PROSECUTOR’, s office officials are one of the most important pillars of the judiciary due to the important duties and powers they have from the stage of crime detection to indictment. Due to the extensive duties and powers of the PROSECUTOR, the possibility of delegating and referring cases to deputies and PROSECUTORs is of particular importance. Because the PROSECUTOR, on the one hand, has the administrative head of the PROSECUTOR's office and oversees the proper implementation of the law, on the other hand, according to the law, he can intervene in the investigation. Unlike the investigator, who is basically independent of the PROSECUTOR, the PROSECUTOR, as a judicial official of the PROSECUTOR's office, is not independent of the PROSECUTOR and can perform other duties of the PROSECUTOR on behalf of the PROSECUTOR in addition to the preliminary investigation. The need for the PROSECUTOR to obey the PROSECUTOR is not absolute and is limited to the type and nature of the duties that the PROSECUTOR assigns to him or refers to him, and he is therefore obliged to obey the PROSECUTOR. The main purpose of this article is to examine the possibility of delegating the authority to request a referral from the PROSECUTOR to the deputy and the PROSECUTOR. Because the law deals with referral procedures and does not mention referring it to other judicial authorities of the PROSECUTOR's office.

This essay considers the principle of separation of PROSECUTOR from investigating judge in criminal procedure.in Iranian penal code 2013/1392, assignment of investigating official apart from PROSECUTOR indicates accepting the principal.This refers to the independence of investigating official in his duties and noninterference of him in prosecution. However the purpose of separation is not absolute. Administering and necessary teaching and request completion of investigation is not contrary to the principle. Moreover in some exceptional cases, the principle can be excluded necessarily and immediately. Positive step of penal procedure is that investigating by PROSECUTOR is subjected to shortage of investigating official. In addition to, the other favorable changes are explicit expression in cases such as impossibility to returning the case referred to the investigating judge, the need for referring in exceptional circumstances that the investigating judge starts the investigation directly. However some cases of violation of this principle can be found in law of Iran. For example, it can' t be said the principle is being observed when unchaste behavior is raised directly in the court.

The International Criminal Court is unable to prosecute all international crimes that fall within its jurisdiction. The situation selection falls within the PROSECUTOR’s discretion that is done by conducting a preliminary examination. In this filtering process, three factors are taken into account, namely jurisdiction, admissibility and the interests of justice. Nevertheless, the PROSECUTOR prefers to extend its discretion behind the preliminary examination stage. Accordingly, the PROSECUTOR selects a situation not only to initiate an investigation upon conducing a preliminary examination but also to open a preliminary examination in itself. This article argues that the PROSECUTOR’s discretion to open a preliminary examination is limited to consider the jurisdiction requirement in a narrow manner, namely to exclude those crimes that are manifestly outside of the Court’s jurisdiction. Due to the role of preliminary examinations in combating the culture of impunity, the PROSECUTOR shall not adopt a conservative approach to open a preliminary examination.

The PROSECUTOR of the International Criminal Court acts independently in carrying out his/her functions. S/he is responsible for investigation and prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the court. If the PROSECUTOR concludes that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, s/he shall submit to the Pre-Trial Chamber a request for authorization of an investigation, together with any supporting material collected. If the Pre- Trial Chamber, upon examination of the request and the supporting material, considers that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, and that the case appears to fall within the jurisdiction of the Court, it shall authorize the commencement of the investigation. Functions and powers of the Pre-Trial Chamber provided for in the statute of the ICC gives the Pre-Trial Chamber the authority for permanent Survey on the PROSECUTOR's functions and powers.

In this article, we tried to explain the criminal status of the PROSECUTOR by using. documents and library methods and in a descriptive analytical way, using international ·documents and requirements, and the existing gaps and defects should be announced a long with the suggested solutions.The findings of the current research indicate. that according to the Principles of fair proceeding, the role of the PROSECUTOR is very. important, however, despite the huge. change in the new criminal policy regarding the position of the PROSECUTOR's office and ・the reduction of PROSECUTORs Powers in order to protect the defendant's defense rights and human rights standards, our legislator hasremained far away from this development,And in many cases, it has violated the Priniciple of reasoning of the judicial authorities and in some cases It has placed the investigator in the judgment of the  PROSECUTOR's officer.Therefore, the Weakness of its enforcement grounds, which will Pess result in the abandonment of the ruling contained in some legal articles, is inevitable.

Dealing with international crime, preventing it, and achieving international criminal justice require the provision of the necessary powers to prosecute and investigate their perpetrators. The PROSECUTOR of the Court is responsible for prosecuting and investigating four international crimes, including genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. In this study, which has been written by descriptive-analytical method and using library resources, the results obtained are that the PROSECUTOR of the court has a duty to consider the rights of victims and defendants, examining cases in accordance with the principle of admissibility of claims, to establish a reasonable basis. N. The PROSECUTOR has the power, after conducting preliminary inquiries into the admissibility, interests of justice or the establishment of a reasonable basis for any prosecution or investigation by the Preliminary Branch of the Court, which has judicial oversight of the prosecution,Decide. The request of the PROSECUTOR together with the necessary documents in order to start the prosecution or investigation of the defendants, despite the judicial independence of the PROSECUTOR's office, will be subject to the approval of the preliminary branch. Once the request is approved, the PROSECUTOR will have the power to conduct preliminary investigations such as gathering evidence, summoning or apprehending the accused, investigating victims, witnesses and informants.

