Private Law
Abdolvahid Zahedi; samira sargezi
Abstract
Abstract In the current legal system, despite the fact that for many years has been found the importance of procedure of proceedings to be in the strict sense of the law; But the legislator has not yet accepted that these two types of law have the same significance. On the basis of this refusal, Violations ...
Read More
Abstract In the current legal system, despite the fact that for many years has been found the importance of procedure of proceedings to be in the strict sense of the law; But the legislator has not yet accepted that these two types of law have the same significance. On the basis of this refusal, Violations of the substantive rights always invalidate the verdict of the court, but violations of the procedural rights invalidate the verdict of the court when they are of such importance as to invalidate the vote. But there is a question, what are these high-ranking ceremonies? can be used Various criteria to identify these principles. However, the criterion of effective criminal procedure is more consistent with the current law and the former laws, while the criterion of the basic principles of the proceedings is more in line with the objectives of the criminal procedure.Key words: Principles of procedure, procedural procedures, Principles with high degree of importance, effective criminal procedure
Abdolvahid Zahedi; Nasrin Mehra
Abstract
Being guilty in criminal law is one aspect of criminal proceeding and being prosecuted and punished is another one. In fact, it is on the basis of procedural rules that crime is proved and the offender is sentenced and punished. What is of significant importance in proving the crime and culpability ...
Read More
Being guilty in criminal law is one aspect of criminal proceeding and being prosecuted and punished is another one. In fact, it is on the basis of procedural rules that crime is proved and the offender is sentenced and punished. What is of significant importance in proving the crime and culpability of the accused is 'burden of proof of the crime and the presented defenses' in criminal trial. The burden of proof is the answer to the question that which person or authority should prove his claim in criminal trial. What is discussed in here is not the existence of proof but the important is the responsibility and duty to prove it. Should the prosecution undertake the burden of proving his claim, in case of not succeeding in it, the defendant will be acquitted. Conversely, if it is the defendant who should bear the burden of proving his claim, in case of failure to provide adequate and appropriate proof, he will be sentenced. Obviously, the outcome of trial is in close connection with placing the burden of proof upon the defendant or the prosecution. The general rule in criminal prosecution puts the burden of proof of constituting elements of crime on the prosecution. Iranian Constitution considering this important matter has allocated its Article 37 to the 'presumption of innocence' which says: "Innocence is the basic principle. No person is considered legaly guilty, except in cases where his guilt is established in a competent court" and thus the defendant is exempt from proving his innocence. But in respect of the defenses including justifications and excuses, it's the defendant who claims existence of them during the commitment of crime. The question raised here is that in spite of the presumption of innocence, is the burden of proof of the existence of justifications and excuses on the defendant? or is it the duty of the prosecution, as the public authority of prosecution, to prove all elements of crime and absence of all impediments to prosecution and punishment? This question becomes even more important when the new approach of criminal law considering crimes such as economical crimes and security crimes, moves toward limiting the presumption of innocence and wastage of suspected persons rights.
