نشریه آموزه های حقوق کیفری
پیاپی 13 (بهار و تابستان 1396)

As one of the criminal justice organizations with the goal to reduce drug trafficking, Police have interventions to increase the cost of drugs and the amount of drug seizures to create obstacles in the process of drug trafficking. These interventions cause the
unintended consequences which have not been paid attention in the codification of programs. The question of the present paper is to study the quiddity of The unintended consequences of police controls over drug markets and the degree of their importance for determining the amount of the effectiveness of these programs. For response to this
research question, it is used the qualitative methods and specially in-depth interview with 68 drug dealer and drug users in drug trafficking (27 drug dealers and 41 drug users) and 20 residents in the drug trafficking neighborhood (Darvaze Ghar and Shoosh neighborhoods). Findings indicate that the policing strategies in controlling drug trafficking cause the drug users commit the different offences to provide their (addictive) drug. Also, the Police Interventions because of non-observance of the interventions to
reduce damages cause the health damages and even the death of drug users.

Assistant professor at Payam Noor University he right of the defendant’s awareness of the exculpatory evidence in the hand of the prosecutor is of requisites for fair trial. The prosecutor’s duty is to reveal the exculpatory evidence in his hand to the defendant. For the first time, the simple pattern of the Supreme Court of the United States indicating the recognition of this right and its importance to some extent that the non-disclosure of the exculpatory evidence leads to exonerate or tend to exonerate the defendant of guilt (the non-disclosure of the exculpatory evidence goes towards negating a defendant’s guilt). But at international level, the collection and disclosure of the exculpatory evidence in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) is permitted to a certain degree that it does not establish obstacles in the
collaboration of the data sources of this evidence with the prosecutor. From this view, the secrecy of the sources of the exculpatory evidence is located at the first stage and the accused’s rights at second stage. But this condition has been promoted in the International Criminal Court (ICC or ICCT) to a great extent. The prosecutor is required to
disclose the exculpatory evidences to the accused. Even though the other contradictory obligations are accepted in this ground, according to it, the secondary duties do not reduce the prosecutor’s responsibility for the disclosure of the exculpatory evidence.