mansour rahmdel

One of the measures taken to protect witnesses in the Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Code of Judicial Procedure of our country is to keep their identities secret. Both the defendant is important and the defendant's right can not be ignored for the sake of witness testimony or the defendant's defense rights were endangered and threatened without regard to witness safety. Regarding the validity and positive value of the testimony of anonymous witnesses, this question arises To what extent are their value, credibility and testimony valued? The Code of Criminal Procedure is silent on the validity and value of the testimony of anonymous witnesses and whether such testimony can alone be used to document a conviction. It seems that the value and validity of the testimony of anonymous witnesses, if it is not possible for the accused to face and challenge the witnesses, is not equal to the identity of the witnesses in this article.And the security of intuitions has been examined.

The present research in the field of international and domestic legal-law enforcement mechanisms has been concerned with the return of assets resulting from drug-related crimes. This study was prepared with the aim of developing the identification of new mechanisms for the return of assets resulting from criminal activities related to drugs with a legal-law enforcement approach.

In terms of its type the present study is of an applied research type, which has been conducted using descriptive-analytic method. The necessary data were explained using library studies and note taking and referring to authoritative domestic and international legal sources.

The most important tool of Interpol has been the issuance of special silver declarations for the return of assets resulting from internationally organized criminal activities, including narcotics. Also, according to the provision of restitution of assets in international conventions, especially Article 5 of the International Convention against Narcotics and related documents, including the International Anti-Corruption Convention, two mechanisms can be used within the framework of these documents called formal mechanisms and informal mechanisms such as Star, Greco, etc., which are outside the framework of these conventions, have been used. Also, since the principle of speed is necessary in the return of assets arising from drug-related criminal activities; thus, informal mechanisms in which the law enforcement agencies of the Islamic Republic of Iran are not members can more favorably serve the national interest in returning the assets of drug-related crimes.

The most important challenges and gaps in the performance of the Iranian police regarding the return of assets resulting from criminal activities related to drugs are lack of strengthening the system of international law enforcement cooperation in the field of return of assets and the existence of case-by-case cooperation, lack of organizational goals, informal mechanisms to speed up the process.

The impermissibility of the detention of individuals is a fundamental rule based on the principle of respect for their freedom. But sometimes the detention of citizens suspected of committing crimes under the law is necessary to protect public order and interests. Some detainees face a restraining order or an acquittal after a preliminary investigation and justice requires that the damage done to them during detention be compensated. Many countries have specific measures and measures in place to compensate for unjustified or unjustified detention. The fundamental question is what is the extent of the responsibility of the government, the judiciary or judicial officers in compensating for the wrongful detention?

The research method in this article is descriptive-analytical and the legal context and procedures for seeking compensation for unjustified detention will be analyzed and evaluated and through it, the existing challenges in the Iranian criminal justice system will be revealed.

Detention of persons is carried out by order of a judicial official and by judicial officers. The principle of judicial independence requires law enforcement officers and other judicial officers to prescribe a detention order as legal. However, after the issuance of a restraining order or acquittal of the detainee on the charge for which he was detained, the damages resulting from the detention must be compensated. The main challenge in compensating innocent detainees is the lack of a precise criterion for assessing the extent of the damage and how to compensate. The results of this study indicate that there is no precise and convincing criterion for determining and evaluating the amount of damage inflicted on persons whose innocence is proven after detention.

