The principles of a fair trial, which guarantee a fair trial, cover the entire trial, including the execution of criminal sentences. The principle of judicial execution of criminal sentences, which expresses the necessity of the intervention of the judicial authority, along with broad powers in the execution of punishment and in order to make the punishment commensurate with the personality of the convicts, is one of the most important principles of fair trial at this stage. Many legislators, realizing the need for this principle in the implementation phase, have long accepted and applied its requirements. The appointment of a qualified judge to execute the verdicts, the granting of the necessary powers to him and the executive body and the possibility of appealing against his decisions are the most important requirements and requirements of the principle of judicial execution of criminal judgments. Now, although the Iranian legislature, by approving the Code of criminal Procedure in 1392, while recognizing the executive judge, has granted him powers,However, this faces serious criticisms and challenges due to the lack of conditions such as expertise and experience, lack of full judicial authority and the impossibility of appealing against his decisions. It seems that the adoption of the "Law on execution of criminal Judgments" and the creation of an independent structure of the institution for the execution of criminal judgments, along with granting the necessary authority to use correctional institutions, the right to change the sentence Get out of these challenges.

However, the punishment of imprisonment has become the main response of domestic and international arsenals,But now one of the most important challenges facing the International criminal Court is how to enforce its sentences, and especially the execution of imprisonment. according to the Statute of the Court, imprisonment is carried out through voluntary agreements with the receiving countries and in the domestic prisons of each country. Of course, the court itself has a special detention center in The Hague, where the defendants are kept until they are sentenced and transferred to the target prison. It seems that the principle of independence of the Court requires the creation of a new mechanism in the execution of its imprisonment sentences,What is more, the receiving countries, due to lack of focus, distinction in services and quality of prisons, and cultural and linguistic differences, can not fully meet the objectives of the imprisonment sentence imposed by the Court. This article, while addressing the concept, background and reasons of imprisonment and how to implement this punishment in the international penal system, with a forward-looking approach, seeks to prove the necessity of establishing an international prison. From the authorschr('39'). . .

execution of judgments is the most dangerous stage of the judicial process, which can guarantee individual and public rights. In this regard, the judge of the execution of criminal sentences entered Iran's criminal law with the aim of individualizing and deterring punishments, and, in order to implement this goal at the stage of sentence execution, along with social workers and other institutions related to the pathology and clinical examination of the convict, a definitive punishment is in force. According to his/her current character and during the time period of execution of the sentence, he/she adjusts and implements it, so that after issuing the sentence and during the appeal process, the convicted person is placed in the hands of the judge who executes the criminal sentences, and this judicial authority can in order to realize and guarantee the principle of individualization of punishments, personalization of punishments, the principle of equality of arms, the principle of the legality of crime and punishment, and the correct supervision of the execution of criminal sentences, it should play an effective role, and by having a modifiable approach, in addition to creating reconciliation at the community level, provides a suitable space for the implementation of justice and makes all people partners in the implementation of this justice. Of course, the powers of the execution authority are supervisory and executive powers, and they do not have the right to adjust and modify the punishment. Therefore, individualizing punishments can play an important role in preventing criminals from returning to crime. The legislator should also expand the authority of the judge to execute the criminal sentences and try to solve the existing legal challenges.

The bail confiscation order is a guarantee of the performance of the obligation that the bailor accepts following the issuance of a criminal security order. In Section 230 of the criminal Procedure Law, the lawmaker referred the way of implementing the bail confiscation order to the provisions of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Law. The substantive difference between the bail confiscation order and the final judgment issued by the courts makes the implementation of the bail confiscation order in accordance with the provisions of the recent law with ambiguity and delay. In this way, Section 75 of the Law on the execution of Civil Judgments in the sale of seized property, before the publication of the auction notice, foresees the notification of the theory of the property appraiser to the parties of the case and gives them the right to protest. According to Section 143 of the mentioned law, after the auction, it is mandatory to verify the validity of the auction process by the court overseeing the execution of the judgment. Considering that the last part of Section 230 and Section 537 of the criminal Procedure Code has placed the enforcement of the bail confiscation order under the responsibility of the deputy for the execution of criminal sentences and its branches, in the practice and process of the execution of the bail confiscation order.

