نظارت قضایی

The protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals and promotion of the judicial structure is achieved by observing the judicial guarantees regarding the supervision of prosecution and investigation. Judicial guarantees are a set of essential requirements and prerequisites that must be considered in the law or practice during the supervision by the judicial supervisors of the prosecution and investigation and the executive guarantee must be considered for it. This research focuses on the qualitative method, using in-depth interview tools and document analysis, by examining the judicial guarantees to promote and strengthen the monitoring of prosecution and investigation. The findings of the study indicate the need to apply several judicial guarantees, including transparency in supervision, the need to pay attention to the position of the principle of good faith in the field of supervision, the need to enforce and justify decisions, maintain the organizational independence of the supervisory and supervisory institutions, adapt the facilities available to the judicial authority, prevent regulatory centralization.

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.

The Court of Administrative Justice, as the authority for citizens' complaints against the actions of government agencies and officials, plays a fundamental role in protecting citizens' rights and preventing the illegal actions of government agencies and officials. A look at the latest amendment of Act of the Organization and Procedure of the Administrative Court of Justice (2023) shows that the legislator has a dilemma in drafting this law. On the one hand, it has tried to expand the scope of the court's jurisdiction, and on the other hand, it has limited the scope of the court's activities. The expansion of the jurisdiction of the court in dealing with the substantive claims of citizens' damages from the actions of government agencies is one of the examples of the expansion of the jurisdiction of the court. On the other hand, this law has limited the jurisdiction of the court by providing a new procedure for citizens to complain about the illegal actions of government agencies, such as the need to submit a written response from the government agency at the time of filing a petition, predicting the passage of time in filing lawsuits against government agencies, and considering the approvals of some councils as un-appealable. This article tries to analyze and examine the weaknesses and strengths of this law in the development and limitation of the jurisdiction of the court by using library sources and analytical descriptive method as well as examining the procedure of the court's branches from the time this act came into effect. The findings of this article show that despite some positive innovations of this act, such as predicting the passage of time in filing lawsuits, some amendments of this act, such as declaring the approvals of some councils and institutions as non-appealable, as well as predicting some administrative processes for filing lawsuits, will limit the jurisdiction of the court and as a result, will prevent citizens from filing grievances. Therefore, in order to defend the citizens, it seems necessary for the legislator to revise these amendments

The modern government is subject to the rule of law. Compliance with the law also requires acceptance of supervision. Judicial contorol of the government's actions is the most important and effective type of supervision that is applied to the actions and decisions of the government. The formation and development of this supervision is the result of concern about the need for the administration to comply with the law. This compliance is guaranteed in various ways, the most significant guarantee of which is the contorol of administrative actions and decisions by courts and judicial institutions. The judicial description of this kind of contorol separates it from other political and parliamentary, financial, administrative and quasi-judicial supervisions. The content of supervision is to match the actions and decisions of the administration (Facts) with laws, principles and rules (Acts). Monitoring the legality of government actions is divided into two categories: monitoring formal legality (jurisdiction and observance of formalities) and monitoring substantive legality (abuse of jurisdiction and mistakes). In the Islamic Republic of Iran, judicial contorol of the administration is carried out in three ways, two of which are objectionable and exceptional through the judges of the courts and the country's inspection organization, and one of which is the filing of a lawsuit and specifically through the Administrative Court of Justice. Accepts. We will examine each of these issues and evaluate them below.

The criminal policy is separated and modeled based on the reference criteria - freedom, power, and total domination. Freedom is the basic criterion in the freedom-based criminal policy model. The approach of international instruments is to promote this criterion in the criminal policy of countries. In this model, with the distribution of power among the different components of the governance system and the establishment of mutual supervision, some indicators are defined for the police's ability to fulfill legal duties and observance of the legitimate freedoms of the citizens. In freedom-based models, by predicting some indicators, a balance is tried to be established between the legitimate freedoms of the accused, the interests of the society, and the performance of the legal duties of the police. The activity of the judicial authorities and police within the framework of law by prior authorization of law; the supervision of the police activism and the police intervention in the affairs of citizens based on the principle of necessity are some of the indicators that freedom-based systems have defined and identified for police activity. By studying the international instruments, the constitution, and criminal laws of Iran, it can be said that the model accepted in Iran's criminal policy, in the stage of crime detection and preliminary investigations, is the freedom-based model. This research, with a descriptive-analytical method and using library resources, has sought to identify and explain the indicators of police activism in the freedom-based model of criminal policy.

