PROSECUTION of the accused is one of the main steps of the criminal PROSECUTION process, which has been included among the powers and duties of the competent authority in the matter of PROSECUTION in order to preserve individual and social interests. The decision to prosecute, in accordance with the rules of Iranian national proceedings, and in the field of international criminal law in accordance with the Statute of the International Criminal Court, is borne by the prosecutor. The study of the provisions of Iranian criminal law, along with an examination of the provisions of the Statute of the International Criminal Court as a valid and standard document on how to organize criminal proceedings through the confrontation of the two systems of mandatory or appropriate PROSECUTION, help to better delineate the powers and duties of prosecutors. In the structure of Iranian regulations on criminal procedure, institutions such as discontinuance of PROSECUTION, archiving of cases, mediation and suspension of PROSECUTION are deemed as necessary institutions for recognition of the appropriateness of the prosecut1ion system that, with the approval of the Code of Criminal Procedure adopted in 2014, have emerged out of scattered and special laws and have assumed the comprehensive aspect. Moreover, in the light of Article 53 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court and the procedure governing the proceedings of this Court, it can be said that the International Criminal Court, despite the fact that it has adopted the model of compulsory PROSECUTION as its principle or basis, has also paid attention to the principle of appropriateness of PROSECUTION and the interests of justice and reasonable basis. Therefore, in some cases the Statute has left non-PROSECUTION of the accused to the discretion of the prosecutor. In addition, anticipation of institutions such as deferral of investigation or PROSECUTION, complementary jurisdiction in the provisions of the Statute and the precedent of the International Criminal Court are also considered as indicators that suggest recognition and application of a system based on appropriateness of PROSECUTION in the rules and precedent of this Court.

The Criminal justice system makes the defendant (accused) enter in a process which if proved it will be followed penalties for him. Sometimes this circumstance is changed and despite the sufficient evidences and offensive conduct (behavior), the prosecutor instead of indictment, files the charge document or suspends the PROSECUTION. Giving this great authority before trial is in contrast with the criterion of the LEGALITY of the PROSECUTION and showing the situational approach. Because of the standard of the LEGALITY of the PROSECUTION, the Iran criminal system does not pay more attention to this approach. This note is going to determine the origin, bases and the scope of this approach in the criminal systems of Iran with a comparative approach to the law of Germany, France, England, USA and Iran. The research consequences show that although the situational approach is rooted in the common law and the countries follow this system take much notice to it, but gradually, the Romano Germanic Law (Civil Law) systems have moved to accept some manifestations of this approach. The situational approach is based on the utilitarian approach and in the case of the correct implement, it will have four functions: the reduction of the litigation costs (court costs), the prevention of Labeling, the reduction of the criminal subject and checking files for adjudication. Islamic Penal code of Iran can get these four benefits with making this approach broaden more.

When a crime is committed a prosecutor, as agent of PROSECUTION of crime, should decide about the PROSECUTION. There are two ways regarding PROSECUTION; principle opportunity, legal PROSECUTION process. Each country recognizes one of this ways with respect to its penal policy, circumstances of crime and generally culture of society. Alternative of PROSECUTION arising from principle opportunity which is aimed ascertaining victim’s rights and rehabilitation of offenders. Because of existing similarities between criminal procedure of Iran and France, evolution of alternative of PROSECUTION will be discussed in this article.

The evolution of substantive laws and forms in different societies is a reflection of criminal thought. Historical studies by law scholars have shown that the political, cultural, religious, and geographical structure of societies has been the main cause of the formation and modification of laws and the style of dealing with crime and justice since its inception. The evolution of justice systems reflects the evolution of human thinking on one of the most important issues in human societies. The presence and role of PROSECUTION authorities in different historical periods has been the focus of different jurisdictions, and accordingly, the laws of the jurisdiction of countries have changed frequently. These changes focus on one's interests, social issues, and sometimes both. PROSECUTION has long been regarded as one of the key pillars of criminal justice. In this regard, the evolution of the role of the prosecuting authority in different historical periods should be studied and extracted through criminal proceedings. What changes have been made during the PROSECUTION process? On the other hand, what are the differences between the PROSECUTION authorities in the signatory countries that currently have the PROSECUTION system? And what is the cause of those differences? In order to answer the questions raised at the outset, it was necessary to examine specifically and precisely the history of the accusative justice system from the outset of the Sumerian and Babel governments. In this regard, the principles and characteristics of this system were studied in a specialized manner. During different periods and based on various political and social changes, the legal and governmental view of the criminal systems and the status of those involved has greatly changed. Studying the role of the prosecutor assigned to a particular person at different times and in different countries, and therefore using the term prosecuting authority, requires investigating the position of other prosecutors and criminal systems. The role of PROSECUTION authorities in the PROSECUTION phase of the PROSECUTION process has also been specifically explored in the context of the evolution of the two countries, the United Kingdom and the United States, due to their avoidance of disclosure.

