In the development of international relations, recognition and implementation of verdicts issued bay foreign courts is necessary. Of course, this does not mean that countries are required to recognize and enforce the unconditional requirements of foreign judgments, but that the objective is to allow foreign civilian sentences to be enforced with due observance of the law, thus addressing the issue of identifying and validating the rights of those who are being watched and the way to Further development of private international law. In this paper, two different perspectives on the recognition and enforcement of sentences issued by Iran's courts in foreign countries, which include awareness of how to identify and enforce Iranian sentences from abroad, which are more in the framework of civil and private international law of foreign countries and the recognition and enforcing foreign judgments in Iran, which, in principle, apart from the civil and civil law principles of international law, which is in the framework of civil and private international law of Iran, will be examined.

In the Code of Criminal Procedure adopted in 1392 in the field of execution of sentences and in the discussion of respect for the rights of convicts and convicts and supervision of prisoners, useful measures have been taken. The purpose of criminal proceedings is to achieve the realization of the crime and its attribution and the realization of the criminal responsibility of the accused and the punishment or security and educational measures for the convict to be implemented in a timely manner so that no criminal remains unpunished and unreformed in society. execution of the sentence, lack of access to the residence and residence of the convicted person, failure to introduce the convicted person to execute the sentence by the guarantor or guarantor, imprisonment of the convicted person, or obstacles of judicial origin can be mentioned as lack of supervision over the lawsuit and notice The judge also sentenced corporal punishment, including life imprisonment and corporal punishment for amputation and flogging, or negative punishment and restriction of liberty, rights and dignity, including imprisonment, deportation and deprivation of residence in the border strip and expulsion or expulsion from the country. Compulsory residence in a certain place or financial punishment, including blood money, fines, confiscation, confiscation and destruction of property, is supervised, and the case will not be closed until the sentence is carried out.

One of the topics of private international law, which is constantly increasing in importance due to the development of political and economic relations between countries at the international level, is the need to identify and enforce judgments issued by foreign courts. The Hague Conference on Private International Law has adopted The Hague Convention 2019 to standardize the rules governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. In Iranian law, the conditions for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments are stated in the Civil judgments execution Law. However, harmonizing the rules on the issue with international standards can promote effective access to justice, trade facilitation, and cross-border investment. Therefore, the present study aims to investigate the possibility, necessity, and effects of the adoption of the 2019 Hague Convention judgments in Iranian law, considering the similarities and differences between the two in terms of territory, conditions, and obstacles to identifying and enforcing foreign judgments. By combining the two, take a step towards the legal development of the country. Studies have shown that the flexibility of the rules and regulations of the Convention has facilitated Iran's accession to the Convention, and the political and economic effects of accession to the Convention have necessitated its ratification in Iran. There are many similarities between the two in terms of conditions and aspects of refusing to recognize and enforce foreign judgments.

Abstract: A judgment issued by a foreign country has been recognized and enforced if originating court has jurisdiction for hear the matter. This jurisdiction has been evaluated on the base of rules of addressed country. The key question is what are the criteria for accepting the jurisdiction of a foreign court at the voting stage? Some countries have jurisdiction over a foreign court, such as a domestic court. Others, by limiting the scope of jurisdiction of a foreign court, accept the jurisdiction of a foreign court only on the basis of strict criteria.. In Iranian law, only the exclusive jurisdiction of the Iranian court is considered as an impediment for recognition of foreign judgments. The need to meet the legitimate expectations of private individuals and to provide predictability in cross-border relations requires that the jurisdiction of a foreign court be defined as in the 2019 Hague Convention and that litigants be assured of the condition of recognition in other countries before the trial begins. The lack of uniform jurisdiction rules among countries to recognize foreign court judgments undermines the efficiency and usefulness of international litigation and makes it impossible for free movement of judgments between countries. The need to meet the legitimate expectations of private individuals and to create predictability in cross-border relations requires that cases of jurisdiction of a foreign court be specified and that litigants ensure that this condition is met in other countries before a trial can begin.

According to clause 2 of article 115 of the Islamic penal code adopted in 2013, if a person commits a crime abroad, those laws that stipulate sentences for Tazir offences, they should be just as responsible for the crime as if they committed it in their sponsor nation and under Iran's Islamic penal code, he may be prosecuted, tried and punished for their crimes even if he is sentenced to be punished on that country. Specific punishments has been prescribed in Islamic law for a discretionary punishments such as male homosexuality (article 237 of the Islamic penal code), admitting to adultery (article 232 of the Islamic penal code) if a man or woman confesses to adultery less than four times. Clause 2 of article 115 of the judgment is contrary to the prohibition against double punishment and needed to be interpreted cautiously. If an Iranian person who is non-Muslim commits a crime outside of Iran which is considered to be as Ta’azirat penalties on that country he shall not be sentenced to Ta’zirat punishment if he has borne the punishment. Similarly, if a person who aids and abets in a discretionary crime outside of Iran, he shall not be sentenced to Ta’zirat punishment if he has borne the punishment on that country.

