Reduction of cases by resolving disputes: Revival of third stage proceeding (Paradox or Reality)

During more than seventy years, trials in Iran's legal and criminal tribunals have been conducted in three stages. In the first and second stages, i.e. the initial stage and the research, factual proceeding (investigation of facts and the actual events of the claim) and lawful proceeding (based on the substantive and procedural laws) are coincide, but in the third stage i.e. appeal in the supreme court, only the lawful proceeding (supervisory review of compliance procedural Laws, or observance of substantial laws), have been in accordance with the Supreme Court's duty of supervising the good application of the laws. But since 1993, when a three-stage hearing has given place to general two-stage proceedings, verdicts issued in criminal and legal cases has generally been finalized after the review stage and, unlike the constitution and without the statutory and lawful supervision of the Supreme Court (on account of complying with the procedural and substantial laws and regulations) have come into force. Hence, the general revival of the third stage, i.e. the public access of the parties to the Supreme Court's oversight over the verdicts issued in the review stage, can both encourage and persuade judges to proceed more closely with the observance of the rules, and moreover with Opening the way to the final review of the court for the protest party, as a result of resolving the disputes will lead to resolving hostilities and consequently preventing the multiple layout of claims and notable reduction of cases.