As one of the most important supervisory bodies in the country's administrative system, the inspection organization has the authority to prepare reports and announce crimes, violations and misconduct to various investigating authorities, including judicial and administrative authorities. The Court of Administrative Justice can be one of the authorities to receive complaints of the inspection organization, which was not possible until the recent amendment of the Law of the Court of Administrative Justice in 1402 due to the lack of the claimant's beneficial condition. However, according to the aforementioned law, such a possibility was foreseen for the inspection organization. The present article aims to analyze and examine this authority and its limits and loopholes, which is considered a big step towards the protection of public rights, in search of an answer to the question, with what inference can the prescription of the General Inspection Organization's complaint in the branches of the court be justified. Is? And what are the limitations and dimensions of filing a complaint with the inspection organization in the court's branches? In this regard, it should be acknowledged that with regard to the application of the text of the law, it seems that the legislator in Note 1 of Article 17 of the Amending Law of the Court of Justice has given permission to the inspection organization to represent the public within the limits of its authority and in cases where public law is exposed to damages and by observing the legal procedures, he can file a complaint against the decisions and actions of the government agencies and their officials and the decisions issued by the special administrative authorities in the Court branches,

Undoubtedly, the principle of justification is the most prominent manifestation of criminal justice accepted by criminal policy of different countries. One of the effects of the above principle is the non -punishment before a fair hearing. In fact, the punishment can be imposed on a person who has committed a crime, so the defendant who has been issued temporary arrests was somehow early punishment. He will be imposed on him. On the other hand, temporary detention is one of the most reliable supplies that guarantees the presence of the accused in all stages of criminal hearing until the definitive verdict as well as the dangerous state of some defendants, despite the merits of the defendants. For the arrest of a precautionary (temporary detention), the perpetrators should not be refused to issue such a order due to opposition to the principles and freedoms of individual and other criminal supply appointments.

The Constitution, as the highest legal-political instrument of the country, must be immune from any kind of intervention, for which special institutions are usually formed or appointed; otherwise, the rights and freedoms of the people in the constitution will be abandoned and the existence of the constitution will be invalidated. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Guardian Council is responsible for the protection of the Constitution in the legislative phase, and all the enactments of the parliament become law after the approval of the council. The challenge that exists in this connection is whether the judges of the courts have the discretion, by insisting on the principle of the supremacy of the constitution and the need to cite to the valid law, as well as the constitutional review entity, not to implement the laws that they consider to be contrary to the constitution and refuse to implement them?; this research aims to analyze and respond to this issue using a descriptive-analytical approach. The findings show that although it is not possible to comment on the absolute rejection or acceptance of the judges' competence in this regard, in relation to the laws passed before the formation of the Guardian Council (both pre-revolutionary laws and laws approved by the Revolutionary Council) and the enactments that became law due to ending the legal deadline for the council’s comments, and also some enforceable legal norms that are not under the review of the Guardian Council, the courts can be given the authority not to implement them.

The core purpose of judicial review is to protect the rights of the citizenry, in which administrative jurisdiction and administrative courts have the most importance in these proceedings; due to the competence to hear the disputes against the government, such as employment conflicts, which lead to administrative justice eventually. In Iranian legal system, administrative justice court has entrance system has a thick legal framework and long-lasting selection’s process which includes many criterions, but the most controversial matter is the assessments of the nominees in terms of religious commitments from selection committees. Selection’s principles and procedures, which are mainly based on fidelity to religion, mostly violate the right to public employment. Administrative justice court that has the power to review the selection committee’s decisions can protect the employment rights of the citizenry, which has done it correctly so far.

