guardian council

The Guardian Council, with its special and exclusive jurisdiction, is considered one of the important governing institutions in the legal and political system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, whose special task is to guarantee the rule of law. Therefore, analyzing the opinions and views of the Guardian Council is helpful in understanding the approach of this public institution regarding the concept of a law-based government and its effects and results (the principle of jurisdiction and the principle of incompetence) in order to assess the correctness or incorrectness of administrative decisions. This article seeks to analyze, explain, distinguish and separate the concept and scope of the types of jurisdictions common in public law and their criteria in the procedure of this fundamental institution. The present study has proven in a descriptive-analytical manner that the Guardian Council has identified five major characteristics of the principle of competence (legality, mandatoryness, limitation, exclusivity, and non-delegation) in its practice and has generally taken steps to regulate and guarantee the scope of competence of public authorities. If it does not establish the competence of a public authority or institution in the applicable laws, its action or decision will be challenged as incompetent. Also, the Supreme Court of Iran has moved to narrowly interpret mandatory competences and broadly interpret optional competences. In its practice, the Guardian Council simultaneously possesses two aspects of “legal power” and “legal authority”. In other words, both the mandatory and binding aspect (legal power) and the selective and optional aspect (legal authority) are evident in its performance and it defines its scope of competence in such a way that it is responsible for specific tasks. However, in carrying out these duties, the Council has the authority to interpret and apply Shariah norms and legal criteria in specific cases. This jurisdiction is not only formed on the basis of legal texts, but also evolves dynamically through the Council’s own interpretative decisions and practical practice. This feature reflects the quasi-mandatory-quasi-selective nature of the jurisdiction of this public body.

In Article 57 of the Constitution, the constitutional legislator considers the ruling powers to be "independent of each other" and in Article 156 of this law, where describing the judiciary, with double emphasis, it considers the judiciary as an independent power. Therefore, the independence of the judiciary has been given special attention by the constitutional legislator. An important aspect of the judiciary independence is structural independence, which expresses the independent position and status of the judiciary compared to other powers or external persons. Accordingly, this research, conducted using library data and through an analytical-descriptive approach, answers to the question that how it is determined the requirements of the structural independence of the judiciary in the opinions of the Guardian Council as the interpreter and the guardian of the Constitution. The result of this demonstrative study is "the exclusive competence of the judiciary in proposing the judicial bill, preparing, approving, amending and canceling executive and judicial regulations" and "the prohibition of supervision of other powers on the functioning of the judiciary". Also, the features of relationship between the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice, with emphasis on the independence of the judiciary, have been described in such a way that "equipping and providing the judicial system" is with the judiciary. In addition, from the Guardian Council point of view, the concept of the independence of the judiciary includes all institutions and organizations subordinate to this branch.

The jurisprudential criteria of the Guardian Council in conforming and declaring the non-contradiction of laws with Islamic principles, as outlined in Articles 4 and 94 of the Constitution of Iran, is the subject of this article. This research is applied in nature and conducted using a descriptive-analytical method. Following the hierarchical order in the Iranian legal system, the primacy of the Constitution and Sharia over ordinary laws has been accepted. However, there is no specific jurisprudential criterion established for the conformity and declaration of non-contradiction of ordinary laws with Sharia, leading to numerous disputes and disagreements in this field. The prevailing theory is that the relationship between sources and foundations has often been disregarded, and the Guardian Council has referred to issues in rejecting parliamentary laws that either lack religious foundations or are not related to Sharia at all. Beyond the differing views on the oversight role of the Guardian Council under Article 4 of the Constitution over previous laws and regulations, it appears that this oversight cannot be fully carried out without the intervention of the Parliament. However, the Constitution has not provided any formal procedures for this process. The adoption of legal opinions and the formulation of legal provisions in this regard is deemed necessary and essential. This is while, in many cases, when the Guardian Council’s jurists have ruled laws to be inconsistent with Islamic principles, at different points in time, those same laws have been approved by the Council in a different form or context.

