he present article seeks to answer the following questions: What is the status of the prosecutor in the criminal proceedings and what authority does the prosecutor deserve? Does the prosecutor's authority in Iran's criminal justice system suit his position? In this research, at first, the prosecutor's position and authority are explained in the desirable model of the criminal investigation process. In light of recognizing the desirable model, one can study the rules of Iranian criminal law. The findings of the research indicate that the prosecutor is a party to the lawsuit and that his powers should be limited to prosecution and bringing suit in the judicial authorities. In the ongoing criminal proceedings in Iran, a dual position has been guaranteed for prosecutors: a position of the public prosecutor and, on the other hand, the impartial position of the judiciary, the investigating judge or the supervisor of the preliminary investigations and the provider of the necessary training for the Interrogators. In the existing legal order, the judicial position is not compatible with the position of the public prosecutor, and it cannot be accepted that the public prosecutor, at the same time, conducts preliminary investigations or supervises the investigating authorities. The results of the research indicate that in order to guarantee the defendant's defense rights, guaranteeing the material and spiritual rights of the victim and guaranteeing the standard of the criminal investigation process, it is necessary to take away the authority to conduct criminal investigations excluding Article 302, as well as the authority related to the supervision of preliminary investigations or the provision of education. In this regard, the Interrogator is required to be excluded from the structure of the prosecutor's office and proceed with the consideration of the unconstrained structure of the jurisdiction.

Forensic Linguistics is an interdisciplinary field that began its work in the US and European courts in 1997. Since then, linguists have been able to expedite the processing of many cases by analyzing linguistic tools. Forensic Linguistics, which is one of the new trends in applied linguistics, aims to spread and achieve justice in the community, widely used in all areas of linguistics, such as Discourse Analysis, Syntax, Semantics, Phonology, Dialectics, Phonetics, and Stylistics. The approach taken by Fairclough (1989: 5) for language analysis is called Critical Language Study (henceforth CLS). This critical approach pursues the specific purpose of revealing the connection between language, power, and ideology that is hidden to the people. In his view (1995: 555), the purpose of critical discourse analysis (henceforth CDA) is to formulate the link between the features of texts and discursive interactions and the cultural-social characteristics of the contexts in which they are used. The importance of examining the defendants' discourse is such that the judge issues the final verdict based on the evidence in the case and the analysis of the truth of their defense. Language is a means of communication that humans owe their survival to. Moreover, the knowledge of linguistic tools helps to appreciate each other. Evidentiality is a linguistic tool to specify information source as well as speaker or writer performance in order to make clear their speech in a way that news validity has a greater impact on the audience. Studies show that different texts can be divided into separate categories. Forensic Linguistics as a new science which has started its work since 1997 in judicial courts of America and England can accelerate the process of handling judicial cases and help judge and Interrogator in judgment. The use and significance of evidential structures are determined when an accused person attempted to swear by any means, except for an accident, etc., from the charge of a crime, show the truth of his speech and convince the judge or Interrogator. So, the aim of the current research is to investigate the effect of the verbal application of evidentiality used in judge or Interrogator's persuasion. In this research, we analyzed the statements of two accused of murder (a man and a woman) in two criminal cases based on Forensic Linguistics and linguistic tools. The findings of this research showed that the accused individuals use evidentiality as a linguistic tool to persuade the Interrogator and then deny the accusation. Also, the results of the current research showed that the accused individuals use simple past tense, reported structures, evidential verbs like seeing, as a sensory verb, evidential words and swearing for a greater impact, increasing credibility of their speech and persuading the Interrogator. The authors of this study seek to answer the question of whether using evidential constructions as a linguistic tool can persuade a judge or Interrogator to do something or prevent him or her from doing something and how the accused individuals use these constructions as the discourse strategy in order to persuade the judge and the Interrogator to absolve themselves from the accusation of committing the crime. Evidentiality is a grammatical category whose primary meaning is the source of the news. This category covers the way information is acquired without being related to the degree of certainty of the speaker's statements and their correctness and incorrectness (Aikhenvald, 2004: 3). He also said that about one fourth of the world languages have evidentiality as grammatical categories whose role is to represent the source of information. For example, in a language, such as the Jarawara language (including the Amazonian languages in which evidentiality is observed readily, and is used as a grammatical category), in the south of the Amazon, it introduces what the speaker observes as the first-hand evidentiality. He uses a non-first-hand evidentiality of what he does not observe. The results showed that the accused individuals attempted to make use of evidential verbs, perceptual verbs, and evidential words such as general, numbers, demonstratives, spatial and temporal markers, and oaths to show the truth of their speech. Also, the findings showed that they attempted to deceive the Interrogator and absolve themselves of accusations by using these evidential constructions. The present study consists of four sections. In the first section, we introduce the field of Forensic Linguistics and the use of evidential constructions in the analysis of forensic discourse comprising speech or written. Then we will introduce a number of done researches in the field of Forensic Linguistics. Also, we will explain the nature of the methodology of this study, and provide a brief description of the trend of the two case studies which are analyzed during this study. In the next section, we will focus on the theoretical foundations used in data analysis. In the third section, we will analyze and examine the statements of the accused individuals by providing examples of two real cases based on the above mentioned theoretical grounds. And in the closing section, we will provide a brief description of the findings of the present study.

