One of the problems, which are studied in Islamic Jurisprudence and has obtained many disputations on it is the problem of SILENCE of DEFENDANT. Whenever a person sets forth a claim to a judge the judge requests the DEFENDANT to state his or her opinion about the claim. If the DEFENDANT replies to the request, he either denies the claim or accepts it. So there would be two react each of which has its own litigation. But there is another supposition; the DEFENDANT may by silent; He may neither deny nor accept the claim. What the judge can do in such a situation? Here in this article the question at hand will be studied upon the principles of Islamic Jurisprudence. Therefore first we will explain the question, and then we will study the Jurist's deferent answers to the question. Finally we will come to our solution to the problem

The present research studied the (causal, contextual, and intervening) conditions, strategies, and consequences of violence in the lives of child wives in Chabahar city, conducted with a qualitative methodology based on grounded theory. For this purpose, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 28 child-married girls in Chabahar city who were selected through theoretical sampling and snowball method. The analysis of the data in the framework of the three-level open, axial and selective coding system showed that gendered inequality and discrimination, women's inferiority, men's value, the culture of SILENCE and the culture of violence play a role in the experience of child-wives in terms of violence (causal conditions), which leads to a type of increased, double violence for them (core category); violence that operates within the framework of the family institution, the main mechanism of which are previous traditions and rules, and the perpetrators of which are men and women who were themselves the victims of the same traditions and rules that they have, now, internalized and used again against their daughters. This increased violence happens in a context where patriarchy is widespread (contextual conditions) and due to the generalized self-deprecation among child wives (intervening conditions), they may attempt to escape, get separated, threaten, and commit suicide (strategies), and these actions have consequences such as symbolic, physical, and sexual violence and even social isolation (consequences).

Intering technology, made some challenges in all areas of the justice system. One of these challenges is a remote procedure that can be used in areas such as remote testify, remote DEFENDANT and … In this paper, recent field survey approach doctrins of common law, Fegh and iranian law have been considered. reducing costs and expedition of process is the result of internig technology that is in front of these principles of proceeding. This paper particularly with regard to exposure confrontation clause is important in the area of virtual proceedings or in other areas.

DEFENDANT can use the whole of defense styles to defend versus claim of plaintiff. After issuance of the ultimate judgment in favor of the plaintiff, DEFENDANT cannot allege new action according to Supreme Court decision as a unified judicial precedent, number 3746 in Octpber 26, 1959, to escape judgment consequences. In case of issuance of ultimate judgment in respect to correlated actions, hearing or other collated claim includes res judicata. Regarding that judgment consists of different materials, overgeneralization is not correct about whether justified reasons of judgment have res judicata or not. Matters of law and evidence of the parties don’ t have res judicata, but cause of action of plaintiff has res judicata whether judgment issued in his favor or in his loss. It is not possible to bring the action for annulment of document to juridical act (cause of former action) which official document is regulated according to that. However, it is possible to bring the action for annulment of document for the registered deed itself to judicial act because of not having res judicata.

One of the controversial issues regarding the jurisdiction of the administrative court of justice is to clarify the institutions under its jurisdiction. From the beginning of this court’s formation, there have been posited two approaches in this regard: first: restriction of the DEFENDANT to the executive power, and second: inclusiveness of the court’s jurisdiction to all of the institutions with the public power. This article while explaining the concept of government in the administrative claims, strengthens the latter approach as the desirable one. This study with a descriptive-analytical method and scrutiny on law and judicial precedent indicates that the first approach isn’t accepted by law and judicial precedent with the emphasis on the theory regarding the nature of administrative-executive actions of the institutions having public power. The approach of inclusiveness, not completely, but with some exceptions is also accepted by law. Although the DEFENDANT isn’t restricted to the executive power from the perspective of judicial precedent, but this viewpoint is also far from the second approach and all the institutions having public power aren’t under the jurisdiction of the court.

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.

AbstractIn the Civil Procedure Act, procedural defence set forth by the DEFENDANT regarding the deed relied upon by the claimant is raised in the form of denial, doubt or claim of forgery and it is silent in relation to other possible objections raised by the DEFENDANT, including rejection of a deed relied upon, SILENCE and the use of the phrase "I don't know" concerning the person to whom the deed is attributed. Canadian arbitrators have ordered online hearings over the opposing party’s objection. While in Imami jurisprudence, SILENCE and rejection, as well as "I don’t know", are mentioned as responses of the DEFENDANT to the claim of the plaintiff, along with the other responses of the DEFENDANT, i. e. confession and denial. This research aims to find the answer to the question that the DEFENDANT's use of the phrase "I don’t know" against a deed that is relied upon is compatible with which of his possible answers, i. e. denial, doubt, SILENCE or rejection of authenticity of a deed. The findings of this research, which were obtained with a descriptive analytical method and a comparative approach in Iranian law and Imami jurisprudence, indicate that the imami jurists, firstly, did not address the DEFENDANT's response in relation to the document in question,rather, they examined it concerning the claim brought against the DEFENDANT. Secondly, they did not mention any response from the DEFENDANT under the title of doubt, and they categorized the DEFENDANT's responses as confession, SILENCE, denial, and also what is considered to fall under denial. Meanwhile, the legislator has included the DEFENDANT's response in formal defense to consist of expressions of denial, doubt, or allegations of forgery, along with SILENCE. In cases of denial, doubt, or allegations of forgery, the court orders an examination of the authenticity of the document. In case of SILENCE, however, the default assumption is the validity of the submitted documents, and there is typically no evidence or reason to investigate the authenticity of the document. Almost all jurists have not included expressions of doubt among the responses of the DEFENDANT, considering the expression of denial sufficient to reject the claimant's request and viewing the response "I don't know" as a type of denial. On the other hand, Formal and substantive defenses regarding the submitted document do not align with the rule of "I don't know, " and one cannot, solely based on a declaration of unawareness and lack of knowledge regarding the existence or content of the submitted document, derive any effect from it. However, if the court encounters such a situation and the DEFENDANT is present, it should clarify the perceived formal objections and guide the DEFENDANT to express their intentions clearly.

In some point of view, neither Michel Foucault nor Ibn Khaldun are considered philosophers in the conventional classifications, but both are very  important in intellectual and, of course, in philosophical contexts, especially for those who are interested in the deep study of human life from the perspective of political thought.The main concern of two thinkers, one in the 14th century, the other in the 20th century, is the issue  of power, although neither of them provided a precise definition of it. In this article, an attempt has been made to show the place of power and domination in the political thought of both thinkers by examining the thoughts of two thinkers. And in search of an answer to this question, how did Asabiyyah and industry of religion in Ibn Khaldun's thought and social control through self-technology and discipline in Foucault's thought lead to the expansion of the domination of power? This article is written by analytically comparing the opinions of two thinkers based on Ibn Khaldun's most important book called Muqaddimah and Foucault's late works

One of the most interesting topics in Islamic and Western Philosophy is to determine the boundaries and limits of reason in knowing the real world. Following the existential limits of reason in knowing the reality, we come to its limits in announcing and asserting the facts. In this article, by appealing to the authorized criterions, I try to show both the cognitive and the assertive limits of reason and, thus, to determine the realm of necessary SILENCE of reason about the objects of the world. However, the realm and object of necessary SILENCE of reason is attainable to rational speech in a specific way. The structure of the reason and the special character of the objects allow that rational speech and rational SILENCE come together without causing contradiction.