Criminal Law
Mohammad Hadi Zakerhossein
Abstract
The International Criminal Court is unable to prosecute all international crimes that fall within its jurisdiction. The situation selection falls within the Prosecutor’s discretion that is done by conducting a preliminary examination. In this filtering process, three factors are taken into account, ...
Read More
The International Criminal Court is unable to prosecute all international crimes that fall within its jurisdiction. The situation selection falls within the Prosecutor’s discretion that is done by conducting a preliminary examination. In this filtering process, three factors are taken into account, namely jurisdiction, admissibility and the interests of justice. Nevertheless, the Prosecutor prefers to extend its discretion behind the preliminary examination stage. Accordingly, the Prosecutor selects a situation not only to initiate an investigation upon conducing a preliminary examination but also to open a preliminary examination in itself. This article argues that the Prosecutor’s discretion to open a preliminary examination is limited to consider the jurisdiction requirement in a narrow manner, namely to exclude those crimes that are manifestly outside of the Court’s jurisdiction. Due to the role of preliminary examinations in combating the culture of impunity, the Prosecutor shall not adopt a conservative approach to open a preliminary examination.
International Law
Mahnaz Rashidi
Abstract
US action in the assassination of senior Iranian and Iraqi military officials, including the martyred General Soleimani and Abu Mahdi Al-Mohandis, is a clear example of State terrorism and violates the most important rules of international law, including the right to life, prohibition of the use of the ...
Read More
US action in the assassination of senior Iranian and Iraqi military officials, including the martyred General Soleimani and Abu Mahdi Al-Mohandis, is a clear example of State terrorism and violates the most important rules of international law, including the right to life, prohibition of the use of the force, respect for the sovereignty of the States and the principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs of other countries. Trump administration has also violated US domestic law by failing to comply with the Senate. One of the harsh revenge measures emphasized by the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution can be a victory in the legal war and litigation in the courts. So, the main question in this article is, what is the legal basis for pursuing this case? The result of the descriptive-analytical study of the authors, by using the case study and utilizing library resources, shows that the most effective legal mechanisms are litigation before the international court of Justice (ICJ) under the Convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against internationally protected persons, including diplomatic agents (1973), as well as trying to establish a hybrid court, in particular by agreeing with UN General Assembly or organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). However, these measures require consideration of political and legal consequences of each method and before that, the Iraqi authorities' political will to cooperate with international organizations is the main condition for any action
Criminal Law
Ali Rahmati; Hossein M. M. Sadeghi
Abstract
According to reports from international institutions and organizations, including Human Rights Watch, High Commissioner for Human Rights and Amnesty International, Myanmar Muslims, and in particular the ethnic and religious minority of Rohingya Muslims, have been pursuing discriminatory policies and ...
Read More
According to reports from international institutions and organizations, including Human Rights Watch, High Commissioner for Human Rights and Amnesty International, Myanmar Muslims, and in particular the ethnic and religious minority of Rohingya Muslims, have been pursuing discriminatory policies and the criminal acts of the Myanmar government and its Buddhist residents since decades. Meanwhile, the recent human tragedy and the terrible crimes committed against the Rohingya Muslims, which have been accompanied by the government of Myanmar and the military regime of the country, have more and more been faced with the response of the international community. Given the correspondence of these crimes with actus reus and mens rea of the crime of genocide and crimes against humanity, prosecution of those perpetrators at both national and international levels is debatable. At the national level, the Myanmar Courts, based on two principles of territorial jurisdiction and nationality jurisdiction and third countries courts based on the universality principle (Subject to the identification of such a principle in their internal laws) may interfere. More importantly, the mechanisms available at the international level include the referral of the status to the International Criminal Court or the formation of the Particular International Criminal Court by the United Nations Security Council. In addition, there is also an intermediary mechanism, which is a hybrid or internationalized court that can be formed on the basis of an agreement between the Government of Myanmar and the Security Council. In this paper, the pros and cons of each of these courts is reviewed in order to handling of recent crimes committed in Myanmar.
Criminal Law
Ataollah Roudgar kouhpar; behzad Razavii fard
Abstract
Ataollah RudgarAbstract:Combating crime, denying the offenders of proceeds and incomes, compensating for damages and restoring criminal assets to the legitimate owner, requires close cooperation between countries. Meanwhile, there are numerous political, economic, social, legal and even technical factors ...
Read More
Ataollah RudgarAbstract:Combating crime, denying the offenders of proceeds and incomes, compensating for damages and restoring criminal assets to the legitimate owner, requires close cooperation between countries. Meanwhile, there are numerous political, economic, social, legal and even technical factors that prevent them from achieving these goals. But the importance of co-operation between countries and the need to confront crime offenders and international obligations of countries requires that these factors do not prevent cooperation. In this regard, countries, with due regard to the necessity of the matter and in accordance with the recommendations of international instruments, in order to motivate for active participation of States and organizations in the process of prosecution and cooperation for the seizure and extradition of property derived from crime, by ratification Internal laws, the establishment of bilateral and case agreements, and practical procedures created new rules ,named »fair sharing of property and proceeds from crime«. To each of them, in proportion to their participation in the operation, they split a percentage of the confiscated property, which has been effective in practice as a new strategy for cooperation between countries, and so far billions of dollars in cash and property and proceeds which are driven from the crime, Had been taken from the offender of the offense and was returned to the legitimate owners or shared between the parties who have collaborated, which has also been very effective in countering offenses, in particular the prevention of corruption in the governorates.