Although the Islamic Penal Code (enacted in 2013) has clearly recognized criminal liability for legal persons, only nine articles have been adopted in the Criminal Procedure Code (enacted in 2015) to investigate these crimes. Since, for many years, criminal responsibility for legal persons was not adopted in Iran’ s Law (except for some few cases), it was not a big challenge to deal with these crimes. After recognition of criminal liability for legal persons in the Islamic Penal Code, many challenges will arise from a formal perspective in conducting preliminary investigations into the allegations against them; given that legal persons are abstract in meaning and considering the fact that provisions adopted in the Criminal Procedure Code are essentially natural person-oriented. Presumably, these Challenges may include how to summon and prosecute a legal person, voluntary annulment of a legal person during preliminary investigations, issuance of judicial orders, and using certain favorable institutions such as filing a lawsuit or suspension of prosecution. The present study tries to analyze challenges through analytic-descriptive method and introduce recommendations to deal with them. These recommendations may include: Specifying suitable legal sanctions when legal person’ s representative ignores presence in court; making judicial orders compelling; and consideration of legal sanctions to prevent violation of these orders.

Despite the fact that the interrogation and initial questions and answers of the victim in the primary investigations process play a prominent role in the detection of crimes, but the physical and mental characteristics of the Interrogator and the manner of the interrogation process have been disregarded in Persian criminal law studies. This article aims to answer the question with a descriptive-analytical method, what requirements should be considered in the interrogation process in the primary research stage to detect the victimization of children? To achieve this, according to the available data, the article is divided into three topics.The first topic examines the selection of the Interrogator and his training. If the first step, which is to have an expert Interrogator with special physiological and mental characteristics, is not taken correctly, it will definitely not be time for the other steps.  In relation to the physical characteristics of the Interrogator, various studies indicate that people have a tendency to disclose crimes for women in sensitive matters such as sexual crimes, and this tendency is more prominent in the case of children due to their sensitive nature. Out of all the requirements regarding the interrogation of children, the Iranian legislator has explicitly and correctly set criteria for the gender of the Interrogator. Article 42 of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates: "If possible, the interrogation and investigation of women and minors should be carried out by trained female officers and in accordance with religious standards." In addition to physical characteristics, the main thing that plays an important role in doing an accurate and reliable question and answer is the mental characteristics and capabilities that he acquires. The increase in skill and expertise leads to the reduction of bias and incorrect mental backgrounds, and as a result, more correct and reliable information is obtained. In many countries, such as the United States, Canada, and England, training courses are held to improve the expertise and skills of Interrogators, and the interrogation process is subject to pre-determined and taught protocols. The most widely used and important of these protocols, which have many similarities with each other, are: 1 Step-Wise Interview Guidelines; 2. cognitive interview; 3. Ten-step Investigative Interview; 4. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development research interview protocol.The second topic deals with the issue that after the selection and training of the Interrogator, he should be able to get to know the child's condition and gain his trust in the beginning. The age of the victim, his physical, mental and spiritual abilities and problems, evolutionary or developmental considerations, ethnicity, language, culture, religion and the economic status of the family where he grows up and the places he went and comes are examples of information that should be obtained before the main question and answer session. This information can be obtained from the child's relatives, the school and kindergarten he goes to, and his doctors and teachers. After the initial acquaintance with the child, the Interrogator should gain his trust by using them and by applying communication methods. Verbal and non-verbal communication, respecting the child's personal space by maintaining a proper distance and asking if the child feels comfortable with the distance between the Interrogator and himself, calling him by name, Choosing words and arranging them next to each other in such a way that the child believes that the Interrogator understands his painful situation and sympathizes with him has a great effect on creating empathy and intimacy between the two parties.In the last topic and after communicating with the child, It is time for the Interrogator to give basic training to the child and ask the main questions and answers related to the crime. Explaining the child's role in the interrogation, teaching how to answer the questions, explaining the concepts of truth and lies to the child and gaining a detailed understanding of him in answering the questions are the effects of basic training. In the main questions and answers and according to the protocols, the beginning of the main question and answer process should be with "open questions". After the Interrogator has heard the child's free interpretation and everything that was in his mind since the day of the incident, he should add to its quantitative and qualitative richness through specialized questions. The questions should not be suggestive or in such a way that their answer is yes or no.These explanations and information in various sources about this subject show that the primary investigations process, especially the interrogation session, question and answer session, interview or any other title that is placed on it, is one of the most important parts of criminal justice system, which is ultimately a huge part of the justifications for sentencing, but so far no special law or regulation has been written for its technical part. In other words, issues such as the existence of an expert and trained Interrogator who has a special card should be included among the rights of the parties to a criminal case. It is clear that having legal information or work experience of the judge and officer who is responsible for the interrogation is not a guarantee for holding a useful and quality question and answer session.

