نوع مقاله : پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 استاد گروه حقوق عمومی، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق جزا و جرم‌شناسی، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
3 پژوهشگر پژوهشکدۀ قوۀ قضائیه، تهران، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
The point of departure for the law and the sign of adherence to the rule of law is the existence of a constitution in any country. In the legal system of Iran, the safeguarding of the constitution is enforced by the Guardian Council and the Judiciary. Nevertheless, the Guardian Council seems not to be fully in line with the principles of fair trial enshrined in the constitution. Because by reviewing the legal and fundamental principles of the Code of Criminal Procedure, approved in 2013, one may easily realise that some of the provisions of this law are in conflict with the principles of fair trial enshrined in the constitution. Accordingly, it seems necessary to analyze the existing conflicts as well as to examine the possibility for court judges to invoke the constitution, as well as the non-implementation of legal articles contrary to the principles of the constitution. The present study uses a descriptive-analytical method to measure the compliance of ordinary laws related to the principles of superior proceedings and in case of changes and non-compliance, to describe the guarantee of implementation of these discrepancies. The results indicate that the Code of Criminal Procedure, passed in 2013, despite the great progress made in observing the principles of fair trial enshrined in the constitution, in cases related to the right to appoint a lawyer and the publicity of dealing with political and press crimes, the principles related to the separation of powers and other cases, still contain sentences contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
فارسی
انگلیسی
)