The execution of criminal sentences is the result of the criminal investigation process and the result of all the previous efforts of law enforcement. The criminal justice system at this stage has institutions and actors that are responsible for enforcing various criminal judgments. An examination of the different legal systems shows that there are two general patterns in the structure of enforcement. In many countries, the enforcement of judgments is entrusted to the judiciary, which itself can be a subset of the executive or the judiciary. execution of sentences. However, the structure and manner of execution of judgments is based on a series of rules and regulations that are derived from the principles of fair trial. These principles, which are the result of years of human efforts to humanize criminal law, are accepted in international documents and guide lawmakers in establishing appropriate organizations and how to implement criminal judgments. One of the most important principles of fair trial related to enforcement, which has not been discussed so far, is the principle of judicial independence in the execution of criminal sentences, which has two aspects of structural and personal independence,That is, both the institution and the executive judge must be independent. But this principle faces serious challenges in Iran,Because now, on the one hand, the Deputy for execution of criminal Judgments is a subset of the Prosecutor’, s Office, and the Executing Judge is basically under the supervision of the Prosecutor, both of whom lack full independence in executing sentences, and on the other hand, the execution Judge has the power to change the sentence. The use of correctional institutions such as parole and suspension of punishment is not contrary to the principle of judicial independence and individualization of punishments. However, in other legal systems, serious steps in the field of structural and personal judicial independence in the execution of sentences The penalty has been liftedit.

Background and Aims: Providing the patients’,needed organs through the organs removal and transplantation of sentenced to death has long faced serious moral and legal challenges. Approval of Article 47 of the criminal Procedure Code in 2009 in which organs removal from sentenced to death has been allowed, provoked many objections and agreements. Some jurists have accepted it for various reasons under certain conditions. One of the most important of these conditions is the donner’, s will or consent. However, other views such as permission with the sentenced parents’,consent and absolute permission and permission with the ruler’, s authority have also been raised, which has caused problems. This study aims to assessing the jurisprudential feasibility of organs removal and transplantation from sentenced to death. Materials and methods: This article collects jurisprudential opinions and fatwas in a library manner and after stating the history of organ removal, critically examines the jurisprudential reasons of Pros and cons of organ removal from sentenced to death and also Article 47 of the criminal Procedure Code and finally expresses the accepted view. Conclusion: Analyzing the reasons of Pros and cons of organ removal from sentenced to death, it emerged that opponents of organ removal have argued for reasons such as conflict with dignity and human rights, the sanctity of mutilation and the obligation to bury corpses. But these reasons can be rejected by relying on two principles: the important and more important conflict and the rule of urgency. Although those who believe in permitting organs removal have set conditions, among them permission with the deceased's will and sentenced parents’,consent-in the absence of a will-are preferred due to compliance with human property rights and the reign of the deceased’, s parents.

The principle of judicialization of execution, which expresses the necessity of the intervention of the judicial authority, along with wide powers in the execution of the punishment and in order to make the punishment appropriate to the character of the convicts, is one of the most important principles of fair proceedings at this stage. Many legislators, realizing the necessity of this principle in the implementation phase, have accepted and applied its requirements for a long time. Appointing a qualified judge to execute judgments, granting the necessary powers to him and the enforcement body, and the possibility of protesting his decisions, are the most important requirements and requirements of the principle of judicialization of the execution of criminal judgments. Now, while recognizing the execution judge, he has granted him powers; However, this is facing serious criticisms and challenges due to the non-determination of conditions such as expertise and experience, non-granting of full judicial powers and the impossibility of protesting his decisions. It seems that the approval of the "Law on the execution of criminal sentences" and the creation of an independent structure of the institution of the execution of criminal judgments along with the granting of the necessary powers in the field of the use of correctional institutions, the right to change the punishment and the recognition of the decisions of the execution judge as objectionable in a higher authority, seem to be the solution.

Insanity of accused is one of the problems which may happen In the process of criminal procedure. As insanity removing criminal responsibility and the insane person has no comprehension of what he/she has been committed, this issue is truly important and Depending on which phase that accused become mad and insane, judicial decision would be different, it may be amount to writ of order of prosecution, stay order or even enforcement of sentence and etc….Although it seems the articles related to definition of insane, enforcement of Hudoud and Qesas against insane person have some difficulties. Following this, to illustrate more the subject-matter, concerned articles in Islamic Penal code Bill would be analyzed.

Credit of foreign court sentences means a sentence issued by foreign courts including (international and domestic courts of countries) against public crimes with the credit of universal jurisdiction based on the positive conflict of jurisdiction whether according to conviction or acquittal. If universal jurisdiction is concerned about a crime, even though that crime have a punishment (Moharebeh or corruption on earth), our country`s courts do not have the right to address the issue again. However, when an Iranian who has committed a universal crime while was investigated and punished by a foreign court, if this person is found in Iran, with respect to personal jurisdiction, Iranian courts can investigate him. Also, a person with a universal crime can escape punishment by relying on his ignorance of some crimes or his ignorance of the subject. It seems that, in the case of acceptance of non-validity of Iranian's courts about universal jurisdiction if the committed crime has been subject to punishment and the person has withstood the sentence outside Iran, and that sentence is not compatible with Shriah concepts such as lack of forgetting punishments, but with respect to international interest, this problem can be solved by depending on alternative sentences.