After ordering the accused arrest on warrant, its implementation requires compliance with the conditions. In Iran, enforcement the arrest on warrant by the court officers takes place in the judicial area of the prosecution or Court of Justice, but, in England, the entire territory of the country is in place that may catch the accused by policeman. Iranian General Officers in justice alone often arrest the accused, citizens can also help the officers in arresting the accused, but England's citizens have the power to arrest separately. In England, after following the accused, if he enters into a private place, the police is allowed to enter that palce, but in Iranian law, it is required by law or judicial authorities order. In Iran, use of weapons by the judicial officers for arresting the accused is limited, but inEngland, the police could use the weapons freely.

After rehabilitation of prosecutor’s offices in the Iranian judicial system in 2002, the proceeding and sentence issuance stage was assigned to the criminal tribunals, and other criminal proceeding stages including crime detection, accused’ prosecution and investigation and in general the primary investigations and ultimately enforcing the criminal judge and punishment of offender was assigned to the prosecutor’s office. Contrary to the Interrogator that principally is independent from public prosecutor, the assistant prosecutor as one of judicial authorities of prosecutor’s office is not independent from public prosecutor and as the representative of the public prosecutor is authorized to apply the preliminary investigations in the criminal cases, moreover to fulfill other duties of public prosecutor. Although the assistant prosecutor is not independent from public prosecutor and is entitled to disagree with the opinion of public prosecutor but yet all decisions made by the assistant prosecutor is not subject to the agreement and comment of public prosecutor. The dependence of assistant prosecutor and necessity of his obedience from public prosecutor is not arising out of and limited to the type and nature of the duty assigned to the assistant prosecutor, and the assistant prosecutor regardless of duty assigned by the public prosecutor shall obey the public prosecutor. In this paper, in addition to identifying the position of assistant prosecutor in the prosecutor’s office, the scope of his independence from public prosecutor and its principles and the validity of decisions made by this judicial authority is considered.

Penal trial is a process which starts from crime detection and ends in a criminal conviction. In this regard, the stages of prosecution and investigation has special importance in criminal hearing. The close relationship and, in some cases, the conjunction of some detective and prosecuting procedures with each other and their belonging to a prior stage of trial would in effect made their absolute separation and thus their complete independence so severe. Meanwhile discovering of the accused’s real conduct is the cornerstone of justice in respect to the other stages of judicial proceeding and hence the independence of the Interrogator could be resulted in a fair trial. Comparatively studying of the independence of Interrogatory institution from that of Prosecution in both Iran and Lebanon, we may find that the principle of their independence has been recognized, though in Iran the Interrogatory authority which is placed amid the structure of Public prosecutor’s office and under the administration of the Attorney General has defected such independence that in several cases obliges the Interrogator to administratively serve under the attorney general’s authority. However, both-mentioned institutions are separated and independent in Lebanon and although the Interrogator has to acquire the Attorney General’s opinion in the process of investigation, but the ultimate decision would be independently issued by him and in case of conflict in their views the dispute would be referred to a distinct authority which may be called “Accusation Bureau” and as such the principle of independence is better guaranteed in Lebanese legal system.