According to the Iranian Code of Penal Procedure (2013), as welcomed by most jurists, as soon as he/she is acquitted or discharged, any defendant detained in the course of the pretrial investigation and/or trial, is principally deemed to deserve compensation from the State. Notwithstanding the positive effects of the said initiative of the legislator, which have been sufficiently underlined, it is generally overlooked that Iran/s international obligation is not paying compensation to “innocent” defendants. Rather the obligation provided in the International covenant on Civil and Political Rights is to guarantee reparation for victims of illegal arrest or detention, whether or not they are found guilty of any offence. Underlining the difference between the test of “innocent defendant” on the one hand and the test of “victim of illegal detention” on the other, the article examines both the positive effects and particularly the deficiencies of the current legislation. We find that the current test and applicable procedure of reparation should be revised and the legislator needs to reconsider its position about the strict liability of the state, notwithstanding unrealistically permitting it to sue the faulty party in the detention after paying compensation

The principle of confidentiality of documents, information and arbitral awards is a privileged feature of arbitral tribunals, if this property is not guaranteed the parties may be unwilling to dispute this process. Although the jurisdictional laws and regulations of some countries have recognized the principle of confidentiality, this has not been addressed in Iranian law. This descriptive-analytical research seeks to address the ambiguity that the process of arbitration is private or confidential and that confidentiality is more of an ideal or a fact, as well as whether it has any exceptions. The findings of the present study indicate that the confidentiality is relative and directly related to the obligations of the parties to the dispute and the third parties involved in the arbitration process. The basis for identifying the degree of confidentiality requires explicit agreement between the parties to the arbitration agreement, and this rule has some exceptions.

Leading a criminal gang is one of the personalized factors of aggravation of the punishment. It means that the legislator aggravates the punishment of the some perpetrators which have such a personalized factor. Note 2 of the article 130 of the Iranian Islamic Penal Code refers to the examples of leading a gang, without defining leading a gang. According to it Leadership is defined as forming, or planning, or organizing or directing a criminal gang. So it seems that a criminal gang could have more than one leader. For example, one of them forms, the other one plans, and the third one organizes and the fourth one directs the criminal gang. Typically, planning is prior to other forms of leadership. It seems that a leader orders others and they obey his orders. It is noteworthy that the committed crime by the members of the gang should be in line to the gang aims, otherwise it could not be regarded as a crime committed by the gang. The current paper is going to answer the following questions: what is the substance of leading a gang? Aiding and abetting or accomplishment? Is it necessary for the leader to participate in material element (actus reus) of the crime? How the punishment determined for members influences the punishment of the leader? What does an organized criminal gang mean? The method of research is an analytical one.

According to Notice of article 455 of the Iranian criminal procedure code 2013 failure to comply with the procedural formalities does not invalidate the judgement, unless such formalities are of such significance as to invalidate the judgement. Similar to the provisions of this rule was in articles 359, 426 and item 2 of article 430 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1912, as well as paragraph 2 of article 257 and paragraph 2 of article 265 of the criminal Procedure code for the General and Revolutionary Courts of 1997. The legislator has not defined the formalities, and the difference of them. The present article examines the formalities and their effects at different stages of criminal proceedings from the beginning to the end by using an analytical method.

In three articles of 583, 621 and 623 of the Islamic Penal Code (IPC) the legislator alongside of the phrases of "Detention", "Imprisonment" and "Stealing" has mentioned the phrase of "Concealing". Concealing is a form of deprivation of the freedom and in fact by criminalization of the mentioned acts, the legislator is looking for a full protection of the freedom. Although, using the same phrase in different articles may make the image of useless of its using in some cases, but it seems that each of the mentioned articles are referring to a different situation and logically the legislator has not repeated a similar criminalization. So, a kind of interpretation which does not regard any of the useless is rational. Although, a correct and right criminalization requires the legislator to enact a code comprehensive, but the difference of the nature of the act in different cases or its connection with special circumstances in some cases and non-connection of it with special circumstances in other cases can justify the way which the legislator has followed. The present paper considers the different aspects of the case in the three mentioned articles.

Eebts have been protected in various ways such as determining administrative, civil, and criminal sanction for their receiving. This criminal protection, however, is not in the form of the criminalization of non-payment of debt, but it is a criminal sanction (i.e., imprisonment) for receiving a civil right. The article examines the historical process of determining criminal sanction for protection of debts in Iranian legal system.