One of the ways for direct public participation in decision-making in Iran and Italy is legislative referendums. Among the types of referendums in Italy, the referendum that repeals laws is a specific example of a legislative referendum and is the most similar to the referendum regarding Article 59 of the Iranian Constitution. One of the most significant similarities between these two referendums is that they are subject to fundamental oversight. This research, presented in a descriptive-analytical format, seeks to answer the question of how fundamental oversight is conducted over legislative referendums in Iran and Italy. By comparing fundamental oversight of legislative referendums in Iran with the repealing referendum in Italy, it was found that, since the Italian legal system is clearer and more precise in defining the formal and substantive rules governing the repealing referendum, the fundamental oversight of legislative referendums in Italy is characterized by greater transparency and accuracy regarding the process of its implementation and the norms governing this referendum compared to the Iranian legal system. On the other hand, the practical experience of holding various repealing referendums in Italy has led to the resolution of some deficiencies and shortcomings through the practices of the Italian Constitutional Court, whereas, due to the lack of precedent for holding legislative referendums in Iran, the deficiencies and shortcomings in this area remain unknown to the Guardian Council and other related authorities and institutions.

One of the important methods of financing for implementing large-scale projects in the country and preventing budget deficits is foreign borrowing. Foreign borrowing has always been considered in various resolutions, including the annual budget bills and the five-year development plan bill, by the Islamic Consultative Assembly. The Guardian Council, in its supervisory role, sometimes approves these resolutions in the initial stage, while at other times it recognizes the nature of this borrowing as usurious and contrary to Islamic law. When the Parliament insists on its resolution, the matter is referred to the Expediency Council according to Article 112 of the Constitution, and ultimately, the Council approves the Parliament's decision. This research, conducted through a descriptive-analytical method, examines these resolutions and analyzes the foundations of the different approaches of the Guardian Council regarding them. It concludes that, considering the fatwa of Imam Khomeini (RA) and the Supreme Leader regarding the permissibility of usurious borrowing with the intention of not paying interest, there is a primary possibility of approving resolutions that include foreign borrowing. Attention to this matter could create a unified approach within the Guardian Council regarding foreign borrowing, relieving lawmakers from issuing secondary rulings and the obligations that come with them, such as the repeated referral of resolutions to the Expediency Council and the temporary nature of these rulings, which require continuous extensions.

The repetition of Israel's international crimes, especially after the “Al-Aqsa Storm” operation in October 2023, once again brought up the need to deal with this type of crimes in Iran's legal circles. Therefore, the proposal to join the statute International Criminal Court was presented as one of the solutions. Considering the historical role of the Guardian Council in shaping the rules of Iran's accession to international treaties, this article answers the question that if a decision is taken to ratify the statute of the Court, what jurisprudential obstacles will Iran's accession to this treaty face? Jurisprudential obstacles are meant the obstacles that the Council has expressed during the years after the revolution in its Shariah-Supervision in joining international treaties and agreements. Therefore, while investigating the role of the Council in this regard, the following article examines possible objections of the Council, such as Nafy-i Sabīl (negation of domination), the difference in criminal titles, the difference in the system of punishment, in a comparative manner between the opinions of the Council and the provisions of the Statute. Based on these fundamental problems and Iran's need to have a legal basis to deal with international crimes, the conclusion of this article is to design a domestic legislative model for the criminalization of international crimes based on domestic needs and contexts and in line with the general rules of international criminal law; A model that makes it possible for Iran's courts to prosecute international crimes such as what occurred in Gaza from the perspective of international law.

The prohibition of torture, as one of the most evolved rules, has gone through ups and downs over time. In international law, after the global consensus of 1948, this title was considered organized in legal systems and emerged as a binding rule in international documents. However, before the establishment of contemporary international law, the ugliness of acts of violence, particularly against prisoners, had been condemned in religious schools. In this regard, Islamic traditions provide explicit rulings that, while inherently serving as a source for jurisprudential decision-making, have led to divergent opinions due to the generality of the narrations and the context of their revelation.A look at the legal opinions of the Guardian Council and the development of Iran's new legal procedure regarding the crime of torture, compared to the views of constitutional experts at the beginning of the revolution, clearly defines the different jurisprudential and legal approaches to this issue. The present article tries to present a new perspective by analyzing several significant cases in this field and the judicial rulings of courts, using a descriptive-analytical method based on library and documentary research. The findings offer new insights that can shape judicial policies in this area.

