Examining the Legislator's Differential Approach to Amendment of Verdicts; Jurisprudential Requirements or Expedition of Criminal Processes

The right to a fair trial is one of the human rights requirements. Accordingly, individuals can claim this right from the government. Fair trials have known principles like proceeding a trial within a reasonable time without unjustified delays. Particularly, handling within the fastest time, with the necessary and sufficient accuracy. It is also known as speeding up the criminal process. Simply, the foundations of this right must be identified. Since most of our country’s laws are derived from Imami jurisprudence; thus, the issue is pursued by analyzing jurisprudential principles of expediting criminal processes via considering the Imami jurists’ view regarding rights to appeal. The question is whether accepting the certainty of opinions in Imami jurisprudence is to expedite criminal processes or this view is solely based on jurisprudential principles and the need to obey the judge's decision? This article has examined the need to expedite criminal processes while expressing the jurisprudential principles of certainty or the ability to revise opinions, specifically in the Imami jurisprudence in a descriptive-analytical manner and by using library resources. The results indicate that the legislator's differential approach to certainty of opinions is derived from the of jurisprudential principles interpretations. There may be a sort of criminal process expedition, but this is not flawless, because expedition at any cost especially with the execution of a wrong verdict, is not desirable for a fair trial in addition to its irreparable material and moral damages.