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 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.

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.

Alternatives to PROSECUTION are the third way and middle method between the PROSECUTION and unconditional archiving the case. Objects of punishment, in this method, Will be achieved without PROSECUTION and punishment. Alternatives to PROSECUTION are based on the cognitive school, criminology and practical considerations and In Islamic teachings, there are many cases applying this method in the process of PROSECUTION and punishment of offenders. In English law, Alternatives to PROSECUTION have more appearance, because the PROSECUTION is based on public interest. Because of studies, in the adoption of the Penal Code of 1392, the Iranian legislator considered the effects of these alternatives. However, these alternatives, as they should, have not been developed. Lack of development in these alternatives is the result of numerous obstacles. Reviewing the U. K. law, understanding these obstacles and providing necessary solutions for them, justifies the necessity and purpose of the present research and could create a promotion in the criminal PROSECUTION system using these alternatives. These obstacles can be expressed in the theoretical challenges (lack of ideas and replacing alternatives) and practical challenges (lack of practical mechanisms for the implementation of alternatives). Examples of such challenges include: not paying attention to the objects of punishment, Tendency to punishment, Police Restriction, lack of attention to the personality of individuals at the beginning of the PROSECUTION of crimes and. . .

In the light of comparative law developments in recent years, the Criminal Procedure Code of 2013 has introduced numerous institutions and mechanisms into the Iranian criminal justice system that, through the emergence of a concurrent justice, PROSECUTION of the accused is suspended in exchange for some of the orders suggested by the prosecutor or reconciliation with the plaintiff. Proper implementation of these strategies, which are interpreted as alternatives to criminal PROSECUTION, has shortened the intervention of the criminal system and accelerated the resolution of disputes arising out of the crime, giving the accused an opportunity not to stay immune from criminal labeling without getting involved with the criminal process and compensating the victim’ s damages in a short time. Successors of PROSECUTION, however, face challenges such as the ambiguous status of the defendant’ s rights. In fact, the nature of such proceedings raises many questions, including whether the right to defense in these proceedings differs from that of ordinary criminal proceedings? And are the defendants’ rights observed in the same way as classical rights? This article seeks to provide appropriate solutions to these rights for these methods by studying and criticizing the legal rights of the accused in PROSECUTION alternatives.

Nowadays, in order to increase the speed of PROSECUTION of crimes, the legislatures have tried to place a foothold in the community, NGOs, government agencies and their employees in order to cope with the delinquency of the perpetrators and increase the protection of some victims. To this end, the acceptance of a position for the activities of the NGO's was in Article 66 of the 1392 (Rev. 1394), with the complete annulment of the indictment in criminal proceedings and the necessity of its legal analysis. On the one hand, the offense is compared with concepts such as complaints of crime and mass media reports that do not adequately address the issue of the separation of legislatures; on the other hand, the legislative prediction of a crime is based on examples such as the person who declares the crime, the crime of the proclamation And which competent authority receives the final recognition of a crime requires comprehensive recognition. Finally, the conditions that should be envisaged in the laws to increase the effectiveness of the declaration of crime are from the method of announcing a crime to guaranteeing non-proclaimed performances, declaring a crime with maladministration, as well as declaring a non-principled crime as important issues as the lack of The analyzes are perfect in them. In the same vein, it seems that the need for a precise and accurate prediction of a crime to be distinguished from a crime report, as well as a reference to the guarantee of non-PROSECUTION actions for public statements, can provide effective judicial procedures.