Normativity, which is based on the rule of law and the requirement for punishment of law, is one of the most important qualitative features of the law. The enactment of laws lacking normative principles will certainly threaten the legal security of citizens. On the other hand, the role of the constitutional courts in monitoring the normativity of law can be analyzed. Inspired by the French Constitutional Council's procedures, an examination of the procedures of the Iranian Guardian Council and the German Federal Constitutional Court reveals instances in which these institutions, in addition to applying laws to the principles of the constitution (and sharia in the case of Iran), have also considered the normativity of laws.This article seeks to answer the question: What is the basis of the legitimacy, criteria, and manner of control of the Guardian Council of Iran and the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany in monitoring the normativity of laws? A comparative review of the procedures of the Constitutional Courts of Iran and Germany shows that both institutions are not far behind their traditional constitutional features in monitoring the normativity of laws, and the normativity of laws is governed by constitutional and religious scrutiny and they control the normality of laws through basic and sharia supervision..

According to the principle of the hierarchy of norms, legal rules can be represented as a pyramid, with the Constitution at the top as the superior law. However, the Constitution is not immune to violations by subordinate norms, making it essential to take measures to protect the Constitution. Without an effective mechanism to uphold its authority, the Constitution risks losing its effectiveness. In Iran’s constitutional system, the Guardian Council is designated as the competent authority responsible for ensuring the supremacy of the Constitution in the legislative process, as outlined in Article 91 of the Constitution. This council is tasked with reviewing legislation passed by the Islamic Consultative Assembly to ensure it does not conflict with the Constitution. However, the Council’s supervisory role is neither comprehensive nor essentially adequate, leading to shortcomings in ensuring the Constitution’s supremacy. These shortcomings primarily stem from constitutional principles, amendments, or gaps therein. This research aimed to identify these shortcomings by analyzing the Guardian Council’s supervisory procedures over the ordinary law. The central research question is, what are the shortcomings and challenges faced by the Guardian Council’s supervisory role in ensuring the supremacy of the Constitution over ordinary law?

Literature Review:

There are several studies on the Guardian Council’s supervision over the ordinary law. One notable work is the Persian-language book titled Monitoring Legislation in Iran and the United States (Safaie & Hamidiyan, 2010), which examines legislative oversight in both countries. In “The Guardian Council and Review of Laws,” Mehrpour (1993) discussed how the Guardian Council supervises parliamentary approvals. However, Mehrpour did not specifically analyze the limitations or shortcomings of the Council’s supervision over the ordinary law. The existing studies also analyze the Guardian Council’s performance in reviewing parliamentary resolutions, focusing on their compliance with the Constitution in terms of quantity and quality. Additionally, some research has examined the Guardian Council’s supervision of parliamentary resolutions in relation to higher-level legal documents, providing an explanation and analysis of the Council’s legal status as an autonomous agency operating independently of the three branches of government. Discussion have explored the Guardian Council’s position and competency in reviewing parliamentary approvals. Key issues of Article 94, the definition of parliamentary approval, the Council’s a priori supervision of legislation, and the ten-day review period were also examined and analyzed. The existing literature has primarily focused on the foundations of the Council’s formation and its approach to supervising the ordinary law. However, it seems no serious research has coherently addressed the shortcomings inherent in the Council’s supervisory mechanisms.

Adopting a procedural research design, the present study aimed to offer a legal analysis of the shortcomings in the Guardian Council’s supervision over the ordinary law, as well as to propose solutions to address these issues. The study is based on a key premise that it is necessary to ensure the supremacy of the Constitution and establish a systematic mechanism to uphold it.

The analysis focused on the procedures and opinions of the Guardian Council in ensuring the supremacy of the Constitution. The results revealed that the mechanisms established for its supervision of the ordinary law are not comprehensive. In practice, these shortcomings have caused disruptions in the constitutional decision-making system. One such issue is that the Guardian Council is required to determine whether parliamentary approvals contradict the Constitution within a limited timeframe. This restriction, set forth in Article 94, is not always effective—especially in cases where council members require more time for review, such as budget-related or large-scale approvals. Even with the 10-day extension allowed under Article 95, this constraint remains problematic. Furthermore, the Guardian Council’s supervisory authority is limited to approvals issued by the Islamic Consultative Assembly and does not extend to those made by other legislative bodies that operate in line with the law. These limitations result in constitutional requirements being overlooked and the incorporation of ordinary laws that contradict the Constitution into the legal system. These issues highlight the need to revise and reform the mechanisms of the Guardian Council’s supervision over the ordinary law. Given that Article 94 of the Constitution aims to prevent the introduction of unconstitutional laws into the legal system, this goal can only be fully achieved if the Guardian Council is granted the authority to oversee all ordinary laws. To protect the Constitution, it is essential for the Guardian Council to have the authority to declare laws inconsistent with the Constitution invalid.

