The right of living is the first and utmost right, reserved by the holy Quran for mankind. According to the holy Quran, the usurpation of someone’s right of living is equal to the annihilation of the whole human race. From the standpoint of Islamic rights, the preservation of fetus is binding as the preservation of human kind, and thus, the abortive acts are prohibited, except in some special cases.Since the preservation of fetus is of high significance, some strict laws and PENALties have been established against those usurping the right of fetus life through abortion. The PENAL LIABILITY with regard to abortion is studied in this article.

Background and Aim: Along with its economic, social and political crises, COVID –,19 pandemics throughout the world in 2019 has brought legal challenges so that high rate of deaths reduplicates the importance of addressing virus transmitters’,PENAL LIABILITY in homicide crime. Thus, the purpose of present paper is to study the scope of the virus transmitters’,PENAL LIABILITY in homicide crime (either intentionally or unintentionally). Materials and Methods: This is a descriptive –,analytical paper by using laboratory resources. Results: Findings indicate that in accordance with article 492 of Islamic PENALty Code, virus transmitters’,PENAL LIABILITY in homicide crime is based on the existence of citation relationship. Assuming such relationship, transmitter may have deemed lack of PENAL LIABILITY due to some reasons such as act rule,however, if he/she is considered as liable, he/she should be convicted to such PENALties as retaliation, blood money and canonical punishment by considering mens rea. Ethical considerations: Present paper is composed by relying upon ethical principles, trusteeship and honesty. Conclusion: Apart from the time when no one is liable for the death of transmitted person, overall, the verdicts are different depended to mens rea. In the case that transmitter has transmitted the virus to another person with the aim of killing including both explicit intent (article 290(a)(d) of Islamic PENALty Code) and implicit intent (article 290(b)(e) of Islamic PENALty Code), the verdict of retaliation should be issued, provided that general conditions of retaliation are existing (article 301 of Islamic PENALty Code),in the case that virus transmitter does it without the intent of killing, it is considered as reckless if homicide is happened (article 291 of Islamic PENALty Code) and virus transmitter is convicted to paying blood money to decedent’, s heirs and canonical punishments determined in article 616 of such punishments since homicide is the result of criminal fault. If the homicide is happened and it is a pure offence (article 292 of Islamic PENALty Code), transmitter and his/her consanguineous male dependents are required to pay blood money (article 463 of Islamic PENALty Code).

Civil LIABILITY has always been one of the important and influential topics in legal cases, especially considering that there are multiple laws in this area in our country. Given that the Islamic PENAL Code also addresses this important issue, analyzing and comparing its rules with general civil LIABILITY rules are significant. This research employs a descriptive-analytical method to explore the mentioned topic. As a general rule, general civil LIABILITY rules include LIABILITY without fault and LIABILITY based on fault. However, by examining the legal provisions included in the Islamic PENAL Code of 2013, it was concluded that LIABILITY arising from buildings is based on fault, while LIABILITY arising from animal actions is based on fault, considering the presumption of fault in specific cases. Additionally, the responsibility of physicians, according to new regulations, is based on fault, although it is suggested that it should be LIABILITY without fault. Furthermore, the legislator has also considered LIABILITY without fault in criminal regulations and sometimes regards intentionality as sufficient for establishing civil LIABILITY, and the basis for reference is another one of those cases where criminal fault should also be added. Therefore, there is not a complete alignment between general civil LIABILITY rules and those in the Islamic PENAL Code of 2013, and in each case, specific legal provisions and rules must be taken into account.

The new Islamic PENAL Code of 1392, on the one hand delimitate the LIABILITY of physicians, but on the other hand, it contains new provisions for protecting patients. The new Code sets aside LIABILITY based on the theory of lack of fault of physicians, which is the common word of Imamiyeh jurists and was adopted in the 1370 Code. Instead, the new Code adopts the theory of presumed LIABILITY. In addition, to give more protection to physicians, obtaining patient`s consent exempts physicians from LIABILITY. Moreover, the new Code indicates that if patient or nurse is aware of the error of medical order, physicians have no LIABILITY. A further change is the affirmation of bona fide as a means of discharge of civil LIABILITY. As it was stated, the new Code has provisions in order to protect patients. Also, it gradate physicians and make them updated in accordance with the latest developments of medical sciences. Hence, it is provided that any scientific or practical fault or default (neglect) of physician, make him liable. This means that the ignorance of medical science and new methods of treatments is regarded as a cause of civil LIABILITY. It seems that this regulation is the turning point in the Panel Code to protect the patients, although this evolution should have been clearer.