Background and Aim: Arbitration is one of the ways to resolve disputes between individuals that is considered by many businessmen today, especially in business and contracts, and has many applications in the season of hostility. In this article, we aim to identify and enforce commercial arbitration awards in Iran and in the 1958 New York Convention. Materials and Methods: The present article is a descriptiveanalytical method and research tool, taking notes from library resources. Ethical considerations: In all stages of writing the article, the principles of honesty and trustworthiness have been observed. Results: The findings indicate that considering that this type of proceedings, firstly: due to the specialized aspect, secondly due to the elimination of many bureaucracies and special court procedures, thirdly due to the low cost and fifthly due to the short process of proceedings Based on the International Commercial Arbitration Law and the New York Convention, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Iran is prescribed. Conclusion: The end of judgment is its execution, and without execution it is futile. The New York Convention is the most important and common international instrument for enforcing foreign arbitral awards. Due to the accession of most countries to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of foreign Arbitration, foreign arbitration is currently practiced in the countries covered by this convention. Considering the elimination of various stages and speed in arbitration, it is necessary to implement foreign arbitral awards in Iran.

execution of the sentence is the last step in a trial process in which the result of the verdict will be realized for the convict. In other words, all other steps will be ineffective if the execution step is not carried out well. The purpose of the present study is to examine the rights and obligations of third parties in the execution of sentences. The third party refers to all natural or legal persons who do not have the title of plaintiff and defendant in the main petition. A third party may intervene before the conclusion of the proceedings in the initial or appellate stage if he or she has an independent right or considers himself or herself a beneficiary in the right of one of the main litigants. But one of the stages in which the third party has rights and obligations is the stage of execution of judgments in civil proceedings as well as the Court of Administrative Justice. In general, the purpose of third party intervention in the civil proceedings, especially in the enforcement phase, is the realization of third party rights, with the difference that the time of third party intervention, either as voluntary intervention (entry, protest) or forced intervention (arrest), is different. And also the conditions of its design will be different according to its type according to the Code of Civil Procedure and the Law of Organization and Procedure of the Court of Administrative Justice.

Background: Identifying and enforcing the rulings and judgments on family lawsuits is so significant due to the relationship of many of them with public order and good domestic morality. Judges should regard factors such as the nationality of each of the litigants, their marital relationship, or their parental relationship in dealing with rulings in family litigation, in addition to applying a limited control system; this issue has been challenging in some cases; therefore, it is required to eliminate the ambiguity of the current laws and increase the judges' level of awareness on how to deal with such rulings and judgments. Consequently, this study was conducted in order to examine the social and moral requisites of the legal system to enforce family lawsuits. Conclusion: Elements such as citizenship, marital residence, marital and parental relationship, and religion of the litigants play a significant role in identifying and enforcing family rulings in addition to the conditions specified in the Civil Code and laws related to the Civil Judgment Enforcement. Analyzes show that the legislature has caused significant ambiguities in this respect by delegating the enforcement of these rulings to the general enforcement of civil rulings, as well as the requirement for the judiciary to examine conflict resolution rules. Notwithstanding, the Family Protection Law of 2011, has examined only a very small dimension of the identification and implementation of these sentences only for the crime committed by the registrar without the presence of enforceable sentences.

In April 20, 2016 the Supreme Court of the United States confirmed the execution of the US Courts judgments in Case of Peterson et al against assets of the Central Bank of Iran. The Supreme Court held that the execution of judgments against assets of the Central Bank is not in contradiction with the Principle of Separation of Powers set out in the US Constitution. This judgment which reflects the position of the highest court in the United States with respect to the immunity of Central banks and its property would affect the judgments of inferior courts in the United States. Up until 2012 the Central Bank of Iran and its property was immune under American Law. In thatyear, the US Congress adopted Iran Threat Reduction and Syrian Human Rights Act by which the assets of Central Bank of Iran were blocked and allowed the American judgment creditors to enforce the judgments against the Government of Iran from assets of Central Bank of Iran. The measure of Congress in adoption of the Act and consequently the execution of judgments against assets of Central Bank of Iran are without merit. Under Customary International Law, Central Banks and their properties are having immunity and the properties cannot be subject to the execution of judgments which are issued against States.

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.