It is recommended that Article 95 of the Constitution be amended to grant the Guardian Council the authority to declare laws inconsistent with the Constitution invalid, even after the deadlines for issuing opinions have passed and during their implementation. In addition, the Guardian Council could expand its supervisory powers by adopting an eschatological interpretation of Article 94, allowing it to review and assess the conformity of laws with the Constitution even after they have come into effect.

A criterion for identifying the level of Islamic countries' adherence to religion is the level of commitment of their governments to approving Islamic laws and how to monitor them. The question of the current research is that in the legal system of Islamic countries, what method has been envisaged to adapt the laws to the Islamic Sharia, and in this direction, what method has been thought of to resolve the conflict of the opinions of the jurists? For this purpose, in this research, the legal system of six Islamic countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran) has been examined. This research, using the descriptive-analytical method and relying on library sources, concluded that the approach of the rulers of the countries determines the way of Sharia supervision; As in Indonesia, with a semi-secularist approach, it has the least commitment to Shariah monitoring of laws. In the countries of Egypt and Malaysia, despite secularist tendencies, there is an intermediate commitment to protect the interests of religious and secular groups, and minimal Sharia supervision is observed. Saudi Arabia, claims the complete sovereignty of Islam in its country, and all its laws are derived from Islam, but has not considered a special solution for Sharia supervision. Among the six countries, Pakistan and the Islamic Republic of Iran are ranked among those committed to Sharia by previously monitoring the approval of laws and evaluating their compliance with Sharia

The main objective of the research is to examine the impact of Sharia on the legislative process in Iran and Egypt, with a teleological and Ijtihad-based approach of the Guardian Council. The research method is descriptive-analytical, and the data have been collected through the analysis of laws and legislative processes in Iran and Egypt. The findings indicate that in both countries, Islamic Sharia is used as the primary source of legislation; however, the teleological and Ijtihad-based interpretation of Sharia faces challenges such as differences in the interpretation of Sharia objectives, conflicts with modern requirements, and practical implementation issues. In Iran, the Guardian Council performs these interpretations, while in Egypt, the Dar al-Ifta and the Islamic Fiqh Assembly do so. Additionally, textualist interpretation trends have, in some cases, particularly in the interpretation of Article 64 of the Iranian Constitution, led to new challenges. Therefore, constitutional interpretation without clear and precise guidelines or based on transient interests should be avoided. Article 2 of Egypt’s 2014 Constitution also outlines the limitation of Islam’s role in governance, considering only definitive Islamic rulings for the adaptation of valid laws. The results of the research suggest that for aligning laws with Sharia principles and social needs, it is essential that the Sharia oversight of the Guardian Council be conducted in an Ijtihad-based manner, considering the intentions of the constitutional framers and public interests.