1. Introduction The discourse in the interrogation process is one of the most interesting and valuable areas of language research. What creates the discourse of an interrogation is the sequence of questions and answers among the participants in an interrogation interaction. The Interrogator, including the police, the Interrogator, the judge, etc., uses the Q&A strategy to control the conversation and interact with respondents, including witnesses, defendants, informants, etc. This study sought to answer the following questions: 1. How many questions can be used in the interrogation process? What is the degree of control and the pragmatic role of each question? Among the studies on the use of language in the judicial system, it seems that the discourse of interrogation and verbal interaction in this area has not been seriously discussed, and in this respect, the present study may provide insights into the interrogation process and the participants in the interaction which has not been investigated so far. . .

The subject of electronic criminal trial is the execution of proceedings from the discovery of a crime to the execution of a sentence if the accused commits a crime or the issuance of an acquittal through electronic and telecommunication systems. The goals of this type of trial are to speed up the proceedings in terms of its quality, to reduce the economic costs of the proceedings and the enforcement of sentences, and to achieve social distance in the event of an outbreak of the coronavirus to protect human lives.The issue of the present article is how to integrate the standards of fair trial in relation to the duties and powers of the Interrogator during electronic investigations, while maintaining the confidentiality and privacy of individuals. The research method is descriptive-analytical using library resources and specialized websites.Findings of the paper in response to the challenges of this trial, such as violating the rights of the litigants through electronic notification, violation of the defendant's right to defense during interrogation and issuance of bail, indicate the possibility of Interrogator actions through electronic and telecommunications systems in integrating litigation investigations are privacy and in accordance with due process. However, the parties face challenges during interrogation in terms of lack of provision and reform of electronic court infrastructure to ensure security and secure registration of data to maintain confidentiality and investigation by the Interrogator and his supervision of judicial officers in police stations and offices of judicial services and lack of preparation of electronic signature. The Judiciary Statistics and Information Technology Center, with the help of the private sector, is responsible for ensuring the security of the electronic environment.