One of the principles prevailing over the mix trial systems is dominance of principle of separation of prosecution from investigation in pre-trial stage. According to this principle, investigation of all crimes lies on independent official named judge d' instruction and prosecution of the offences, after performing the pre-trial investigation lies on PROSECUTOR. In accusatory systems, all both of the prosecution and the investigation of the crimes is carried out by the PROSECUTOR. In the former systems, because of the presence of the investigator, PROSECUTOR or the other judicial ones as PROSECUTOR, restrain from intervening in investigation and by the end of investigation, the PROSECUTOR takes over the prosecution of crime in the court. Iranian legislator, although in recent developments in this field accepted the inquisitory system in pre-trial stage, but never has been bounded to the absolute separation PROSECUTOR from investigator that is determination of mix hearing system and in many times, deviated from this principle so that in criminal procedure code 1392, expanded the scope of deviation from this principle and as well as PROSECUTOR, qualified the other judicial ones for performing the pre-trial.

The unfavorable behavior of tax officials is one of the factors that cause the loss of taxpayers' trust in the tax system and consequently leads to an inefficient tax system. The present study, with a descriptive, analytical-qualitative approach, examines the necessity and manner of monitoring the tax disciplinary PROSECUTOR on the behavior of tax officials, damages, ambiguities and gaps, legal analysis of violations and liability of tax officials according to the Direct Taxes Law and the latest amendment. The results show that due to the lack of structural and normative independence of the tax disciplinary PROSECUTOR's office in a special sense, including the lack of a PROSECUTOR's office, separation of PROSECUTOR's duties from the PROSECUTOR's office and most importantly lack of financial independence and systemic dependencies. The dominance of political attitude over administrative attitude at the macro level has caused The supervision of the tax disciplinary PROSECUTOR over the tax officials for the above reasons and also the lack of sufficient research tools is not necessary and effective in combating corruption and increasing the health of the tax administrative system, which is the ultimate goal of the legislature. Legal materials of the sixth chapter of Direct Taxes Law Take place.

The precedent of the position of prosecuting attorney in Iran's criminal justice system and the assignment of a part of the PROSECUTOR's duties and powers to this institution Is in a way that makes the relationship between the PROSECUTOR and the prosecuting attorney inevitable, considering the investigative nature of Iran's criminal justice system in the preliminary investigation stage, the appropriate model of this The system type of the model Is a hierarchical relationship in which nonequivalent communication prevails. It is necessary to explain the hierarchical relationship between the PROSECUTOR and the prosecuting attorney using established concepts and components in management science to create a solid theoretical support in the design of the desired model. The present study, using the analytical-descriptive method and collecting the required information in the library method, and relying on the relationship between the PROSECUTOR and the prosecuting attorney in the criminal justice system of Iran, tries to analyze the pattern of hierarchical communication between the mentioned authorities and its pathology. The findings of the research indicate that this model, in spite of advantages such as organizational order and the coherence of the approach of observing citizen rights and equality and integrity in the implementation of the law, suffers from inefficiency and costly guidance and supervision, and insufficient attention to human ethics. And professional etiquette suffers. Despite the PROSECUTOR's guardianship over the PROSECUTOR's decisions through referral, guidance and supervision, the acceptance of the independence of the PROSECUTOR, especially in the final decision and provision leading to arrest, not only does It not contradict the model of hierarchical communication, spatial independence requires accepting the possibility of a dispute between the PROSECUTOR and the PROSECUTOR and resolving the dispute by the court. The close relationship between the PROSECUTOR and the prosecuting attorney with effective incentives to create an atmosphere of interaction between them, avoiding interference, is ineffective, successful mechanisms to reduce existing disadvantages by maintaining a hierarchical hierarchy.

One of the objectives of the trial procedures in the criminal law is observing the citizen’ s rights and freedom and providing the accused persons whit defending rights and to achieve a judgment, it looks necessary for the investigator to be independent from being chased by the PROSECUTOR, however based on the article 92 of criminal law (2013), approved in 1392, the PROSECUTOR is allowed to do the preliminary investigations; including gathering information against the accused, issuance of the accused also commenting about the accused whether he is the guilty or innocence, along with being the responsible for pursuing and performing public litigation against the accused. So the PROSECUTOR’ s authority on doing preliminary investigations sometimes looks predominant while, based on the justly trial principles, like the equality of the opponent parties, the neutrality of the judge, disowning security and freedom, it necessitates the independency of the