The quest for meaning in various texts lies at the heart of hermeneutics, the study of interpretation. This pursuit of understanding transcends mere words, aiming to bridge the gap between a text and its intended audience across time, culture, and personal perspectives. Nowhere is a consistent and well-defined interpretive approach more crucial than in the legal realm, where the interpretation of foundational documents like constitutions carries significant weight. This paper examines the interpretive approach employed by the Guardian Council in Iran for interpreting the nation's constitution. By analyzing the Council's practices through the lens of hermeneutical theories, this work seeks to illuminate the strengths and weaknesses of their approach and suggest potential avenues for improvement.The Iranian constitution, like its counterparts around the world, occupies a position of paramount importance within the legal hierarchy. It serves as the bedrock upon which all other laws are built, and its interpretation carries the weight of shaping the nation's legal landscape. A consistent and well-defined interpretive approach is therefore paramount to ensure clarity, fairness, and the upholding of the constitution's original intent.Here, hermeneutics comes to the fore. By offering frameworks for understanding texts, hermeneutics provides valuable tools for navigating the complexities of constitutional interpretation. Different schools of hermeneutical thought, each with its own emphasis, offer diverse perspectives on how to approach the task of interpreting a text. Understanding these schools is crucial for evaluating the Guardian Council's interpretive practices. Traditionally, hermeneutics has been understood as operating within a triangular framework comprised of the author, the text, and the interpreter. The author-centered approach prioritizes the original intent of the text's creator. The text-centered approach focuses on the inherent meaning within the text itself, independent of the author's intentions. Finally, the interpreter-centered approach emphasizes the role of the interpreter's background, experiences, and biases in shaping their understanding of the text.The Guardian Council, in its official pronouncements, declares its interpretive approach to be centered on the "intent of the legislator" (the constitution's framers). This suggests an adherence to the author-centered model of hermeneutics. However, the Council's methodology in practice reveals a more nuanced picture.One aspect of the Council's approach aligns with objectivist hermeneutics, a branch of the author-centered school. Objectivist hermeneutics emphasizes the importance of understanding the text within its historical context and the original intent of its creators. The Council's reliance on references to the law-making process demonstrates a partial commitment to this principle.However, the Council's practices often deviate from a purely objectivist approach. In some instances, the Council resorts to literal interpretations, focusing solely on the plain meaning of the words in the constitution. While this approach can be useful for achieving clarity, it can also lead to rigidity and fail to capture the nuances of the text's meaning in its broader context.More concerning are instances where the Council goes beyond literal interpretations. Such extra-literal interpretations, while potentially motivated by a desire to adapt the constitution to changing circumstances, can stray from the spirit of the document and the intent of its framers. This inconsistency in the Council's approach can generate confusion and inconsistencies in the legal system.The Council's use of extra-literal interpretations, particularly when it deviates from the text's spirit and authorial intent, suggests a potential shift towards a fusion of meaning horizons. This concept, associated with philosophical hermeneutics, highlights the interaction between the interpreter's understanding and the meaning inherent within the text. While valuable in some contexts, a fusion approach can lead to interpretations heavily influenced by the interpreter's own biases and agendas, potentially undermining the objectivity of the legal process.Furthermore, the Council's interpretive pronouncements often lack clear justifications for their rulings. This opacity makes it difficult to discern a consistent interpretive approach and raises concerns about accountability. Without clear explanations of the rationale behind their interpretations, the Council risks accusations of arbitrariness and undermines public confidence in the legal system.Despite aiming for the "intent of the legislator" and often employing elements of objectivist hermeneutics, the Guardian Council's approach falls short of fully embracing the strengths of this school. To achieve more consistent and well-founded interpretations, the Council could benefit from a more thorough application of objectivist hermeneutics.One crucial element is the hermeneutical circle, a concept that emphasizes the cyclical nature of interpretation. The interpreter begins with a preliminary understanding of the text, which is then refined through a deeper analysis of its historical context, authorial intent, and the language used. This analysis, in turn, informs a more nuanced understanding of the text, leading back to a potential reinterpretation. By engaging in this iterative process, the Council can arrive at interpretations that are more grounded in the text's original meaning and historical context.Another important aspect of objectivist hermeneutics is the consideration of both grammatical and technical (psychological) interpretations. Grammatical interpretation focuses on the literal meaning of the words within the text. Technical interpretation, on the other hand, delves deeper, considering the underlying social, political, and cultural context in which the text was created. By employing both methods, the Council can achieve a more holistic understanding of the constitution's intended meaning.Furthermore, objectivist hermeneutics emphasizes the importance of attempting to reconstruct the author's perspective. This involves delving into the debates and discussions surrounding the constitution's creation to gain a deeper understanding of the framers' intentions and the reasoning behind specific clauses. By incorporating this element into their interpretive process, the Council can ensure their interpretations remain faithful to the spirit of the constitution.By embracing the full framework of objectivist hermeneutics, the Guardian Council can navigate the space between "interpretive reality" and "interpretive truth." Interpretive reality refers to the initial understanding of the text based on the interpreter's background and current context. Interpretive truth, on the other hand, strives to arrive at an understanding that is as close as possible to the original meaning intended by the authors.While the interpreter's perspective can never be entirely erased, a well-developed objectivist approach can minimize the influence of personal biases and agendas. By employing the hermeneutical circle, engaging in both grammatical and technical interpretations, and attempting to reconstruct the author's perspective, the Council can move closer to achieving interpretive truth. This, in turn, will lead to more consistent, well-founded, and ultimately, more meaningful interpretations of the Iranian constitution.The interpretation of the Iranian constitution plays a critical role in shaping the nation's legal landscape. Examining the Guardian Council's interpretive approach through the lens of hermeneutics reveals both strengths and weaknesses. While the Council demonstrates a partial commitment to objectivist hermeneutics, inconsistencies and a lack of transparency remain areas for improvement. By embracing the full potential of objectivist hermeneutics, the Council can achieve a more robust and well-defined interpretive framework, ensuring that the Iranian constitution's meaning remains clear, consistent, and true to the original intent of its framers. This, in turn, will contribute to a more stable and predictable legal environment for all citizens of Iran.