The LEGALITY principle of punishments which means the necessity of the intervention of the law authorities to issue a verdict and its execution is the fundamental base of the modern penal code. After the review of the principle, its position and the process of its historical evolution, this paper shows (with regard to the emphasis of Islamic teachings on the concepts such as order, justice discipline criterion, fair judiciary, not being allowed to judge by ordinary citizens, the necessity systematic planning for the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice) the LEGALITY principle of punishments is a jurisprudential principle in Islam penal code. The note evaluates the view of exception of the LEGALITY principle of punishments (as it is mentioned in the Islamic jurisprudential texts) problematic and without reliable (stable) reasons. By planning dynamism ideas like the concept of fair judiciary, the necessity of the exclusive official authority by the state to issue a verdict and its execution, the necessity attention to the evolution relating to private-public and figured crimes and punishments in the new intellectual perception, the paper states the LEGALITY principle of punishments absolute and without exception. This understanding is coincided with the precautionary principle about men’s life which is emphasized by the Holy Sharia.

The PROSECUTION is one of the most important public institutions in the realization of the rule of law and the protector of political rights and freedoms. However, there is no theoretical basis or practical practice regarding the position of this institution among the three powers. Affected by the legal structure and historical and political issues of each country, four factors have been influential in the formation of the position of the Prosecutor's Office: the executive structure; the structure of the judiciary; the independent PROSECUTION; and the elected PROSECUTION, which makes it impossible to introduce a desirable and ideal model for all systems. However, this paper will attempt to examine the four factors and concerns about the PROSECUTION's position among the three powers. These factors include: the independence of the prosecutor's office; the separation of the PROSECUTION and Adjudication; and the need for PROSECUTION policy-making and accountability. For the desirable position of the PROSECUTION among the powers, it is necessary to strike a balance among these four concerns and effective factors in accordance with the political situation and the historical context of the formation of powers in any legal system.

The abolish themselves are skeptical about the capacity of criminal justice for crime control and believe that as long as there are easier and more human ways to control crime, punishment should not be used as a weapon in the first place. Abolitionism doctrine maintains that the formal system of criminal justice, not is less effective in the prevention of recidivism, but also criminogenic and label of crime causing him to commit crime again. Therefore, they advocates the non-interference of criminal law or, if it is investable, a minimal involvement in the process of trial. The findings of abolitionism in the criminal policy of different countries gave rise to decriminalize, depenalization and diversion. Deferred PROSECUTION or non- PROSECUTION is also a new concept in criminal procedure that is consistent with non-intervention criminal policy. This policy was proposed because of the failure of the traditional repressive approach of PROSECUTION. Adversarial PROSECUTION, judicialization and acceleration of PROSECUTION, reduction in criminal population and regarding human dignity, selective PROSECUTION of accuses are among the important consequences of the deferred PROSECUTION. This article attempts to express concept and foundations of the deferred PROSECUTION and investigates its manifestations in the Iranian criminal policy.

In some point of view, neither Michel Foucault nor Ibn Khaldun are considered philosophers in the conventional classifications, but both are very  important in intellectual and, of course, in philosophical contexts, especially for those who are interested in the deep study of human life from the perspective of political thought.The main concern of two thinkers, one in the 14th century, the other in the 20th century, is the issue  of power, although neither of them provided a precise definition of it. In this article, an attempt has been made to show the place of power and domination in the political thought of both thinkers by examining the thoughts of two thinkers. And in search of an answer to this question, how did Asabiyyah and industry of religion in Ibn Khaldun's thought and social control through self-technology and discipline in Foucault's thought lead to the expansion of the domination of power? This article is written by analytically comparing the opinions of two thinkers based on Ibn Khaldun's most important book called Muqaddimah and Foucault's late works

Dealing with lawsuits and its stages is the most important and sensetive work of the judiciary, which is finally done by the courts issuing a verdict.From the very beginning of the lawsuit, the judiciary charges a fee for issuing decisions issued by the courts, which is known as "cost of proceedings", and in all procedures and its various stages, special attention is paid to them by placing strong enforcement guarantees.As can be seen from this title, the court needs to receive this fee in order to issue a verdict.In other words, until this fee is paid by the claimant, the case will not enter the trial process. In Islamic law, there has been a difference of opinion about the legitimacy of charging legal fees, and a group considered it absolutely permissible, and some considered it absolutely not permissible, and a group proposed separate rulings with a detailed plan on the issue. In this article, which is organized in a descriptive-analytical way, while carefully examining the evidence of all viewpoints surrounding this issue, by obtaining the SAHIHE Hadith from "Ammar bin Marwan", the illegitimacy of the legal fees based on it was proven.

Analytical study of relationship between applicability and LEGALITY, as two necessary grounds for stability and durability of governments, with regard to their impact on such things as political stability would be necessary. Such being the case, question of the paper follows as: how is the connection between applicability and LEGALITY of political governments? The hypothesis runs as: applicability and LEGALITY of governments are of such a reciprocal and direct relation that the weakness and strength of each leads to the weakness and strength of the other equally. As is clarified by an analytical and descriptive method in the paper, in spite of reciprocal stability of applicability and LEGALITY, applicability of a system would not produce original LEGALITY of it. In other word, one may argue that impact of applicability on LEGALITY is based on the origin of government’s LEGALITY.