The distinction between Procedural legal principles and Procedural Rules and techniques is one of the famous arguments in Iranian law. The argument may be astonishing for lawyers of different background. It comes from some statutory provisions authorizing the court to ignore the Procedural Rules in reviewing the case but at the same time to comply strictly with the Procedural principles. In this essay, after introducing of the concepts of both Rules and principles of Procedural law, the idea of distinction between them is examined in terms of possibility or otherwise feasibility of simultaneous withdrawal of Rules and compliance with principles.

It is well known that the Procedural Rules should be interpreted narrowly. This idea has its own foundations, most important of which is the maintenance of order, but the question is whether these Rules can be interpreted in the light of certain goals? There are approaches based on which the Procedural Rules can be interpreted on specific purposes and goals. Such an approach is not alien for different legal systems, even it is legal dynamics and agility of justice requirement. The philosophers of law, through the relationship of Procedural Rules to fundamental rights, society and, in general, connecting individuals to states through these Rules, have set goals for such an interpretation, such as the accuracy of the results, Utilitarianism, efficiency and Procedural rights.

The concept of Procedural Rules apparently is obvious, but, you can say, features of Procedural Rules not analyzed properly. Indeed, the nature of these Rules is questioned. Bentham as one of very old philosophers has defined the concept of Procedural Rules. In his view, Procedural Rules are the means of enforcing substantive Rules. Procedural Rules in goals, features, and functions are different from the substantive Rules. These Rules are the means of applying sovereignty, serving Procedural rights. They are voluntary, supremacy on substantive Rules, and technical concepts. With special ways they are harmonized between personal rights and sovereignty, and do order between people themselves as well as people with sovereignty.

Most legal commentaries consider the rule of 'prompt application of new law' as an exception to the traditional doctrine of 'law is prospective and not retroactive' with regards to the Procedural Rules and conclude that any new Procedural law has the retroactive effect. The Iranian Supreme Court opted the same view in its unifying judgment No. 743. However, the prompt application of new law is a part of the rule of 'law is prospective and not retroactive' (as formulated in article 4 of Iranian Civil Code) and cannot be considered as an exception to the latter accordingly. The distinction between the two parts of the rule is to be taken into account: i) law is prospective which refers to the prompt application of new law on all situations of the same nature and ii) law is not retroactive which means the new law would not govern the past legal relations. These topics are mainly discussed in a branch of law called 'transitional law' (Droit Transitoire). In this article the unifying judgment No. 743 of Supreme Court is commented from the view point of transitional law having a view on French legal system for the purpose of comparison.

Corporate group is collection of companies which have shareholding relations with each other and conduct business under the management of a company which is named the parent company. In this relation, owning the most of the shares of the subsidiary company by the parent company results an impressive influence of the latter company on the controlled company and can affect different legal substantive and Procedural areas like the responsibility and jurisdiction, in the case of the activities of the group in different legal systems. The question of this article is determining the defendant in the case of occurring damage to the third parties by the subsidiary company. And in the case of dispersing the activities in different jurisdictions, which court is competent? The Authors via a comparative study conclude that the parent company in spite of it's separate legal personality and it's limited liability as the shareholder of the subsidiary company, could be liable id if breaches it’s duty of care. In addition, proving the jurisdiction to one of the defendants in a corporate group can results the proving of the jurisdiction to other members of the group and the competency of the court for suing all of them, an argument which is mostly based on the doctrine of single economic enterprise in different legal systems.

Procedural principles and Rules of procedure along with formalities of procedure are contents of Civil procedure. Procedural principles which create the Rules cause the basis of just proceeding. These Rules provide preparations of observing principles. Neutrality of judge is one of the explained principles of public aspect of civil procedure and has a different meaning from principle of independence of judge, and causes some Rules toward making the proceeding justly. The aim of this research is to get an understanding of neutrality of judge and monopolizing the Rules resulted from it. The question is that what Rules this principle causes in civil procedure. For answering this question, we should, at first, come to a proper understanding of the meaning and base of neutrality. In this regard, attempts have been done to restrain the Rules issued from this principle through analyzing regulations and can be said as a result that neutrality of judge causes equal treatment with parties, public proceeding, justification of judgment and prevents judges from taking evidence. These Rules guarantee the neutrality of judge during the trial and are course of the judge's actions during proceeding. Due to the necessity of efficiency of proceeding instead of fact-finding and termination of quarrel, judge actively cooperates with the parties with respect to a certain outline during the process of trial, but he is prevented from taking evidence to be neutral. In the same vein, legislatore has predicted requirements of equal treatment with parties in regulations. The basis of public proceeding is preservation of impatiality of judge by means of supervising the treatment and decisions of the judge. To cause the neutrality of judge be seen in his decision, his decision must be justified by means of documentation and reasoning, to be accepted as a judiciary decision of judge not a private decision.

Witness testimony is a key tool in criminal systems to uncover the truth and achieve justice. In the Iranian criminal system, testimony is based on religious requirements such as justice, reason, maturity and a certain number of witnesses and is rooted in Islamic jurisprudence. This system, by emphasizing honesty and transparency, seeks to reduce false testimony. Strict religious requirements increase the accuracy of the trial process, but may sometimes slow down the proceedings or create administrative complications. In contrast, the French criminal system has adopted a pragmatic approach that is based on the judge's free assessment and does not consider strict religious or moral requirements mandatory. This flexibility can speed up the proceedings, but it carries the risk of accepting unreliable testimony or the influence of external factors such as human error. Comparative analysis shows that the Iranian system, by focusing on religious requirements, reduces the possibility of errors in testimony, but may affect the efficiency of the process due to complex requirements. In contrast, the French system, by facilitating the acceptance of testimony, enhances efficiency, but carries the risk of reducing accuracy. This research suggests that a balanced combination of the Islamic rigor of the Iranian system and the flexibility of the French system can help improve the trial process. Such a combination can increase the efficiency and speed of proceedings while maintaining honesty and transparency and help achieve criminal justice.

The purpose of this study was to contently analyze the training textbooks used in teacher training centers based on declarative and Procedural knowledge. This research was of a content analysis type and quantitative content analysis method was used, here. All training courses used in teacher training centers were chosen as the statistical population. The sample and the population were equal in terms of the number. Data, then, was analyzed by means of descriptive statistics as percentage, frequency, and chi- square. The findings showed that general psychology book has the highest level of declarative knowledge and the least amount of Procedural knowledge; whereas, mathematics teaching book has the highest level of Procedural knowledge and the least amount of declarative knowledge.