Studying and explaining the approach of the jurists of the Guardian Council in examining banking regulations and related legislation, in addition to theoretical benefits, can familiarize ordinary legislators with the perspective of this institution regarding the Sharia framework of banking laws. Consequently, by assisting lawmakers in drafting banking laws, it can shorten and expedite the legislative process due to reduced back-and-forth between the Parliament and the Guardian Council. The main question of this research is to examine the practices of the Guardian Council and extract instances where the jurists of this council have deemed banking regulations incompatible with Sharia principles. Based on descriptive-analytical research, the jurists of the Guardian Council have identified several issues in their Sharia review of the banking regulations of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, including: 'expedited judicial proceedings for specific lawsuits,' 'limitations on legal complaints against supervised credit institutions,' 'the inability to annul or invalidate the actions of the supervisory board,' 'enumerating the duties of the Central Bank Governor and exercising the Central Bank's powers without adherence to laws and Sharia principles,' 'using endowment properties without regard to the endowment deed,' 'the lack of Sharia and judicial competence of non-judicial authorities,' 'the absence of conditions of trustworthiness and honesty for banking officials,' 'the impossibility of judicial objection and litigation,' 'absolute surveillance and access to individuals' information,' 'contrary to public interests,' 'retroactive application of rulings,' 'usury,' and 'disproportionate crime and punishment.' Therefore, it is necessary for the legislator to pay attention to these mentioned jurisprudential objections while drafting banking laws.

According to article 34 of the [Iranian] Constitution, everyone has the right to bring their claims before a court of law, and based on this right, the judiciary is tasked with examining and judging claims under article 156 of the constitution. To achieve a fair trial, the role of the Guardian Council as the interpreter of the Constitution is of great importance. In fact, the fair trial concept in the constitution is an ideal that requires the determination of standards that the constitutional judge expresses during the examination of legislative approvals. Accordingly, this research seeks to answer the question: what are the  requirements for achieving an optimal fair trial according to the opinions of the Guardian Council? This study, using library data and an analytical-descriptive method, aims to identify the requirements of an optimal trial in three stages of judicial proceedings: 'before the judgment is issued,' 'issuing the judgment,' and 'executing the judgment.' The research concludes that the Guardian Council has implicitly and explicitly determined the guarantees and requirements for a fair trial and has deemed the legislative approvals of the Majlis incompatible with these standards in several instances.

Justice is one of the important goals of the constitution and "laws" play a central role in the realization of justice. Based on this, Iran's Guardian Council and Germany's Federal Constitutional Court, as institutions that protect the constitution, play an important role in realizing the main goals and fundamental principles of the constitution, and in the position of adapting normal laws to the constitution, sometimes even beyond their superior norm. By monitoring "being Justly" as a quality feature of laws, they monitor the realization of justice. This article tries to answer the main question with a descriptive-analytical method and by using library resources and examining the practical procedures of the Guardian Council and the Federal Constitutional Court, that basically, the criteria and the way of monitoring the fairness of the Guardian Council of Iran and the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany What are the rules? The result of this research is that both the Guardian Council and the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany have sometimes distanced themselves from their traditional tasks, which is the adaptation of normal laws to the constitution (and Sharia in the case of Iran), in quality supervision, and have expanded their scope of supervision. It seems that this kind of development of the competences of the body guarding the constitution originates from the spirit governing the constitution in realizing the goal of justice.

