Quasi - Judicial hearings in the Supreme Audit Court of Iran - Challenges and Advantages

Financial monitoring institutions in a few countries around the world possessjudiciary or quasi - judiciary departments which on observing financial or budgetaryviolation or misplacement, prosecute and convict the violators concerned. In some ofthese countries, chosen members of the supreme audit institutions have been sanctionedby the constitution to independently judge cases of financial misplacements and areconsidered as one of the judges of the judiciary system. The verdict issued by some ofthese monitoring systems is considered as a judiciary verdict and may only be appealedto at the Supreme Court of Justice. In other cases, such as in our country, although thelegal procedure followed by the Supreme Audit Court of Iran has not been defined asjudiciary and there has been no direct reference to the judiciary independence (in itsstrict meaning) of its members (Public Prosecutor's Office and the Judiciary Board ofthe SAC), it still possesses a fullquasi - judicial system similar to the judiciary system of the country.Having a judiciary system inside the auditing or monitoring institution is a greatadvantage. The advantage lies in its close association with the operating sections andin possessing a mutual understanding which is highly effective in materializing theobjectives of the monitoring institution. This advantage however, has had its challenges.Observers from abroad and the legal society are concerned that this may harm the rightto fair and unbiased hearing. Also, there is yet another concern that parallel action maybe taken by the Administrative Malfeasance Investigating Board and the JudiciaryCourts regarding the administrative penalty and the punishment for the Loss and damagecaused. This is a breach of the principles governing trials and the unity of proceedings.