During the interrogation process and its discourse language contains certain characteristics that can be the source of many linguistic researches and studies. One of the most important issues that can be mentioned in the interrogation process is how to evolve the verbal communication by the Interrogator in order to obtain the truth of the interrogee’ s statements. In this regard, the Interrogator uses strategies to advance the discourse in his/her own way. In analyzing the data, the participants in the interrogation interaction were divided into two groups of specialist and non-specialist. The first category are the people who are familiar with the law and the legal language and include the police, judge, lawyer, etc. On the other hand, the second group are people who are not familiar with the law (or at least have little familiarity), including the accused, the plaintiff. In the present essay, based on the corpus of ten litigation files and based on the analysis of the verbal interaction between the expert (judge) and the non-expert (the accused, the plaintiff), we attempted to extract the various strategies used by the Interrogator. The strategies include question formulation, use of repeated questions, quotation clauses, contrast, the use of the phrase "khob" as a discourse maker and interruption. 1. Introduction: In a simple definition forensic linguistics is an attempt to explore the way relationships between people in legal contexts are constructed through language. What we are dealing with in forensic linguistics in general is the analysis of legal writing or legal talk. The present study focuses on legal talk in interrogation, specifically questioning in trial. In the present study we examined the interrogation process, which includes the strategies that the Interrogator uses during the interrogation process to obtain answers to his questions and to discover the truth. Based on the issues raised, the present study seeks to answer the following questions: 1. What strategies does the Interrogator use to obtain the truth in the interrogation process? 2. What is the formal and pragmatic representation of the questions during the interrogation process? 2. Literature Review: Holt and Johnson (2010) study the socio-pragmatic aspects of legal talk: police interviews and trial discourse. They believe that reporting, contrasting, formulating and repeating are at the heart of the process of formulating the facts of the legal story in trials and police interviews. Their use produces important fact-making moments that distil and encode a version of reality, which play an important part in the legal case: an authorized-authoritative version. Momeni (2012) show how linguistic analysis can help to identify language crime especially when there are no clear available proofs or documents. As she points out language crime is accompanied with speech acts like lying, threatening bribery. After observing numerous cases in courts and police stations (Bureau of Police Investigation), the author chose data which included “ lies” and analyzed it in two ways. First, “ defendants’ statements” and second “ power relation” are analyzed. The author draws this conclusion that linguistics strategies like semantic tools (schema, frame, verb meaning), syntactic tools (mood of verb), discoursal tools (power relation) … can be effective to identify and analyze language crimes. Perjury/lie is considered as a crime in both courts and Bureau of Police Investigation. Analyzing all language crimes in one article is not possible; therefore, the author analyzes just one which is perjury/lie. Momeni and Azizi (2015) study the role of topic shift and violence of Grice Principles in interrogation. They show the role of changing the subject and violation of Grice cooperative principles in interrogations. That is, the accused seeks to prolong the duration of the investigation or provide incomplete information to the Interrogator officer which consistently violates these strategies. On the other hand, the legal context and power relations do not allow the accused to change the subject according to his own desire or give irrelevant answers constantly. If this happens, it can be concluded that the accused tried to mislead the Interrogator in linguistic terms. This research is a fieldwork study. After tens of observations of interrogations recorded in Tehran Police Bureau, the real samples were selected, classified and studied. The authors introduce these principles and demonstrate their use in interrogations. Razavian and Jalil, (2018) study the “ spoken features of the robbery defendants in court” . They try to obtain spoken features of robbery defendants in order to provide a unique conversation of thieves in detection of crimes. The authors are trying to describe and explain speech of robbery defendants in Semnan province judicial system from the perspective of Forensic Linguistics. The results show that the robbery defendants by using many linguistic principles such as high modality, activism deletion, infelicitous utterance, illocutionary act try to gain Interrogators confidence. Investigation of lawsuits details show that robbery defendants in their defenses use linguistic principles differently. In particular, they use in their speech modality for 29%, contradictions for 16%, activism deletion for 14%, presupposition for 10%, speech acts for 3%, implicature for 1% and middle voice construction for 0/5%. Results suggest that attention to features and elegances of language like low modality, contradiction in speech, activism deletion, presupposition, implicature; middle voice construction and Gricean Cooperative Principles can help investigators and judges at crime detection. The other researches that concerns language in legal discourse in Iran are as follows: Rowshan & Behboudi (2009), Momeni (2011), Momeni & Azizi (2011). 3. Methodology: This research is a fieldwork study. The present study is based on a speech record of a total of 189 minutes of conversation recording of the interrogation process of ten cases in two branches of the Shiraz Public Prosecutor's Office. After tens of observations of interrogations recorded, the real samples were selected, classified and studied. 4. Results and Discussion: By analyzing the data we found that the Interrogator uses specific and repetitive strategies, and this pattern is present in all cases. Accordingly, we extract and categorize the strategies which include question formulation, use of repeated questions, quotation clauses, contrast, the use of the phrase "khob" as a discourse maker marker and interruption. The results show that all four strategies proposed in the views of Holt and Johnson (2010) included the formulation, repetition of the question, quotation, and contrast palys central role in the interrogation discourse. Also, the authors have found three strategies: "khob" as a discourse maker marker, interruption, and the second type of question repetition to these strategies. 6. Conclusion: While the formal approaches to the study of language pay attention to the formal aspects of language, the functional-oriented theories focus on language use as a means of communication and its application in different contexts. In the present article, an attempt was made to study another practical aspect of language in the (specifically) judicial and legal context. To achieve this, the authors chose the interrogation process in the prosecutor's office and explored the strategies used in the interrogation process by the expert (Interrogator) and non-expert (defendant, plaintiff, etc. ). One of the main strategies in this process is “ the questions” both in formal and pragmatic aspects. Based on the body of the interrogation process of ten cases in two branches of the Public Prosecutor's Office, the authors evaluated the questions raised by the judge and concluded that all four strategies proposed in the views of Holt and Johnson (2010) are used by Interrogator. They are question formulation, repeated questions, quotation clauses and contrast, and also, the authors have added three strategies of "khob" as a discourse maker marker, interruption. It should be noted that the discourse of interrogation has many different dimensions and aspects, both in terms of form and function, which requires deeper and broader research in the field of justice.