The achievements of this paper show that although the legislature has taken a positive step to fill the gap of the Islamic PENAL Code, it has not acted perfectly in identifying the criminal LIABILITY of legal entity. Articles revolving the issue in the new Islamic PENAL Code are fully ambiguous and synopsis which have led legal community to criticize and put the criminal courts in real trouble for making decisions. It is necessary that legislature take some action in order to solve the problem.Legislature has adopted the stricter theory regarding the identification of legal entity (including the legal entities of public law and legal entities of private law). These theories are theory of ‘respondent superior’ and ‘brain theory’. However, sentencing the legal entities to blood money is out of this rule and the first theory has been adopted.

Objective: Due to the nature of their working conditions, doctors are frequently exposed to making errors. It is necessary to establish laws regarding the guarantee of doctors in case of medical errors. The aim of this study was to examine the articles of the Islamic PENAL Code approved in 2013, as well as the verses of the Holy Quran and the traditions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and the Imams of Athar (PBUH) related to the physician’s LIABILITY.Methods and Materials: The current research is organized using a narrative review method. After evaluating texts related to the study subject, we prepared the present study.Results: The results show that many verses of the Qur’an focus on doctor’s responsibility (emphasize the importance of life, accountability, and the harmony between action and responsibility) and physician’s non-LIABILITY (non-responsibility, emergency, and benevolence). Themes such as the LIABILITY and non-LIABILITY of the physician (innocence, emergency, and benevolence) have also been expressed in Islamic traditions. The 2013 Islamic PENAL Code includes provisions that address the physician’s LIABILITY, as well as the physician’s non-LIABILITY (which includes non-responsibility, urgency, and benevolence).Conclusion: Overall, the findings of the present study demonstrate that the provisions of the Islamic PENAL Code regarding the physician’s LIABILITY align perfectly with Islamic laws.

Civil LIABILITY is a legal obligation and commitment of an individual to compensate for the harm inflicted upon another. One of the most fundamental issues in the realm of civil LIABILITY is the extent to which it aligns with social justice. Throughout history, legislators have consistently endeavored to establish laws and regulations based on principles of justice. One such regulation is the Islamic PENAL Code, whose articles and foundations have been extensively employed by judges and legal scholars in the domain of civil LIABILITY law. However, a major obstacle to realizing this goal has been the lack of a comprehensive and functional standard for this purpose. In this regard, the Iranian legal system, following the enactment of the 2013 Islamic PENAL Code (adopted in 1392 A.H. Solar), has witnessed significant developments concerning the basis of civil LIABILITY. Consequently, a renewed perspective on this issue is warranted. Through a descriptive-analytical approach to legal thought and statutory provisions, this study demonstrates that the Islamic PENAL Code, from a theoretical standpoint, provides a considerable foundation for resolving matters related to the distribution of civil LIABILITY—such as the multiplicity of causes—and establishes a basis for civil LIABILITY that incorporates both fault-based and strict LIABILITY approaches.

One of the important issues which are discussed by the law today is the civil LIABILITY of Physicians, something which was silence in the civil code and civil LIABILITY code of n1339 (1960), however the Islamic PENAL code has predicted some regulations for it. The civil LIABILITY of Physicians in the comparative law is principally based on the theory of fault. That is, a Physician is found to be responsible and liable to indemnify the loss inflicted on the patient when his (her) fault is established. This solution is compatible with the general rules of the civil LIABILITY while it is also justifiable with the expediency of the patient and the society. Nevertheless, the Islamic PENAL code of 1375 (1996) apparently accepts the no fault responsibility of the Physician pursuant to the words of a group of Imamiyeh Jurisprudents which seems to be subject of criticism although the aforementioned rule has been adjusted through accepting the clause of innocence (clause of non-LIABILITY). Indeed, acquisition of clause of innocence shall not totally exempt the Physician from LIABILITY because in this presumption too he shall be responsible and liable to indemnify the loss upon establishment of the fault.Fortunately, the new Islamic PENAL bill adopted in 1390 (2011), which has not been put into force yet, has deviated from the former rule and accepted the basis of fault in the Physicians LIABILITY however the basis of LIABILITY in this law seems to be the presumed fault and not the established one. In other words, the law presumes the Physician to be liable unless his faultlessness is established. Acquisition of clearance from guarantee too, has been predicted in the new bill whose benefit is the replacement of the burden of proof.

Ignorance-of-law is usually an excuse from criminal LIABILITY and among the legal challenges of establishing a balance between maintenance of public order and administration of justice. For the maintenance of social order, everyone is obliged to be aware of the law and the general rule is "ignorance-of-law is no excuse". However, following this maxim would be unfair if proper understanding of the law is impossible. In this regard, the Islamic PENAL Code (1392) has adopted a new approach through examining this maxim and its exceptions. Furthermore, some specific rules have been foreseen concerning the ignorance-of-law, especially in the case of punishable offenses and major crimes. This paper aims to explain the general rules and principles of this code and its comparison with the "Dare" Rule, and their limits and credibility in the criminal and non-criminal offences from the perspective of the Islamic PENAL Code. Finally, the new approach is criticized.