies according to girls' rational growth.

Categories of sexual deviations, its origins and how to face the risk of the contemporary issues that are particularly of interest to many scholars, sociologists, psychologists and criminologists have been primarily in response to the question of What we basically want to know their place in a deviant sexual behavior among professionals is a great conflict. Of these issues, considering how unjust Criminal Responsibility for sexual crimes committed in order to satisfy their sexual goals are more important will be. Because new scientific achievements have proven that many sexual deviant behavior when Tom was not the will and determination of a relative. In fact, many of them influenced by internal and external factors are committing a Criminal deviant behavior and the issue of how to deal with this group of Criminal offenders would benefit from more sensitive. Will be undermined - as the underpinning of Criminal Responsibility- in sexual deviants encounter the need to distinguish the perpetrators of the total will thereby requiring the addition of corrective and therapeutic approaches to prevent repeat offenses, targeted and useful to deal with sexual deviants.

Joint Criminal enterprise is now one of the most important forms of Criminal Responsibility in international Criminal law. One of the most important reasons for this is the suitability of this form of Responsibility، with the method of committing international crimes. Because of the crimes with the presence of superiors (including political، military and administrative officials) as the leader and often committed، they should be grouped and based on a common plan and in a broad area. Considering the widespread use of this form of Criminal Responsibility by prosecuting authorities for accountability to defendants of group crimes and on the other hand، there are many challenges in the legal foundations of this form of Responsibility and its comprehensive interpretation by the prosecution authorities in the exclusive courts (Yugoslavia and Rwanda) and، consequently، the hybrid courts (the Special Court for Sierra Leone، the Extraordinary Chambers of Cambodia and the Courts of Cambodia). . . ) caused. In the wider context of this form of Responsibility، by scholars of law، lawyers and academia، scientific and judicial criticism. Much of the criticism about the fact that، When the Yugoslav court accepted this form of Responsibility for the case Tadic، at the time، this form of liability was not accepted in customary international law، and many critics do not regard this form of Responsibility as the result of customary international law، but also consider it a form of judicial innovation beyond the scope of the Statute of the court Yugoslavia and customary international law. Therefore، the cause of research in this field is the identification of challenges and legal and scientific ambiguities Which the International Criminal Tribunals are responsible for dealing with this way. The achievements of this study are mainly to identify the concept of Criminal Responsibility based on joint Criminal enterprise and determine the elements of this form of Responsibility in international Criminal law.

The transition from the gendarme to the welfare state and expanse of the powers and responsibilities of the government has provided a ground for the commission of crimes. As a result, the state`s Criminal Responsibility was born. In Iran the discrepancy ended with the recognition of the state`s Criminal Responsibility in 1395 and the stipulation in article 143 of the Islamic Penal Code. One of the concerns of this article is the Criminal Responsibility of government about the crime of Ecocide that causes destruction of plant and animal species. Consequently, by accepting the Strict Responsibility of governments in the international arena, it seeks to provide a suitable way to compensate for environment damages. One of the effective factors in this field is the production and usage of transgenic products, which the Biological [Safety] Act of the Islamic Republic of Iran has paid attention to and in the Note of Article 31 of the Sixth Development Plan Law has been emphasized on the government`s Responsibility about testing of transgenic products and informing the public.

Criminal Responsibility in the international arena has many forms. Individual Criminal Responsibility, Criminal Responsibility in the light of joint (collective) Criminal activity, and Responsibility of commanders and superiors are three common forms of Criminal Responsibility. In fact, in this field; the general principle of Individual Criminal Responsibility according to the nature of international crimes has been accompanied by exceptions that Criminal Responsibility resulting from joint Criminal activity and Criminal Responsibility of commanders and high-ranking officials are two examples that are imposed in international Criminal courts in order to impose Criminal Responsibility. They are cited as perpetrators of international crimes. The present study, which was written in a descriptive-analytical method with the aim of "examining the Criminal Responsibility of the perpetrators of the assassination of Sardar Soleimani based on the three forms of international Criminal Responsibility", comes to the conclusion that: the Criminal Responsibility of the perpetrators of a terrorist act leading to martyrdom General Soleimani and his companions, in the form of all three forms of Criminal Responsibility, i.e. 1- Individual Criminal Responsibility, 2- Criminal Responsibility in the light of joint (collective) Criminal activity, and 3- the Responsibility of commanders and superior officials, and depending on the way of participation and interference or The lack of involvement of the perpetrator in the material operations determines the form of Criminal Responsibility

All of the world's Criminal justice systems have recognized the content of the Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for the violation of the rules that accomplish with punishment. So, the Individual Criminal Responsibility, both in civil law and in international law, is one of the total principles of law. The present article seeks to answer this question with a descriptive-analytical method who is Individually responsible for the cyber aggression? Findings of research represent that a computer network attack (CNA) can hardly be considered as an aggression crime in the category of existing aggressions of Article 8bis ICC Statute. But it seems that it can be examined as an aggression crime and the evident violation of United Nation Charter in ICC due to its nature, intensity and the range. According to the leadership clause contained in Article 8 bis (1) Statute: "persons who located at different levels of the military hierarchy, effectively accomplish these attacks, are " cyber warriors" and they would not be Criminally responsible under Article 8bis but their superior is responsible if he has the requisite leadership clause. So, Individual Criminal Responsibility only arises with regard to "a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a state".

Growth of juvenile crimes is among the issues that attracted the attention of public opinion in recent years. Exploring the causes of juvenile delinquency can lead to combating delinquencies and crimes. Clarifying “Criminal Responsibility” is vital in determining the limits of juvenile Criminal Responsibility, appropriateness of Criminal and nonCriminal reactions, and legal decision making. The present paper tries to analyze the juvenile “Criminal capacity” and “Criminal Responsibility” according to international and internal laws. Causes of juvenile delinquency are also briefly explained.