Iran's judicial practice in cases where there is a conflict between the reasons for the prohibition of PROSECUTION and the suspension of PROSECUTION, is often inclined to the latter order. In this area, a question is raised; According to Article 13 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if the plaintiff passes away, is there any legal justification for issuing a suspension of PROSECUTION for a behavior that, according to the investigation of the judicial authority, does not have a criminal character? The author is of the opinion that the issuance of a suspension of PROSECUTION, considering the phrase "criminal order" at the beginning of the mentioned article and the phrase "forgivable crimes" in the mentioned paragraph, is related to the criminality of the behavior and if the behavior attributed to the accused According to the preliminary or extended judgment of the judicial authority, if it has a legal aspect or is considered a non-criminal matter, the issuance of a restraining order has priority, and the passing of the private plaintiff has no effect on the nature of the non-criminal matter or the cessation of this substantive assessment.This issue has been brought to the attention of the legislators of this country in the French criminal procedure law in such a way that conciliation or restitution of the complaint as the plaintiff's right in "special" public lawsuits causes the PROSECUTION to stop. Therefore, in this regard, the point of view of some judges regarding the priority of formal suspension of PROSECUTION over substantive prohibition of PROSECUTION is not absolutely acceptable. The author examines the subject in an analytical and descriptive. According to the knowledge and awareness that was obtained from the reasons for issuing the prohibition order and the suspension of PROSECUTION, especially paragraph "b" of Article 13 of the Criminal Procedure Law, it should be acknowledged that the reasons for the prohibition order cannot be combined with the reasons for the suspension of PROSECUTION. Because if there are reasons for the acquittal of the accused, especially the lack of criminal description or the lack of attention to the charges against the accused, there will be no reason to raise the reasons for suspending the PROSECUTION, especially paragraph "b" of Article 13 of the Criminal Procedure Law, and the private plaintiff's indulgence in behavior that is basically It is not subject to criminal PROSECUTION, it has no effect in stopping the PROSECUTION with a suspension order, and the judicial authority is obliged to acquit the accused with a prohibition order according to Article 265 of the Criminal Procedure Law. Likewise, It is worth noting that if the Emirates and the witnesses do not pay enough attention to or attribute the accusation to the accused or it is weak or basically the judge is faced with the lack or lack of evidence and at this stage and during the investigation, the plaintiff declares his forgiveness, to The reason for this is that all four aforementioned conditions are present, the issuance of the suspension order is the first, and there is no need to prove the crime or the existence of evidence to prove the claim in accordance with Article 160 of the Islamic Penal Code at the time of issuing the order.

Pre-judicial supervision of investigation and PROSECUTION entails the supervision of actions, judicial and investigative decisions of institutions in charge of PROSECUTION and investigation, especially actions that impact individual rights and freedoms such as detention orders, conducting searches of residences and individuals during the pre-trial phase. The present research is a descriptive-analytical method, while using library tools with scrutiny on the role of prejudicial supervision in controlling the actions of those custodians of PROSECUTION and investigation, explain the importance and position of the said institution in guaranteeing a fair trial, crystallizing the presumption of innocence and determining the principle of balancing the rights of the parties in a criminal lawsuit under the shadow of the principle of rule of law and the principle of jurisprudence. Among the important consequences of the use of the judicial supervision institution is the increase of public trust in the functioning of the judicial system, ensuring its efficiency and preventing the abuse of legal powers by the PROSECUTION and investigation authorities. The findings of the research indicate the confirmation of the effective role of the prejudicial supervision institution in guaranteeing the rights of the litigation parties in a criminal case and reducing the grounds for violation or aggression of their rights.

By issuing a restraining order based on the lack or insufficiency of evidence, the possibility of re-PROSECUTION of the accused is foreseen according to Article 278 of the Criminal Procedure Law on the basis of ensuring judicial justice and dealing with criminal behavior. On the one hand, the legislator seeks to achieve justice for the persons who were not able to access them at the time of the hearing. On the other hand, it seeks to deal with breaking the norm and prevent unjustified and early release of the perpetrator from the clutches of justice. Despite this, the ruling of this article is exceptional and the principle that the accused cannot be re-prosecuted unless the principles that govern it, which are in line with the goals and general principles of the criminal procedure, are applied in the process of prescribing PROSECUTION by the judicial authorities. The purpose of this research is to know the basics and principles governing the re-PROSECUTION of the accused. Therefore, the fundamental question is, what are the principles governing the PROSECUTION of the accused and is the judicial procedure determined to strictly implement these principles? This article, with a descriptive analytical method and by studying 19 re-prosecuted cases in Iran's criminal justice system, explains in detail the principles of the validity of the sealed order, the reasonableness of the process of re-prosecuting the accused, the correspondence, independence and priority of the court's judgment against the prosecutor's office, the possibility of re-prosecuting the accused by the court and The principle of the independence of the investigating authority against the judgment of the prosecutor and the court is the governing principle for the application of the PROSECUTION of the accused And at the end, it is found that the judicial authorities involved in the application of the prescription