Legislation of Iran according to article 231 of Islamic Punishment Act (1370) has assigned confession and testimony as evidences of proving the murder and specified the articles 232 to 237 for qualifications of confession and articles 237 and 238 for qualifications of testimony. Although in jurisprudence the issue has been studied and assigned as the witnesses give evidence that "A" has put the victim to death and at the same time "B" confesses that himself has committed the murder; it is not clear in the Islamic Criminal Law and has not attracted the legislator’s attention.The command can just have these three forms in such a case: Conflict is obviated when it is clear for the judge that both testimony and confession are false. The second form is when complicity has occurred. In this case judgment will be make according to the rules of complicity. Obviation of complicity and committing the murder by one person is the third form in witch preferring confession to testimony is the correct opinion although there are dissenting opinion.The author tries to discuss about these three forms and analyses the opposing and supporting opinions and represent, some legal solutions for this challenging issue.

Civil liability resulting from harm to intellectual property depends on three important factors: theoretical foundation of intellectual property, the nature of intellectual property and Islamic legal bases of civil liability.This essay discusses labour, personality, reward and utility theories as foundation of intellectual property. Then the nature of intellectual property is discussed under the title of ownership-property and usufruct. Finally, Islamic legal bases such as the principle of prevention of deliberate destruction of other's property (Qaedeh talaf) and the principle of no harm (Qaedeh la zarar) are discussed.

Religious training as a way of strengthening belief, has been an old approach, yet from around seventy years ago, it has been faced with some criticism in the West. Secular and pluralist critics claim that in religious trainings, understanding is neither the goal nor the outcome, because it is confession that is aimed at. Thus such religious trainings should be abandoned and replaced with un-confessional religious training or secular training in which instead of teaching a particular religion, lessons about all religions are taught. This very perspective is challenged herein by rereading the claim in the following three different ways: 1- religious understanding is impossible through religious training, 2- lack of understanding in religious exclusivism, and in 3- religious indoctrination, is necessary. Furthermore, through comparisons and criticism, it is said that: 1- being belief-based does not prevent understanding, 2- being exclusivist does not prevent understanding, 3- indoctrination is not subject-dependent, and religious training is not necessarily indoctrination. The Islamic approach to religious training is discussed where necessary.

amongst professionals in medical practices the action of waste by physiotherapist is of importance to study. This is because unlike other medical practitioners, who may ultimately prescribe medicine and their responsibility is considered based on the principle of causation, physiotherapists are mostly working directly on the body of patients and their responsibility is governed by the principle of waste/ destruction which assimilates their responsibility to that of surgeons.As a summery, it can be claimed that a physiotherapist's responsibility based on the principle of waste is presumed unless the opposite (the innocence) is proven. Some examples of physiotherapists' responsibilities are injuries caused in practice therapy such as physiotherapy and rehabilitation of heart patients,. practices, mobilization of PNF joints, etc.

Iran's civil law allows the finder (lost property) to possess it under certain conditions. However, the question that arises is whether it is a crime if the person who found the property seizes the property. There is disagreement among lawyers about this question. Some believe that illegal seizure is a crime, but there is no consensus on what a criminal offence is. Some believe in theft, some in abuse of confidence, some in the transfer of property of others, and some in the acquisition of property through illegitimate means. On the other hand, some jurists believe that the illegal seizure of property is not a crime. The results of the present study indicate that the opinion of the second group is stronger and seizure of property is not a crime even if it is against the law.

One of the legal solutions to prevent conclusion of conflicting contract is using proper remedies, because the appropriate compensations can play a role that, in one hand, the contractual interest of the innocent party should be protected and on the other hand, the wrongdoer party, could not benefit from illegitimate interests. In this article, the remedies available to the innocent party of invalid conflicting contract is examined under the Islamic and Iranian contract law. It is proven that the rules of contractual responsibility cover the loss of invalid contract, when the cause of invalidity is attributable to the one party of the contract. Secondly, the wrongdoer party of invalid conflicting contract may be deprived of obtaining illegitimate interests according to the principle of the sanctity of property. Thus, the contractual expected benefits of innocent party could be compensated and protected according to the rules such as the principle of deception, the liability resulting from the conflict confession, the principle of guarantee of damage and the liability arising bilateral contract.

Accidents resulting from driving and motor vehicle's incumbency are considered as the most prevalent accidents during the last years. In Iran, its statistics is more than standard limit, too. Recently, a law was enacted in Iran and it caused the civil liability system and the remedy of losing party in such accidents are developed. This also affects on compensation insurance system. Herein, we want to answer this question whether these developments were transformed the liability basis and sent it away from the jurisprudence guarantee topics, or no change was made in these fundamentals. Consequently, the theory of "unlimited compensation of the losing party", subject of article 26 of Accidents Vetting Act, is not consistent with Iranian legal system. In fact, with due regard to the theory of "Religious Jurisprudence Relation", we can achieve a reasonable interpretation.

Background and Aim: New methods in the treatment of incurable diseases such as cancer, thalassemia, Parkinson’s disease, and growth hormone production indicate the extent of opportunities created for utilizing biotechnology. However, biotechnology has also faced challenges such as civil liability and compensation for damages. Accordingly, the present article aims to examine civil liability arising from biotechnology-related damages from the perspective of bioethical principles. Methods: This article has been conducted using a descriptive-analytical method and based on library sources. Ethical Considerations: In all stages of writing the present research, the originality of the texts, honesty and trustworthiness have been observed. Results: Based on fundamental principles of bioethics, such as the principle of non-maleficence and the principle of beneficence, biotechnology must both avoid causing harm and provide benefits. In cases where harm arises from biotechnology, compensation for damages is necessary. However, in Iranian law, the liability system is based on fault, and a major issue in compensating the injured party within such a system lies in the difficulty of proving fault by the victim, which consequently leads to uncompensated damages. Therefore, it seems that the strict liability theory is more effective in this regard. Conclusion: The Civil Liability Law does not meet the needs of today's society, and it is necessary for the legislator's approach to civil liability arising from damages caused by biotechnology to shift toward strict liability, based on bioethical principles.

Liability resulting from damages for loss of profits is a controversial issue in Islamic jurisprudence. The current consensus of opinion among contemporary jurists is based upon “lack of liability”, because it is not true to name it damages or, if true, there is no need to compensate for any damages. Some Imāmī jurists, however, consider damages for loss of profits as an instance of “damage”, supported by minor premise. They also include liability arguments which necessitate compensation, supported by major premise. Vahid Behbahani believes that "No Damage" principle, together with principles of waste, causality and Civil liability, is not only a separate basis for liability and civil liability, but this hadith can be independently cited in liability literature. This authentic hadith denotes that any losses, including the loss of profit, must be compensated.