The necessity of overseeing elections is an inevitable and indisputable matter, and it serves as a crucial mechanism, authorization, and determining factor in the electoral process and the acceptance of election results. Given Article 99 of the Constitution, and considering the interpretations and methods of oversight by the Guardian Council, particularly the supervisory authority which leads to the expenditure of system resources to justify arbitrary and often political behaviors, there is a clear need for reform and review in this regard. In light of the shortcomings and issues present in the electoral process, and in order to improve the country's electoral system to protect the people's votes, an optimal oversight model is deemed necessary. Regarding oversight models for elections, it should be noted that, based on the experiences of other countries, supervisory bodies such as the legislature, executive, judiciary, electoral commissions, and supreme courts vary. In many democratic countries around the world, election oversight is carried out by judicial bodies, typically entrusted to institutions such as constitutional courts and supreme courts. Therefore, if the conditions allow for a constitutional revision in the Islamic Republic of Iran, judicial oversight could be proposed as the most appropriate model for election oversight in Iran among the various political systems. Judicial oversight refers to the involvement of institutions such as the Supreme Election Court, the Supreme Court, the High Council of Justice, or specialized courts with specific duties, powers, jurisdictions, and membership structures overseeing elections.

Fraud is a crime that directly involves the property of individuals. Those who deceitfully acquire the property of others with their consent through trickery and fraud are considered fraudsters. Fraud is among the crimes characterized as a type of "eating money unjustly" which, according to the principle "do not consume each other's wealth unjustly," is deemed a sinful act. In jurisprudential texts, fraud is referred to as "cheating" and the fraudster as "trickster". Following the draft law on the intensification of penalties for bribery, embezzlement, and fraud presented to the Islamic Consultative Assembly on September 19, 1985, and the subsequent establishment of punitive measures for such acts, this matter was contested by the Guardian Council. The Council argued that the determination of penalties is typically and somewhat at the discretion of the ruler and must fall below a certain threshold; therefore, establishing a penalty for fraud was not accepted by the Guardian Council. This article aims to critique and examine the Guardian Council's theory regarding the non-determination of penalties for fraud. This examination is conducted through an analytical-descriptive method, asserting that the act of fraud, which results in the infringement of others' rights, is punishable based on the principles of "no harm" and "eating money unjustly". The determination of such penalties is the responsibility of the ruler, and in the absence of the infallible Imam (p.b.u.h), it lies with the legislative authority based on the necessities of the Islamic community and the preservation of its foundations. It appears that the lack of clarification of the esteemed jurists of the Imamiyah sect and the brief references in a few lines of verses and narrations regarding eating money unjustly have led the respected jurists of the Guardian Council to reject the criminalization of the Assembly's resolution, while the author aims to substantiate this claim.

Failure to achieve the expected goals and consequences in the social society turns the issue of seeking the law and evasion of the law into a complex social issue influenced by legal and historical aspects. In this article, the tension between religious order and international law with regard to the application of religious sovereignty through the supervisory body of the Guardian Council and by using Weber's theory of religion and rights was shown in order to determine to what extent the political system can resolve this tension with the right of protection. Shariah supervision has been agreed upon. The findings show that there is a serious conflict between the rule of Sharia and modern laws in international law, on the one hand, the issue of the priority of government rulings over Sharia rulings has been a pretext for the expedient application of domestic and international laws, and on the other hand, the number of international treaties that despite being contradictory to the Shari'ah have been approved according to the needs of the day are not few. As a result, the function of Sharia supervision of the Guardian Council as an institution that legitimizes laws cannot be seen as effective, because this institution has caused the politicization of social and cultural rights by interfering with religious considerations on laws instead of benefiting from collective wisdom.

The interpretation of the constitution is essential in any legal system to address emerging issues and ambiguities in the implementation of law. However, not all legal systems, experts in this field, or interpretive institutions follow a uniform interpretive approach. Each interpretive approach will result in different interpretive tools used by the interpreter and different outcomes; a matter of unparalleled importance regarding the constitution. In interpreting the constitution as the supreme law and foundational document of a society, question is whether the interpreter is completely free to interpret the constitution as they see fit, or they are bound by a clearly defined framework that they cannot disregard? The guarantee of individual rights in the constitution rests on the interpreter adhering to specific principles and operating within a defined framework within interpreting the law.