ex-ante judicial supervision over prosecution and investigation is one of the new developments in criminal procedure. This supervision is the use of supervision by court judges or independent expert judges outside of the Prosecutor's Office over the actions and decisions of the Prosecutor's Office, including the investigator, especially actions that impact individual rights and freedoms in the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings. Ex-ante supervision is recognized in the criminal justice system of Italy, and Germany; however, in Iran's law, ex-ante judicial supervision has been considered only case-by-case in some articles of Iran's Criminal Procedure Code, without being correctly extended to all decisions that are related to the rights and freedoms of individuals in the pre-trial stage. This article aims to explain the ex-ante judicial supervision comparatively taken in Germany and Italy and examine their differences with the existing supervision in Iran using analytical and descriptive methods, and at the same time, it is comparative with library collection tools; done. The findings of the research indicate the need for Iranian legislators and legal doctrine to pay attention to the issue of ex-ante judicial supervision over prosecution and investigation, such as in Germany and Italy, in an explicit and precise manner, and to prevent the centralization of powers of prosecution, investigation and supervision in the hands of the prosecutor's office to improve the quality of criminal justice and Prevention of judicial errors and violation of people's rights with these broad powers that were given to the judiciary.

Contract law, as the most important part of private law, compiles and regulates the trading relationships of individuals. The importance of this section has always occupied the minds of legislators and lawyers from various aspects. One of the aspects that has received less attention is the "supervision or control of the judicial authority" on the covenants of individuals in order to create balance in the economic relations of the parties. An issue that may be against the principle of autonomy at first. However, according to some philosophical doctrines such as Deontology, consequentialism and pragmatism and economic foundations such as the theory of comparative advantage and the theory of uncertainty and risk and especially the common intention of the parties, can consider a constructive role for the judge and the possibility of intervention and control of the contract to regulate the contractual relationship of the parties to balance the contractual situation. The possibility of revision on contract has been specified in other legal systems more or less, but no place has been identified in the Iranian legal system. Therefore, it is necessary to research in this regard, at first, its basics should be specified and explained as a road map.

Relativity in needs besides flexibility in citizens expectations, quality and amount of serving public services lead to emergence of a control mechanism on serving system. complying public services with requirements, known as "public service serving principles" is a prerequisite to managing them. Moreover, the importance of the continuity principle, requires a ceaseless reach to public services which guarantees both public order and public interest’s realization in society. Accordingly, establishing a court of justice to orientate of public service principles to external serving forms seems necessary. Because of particular nature of public services in administrative law, the scope this paper has been focused on is the quality of judicial review of Iranian supreme administrative court. Consequently, Invoking serving public service principles (namely Principle of Equality, Neutrality, Principle of Continuity of Public Service) in Iranian supreme administrative court jurisdiction indicates accordance of this court jurisprudence and approach with above-mentioned principles

The ever-increasing expansion of the activities of the government and the executive bodies shows the necessity of taking decisions and measures to organize administrative affairs and ensure the implementation of laws. Despite this necessity, in some cases, the institutions and their officials refuse to take the decision and action that they are obliged to do according to the law. Therefore, in addition to the administrative supervision foreseen in the laws, the judicial supervision of administrative acts is undeniable as one of the important and new challenges of administrative law in order to prevent the violation of citizens' rights.The uncertainty that exists in this context is whether the court of administrative justice as an administrative judge has the authority to supervise administrative omission or not? The following article, using the descriptive-analytical method, while explaining the concept of administrative omission, comes to the conclusion that, firstly, using the articles (10), (11) and (12) of the Law of the Administrative Court of Justice has the authority to "cancel" and "mandate" and therefore can deal with the administrative omissions. Secondly, the legislator in 1402, while amending the law of the Court of Administrative Justice, made the filing of a complaint in the Court's branches subject to the initial reference to the institution and obliged the institutions to respond to the request of the applicants, which led to the regulation of administrative decision-making, Documenting and justifying decisions and reducing administrative omissions.

Peaceful settlement of disputes is one of the great achievements of human civilization and we are the heirs of this precious and valuable heritage. The New York Convention with the main and fundamental issue of recognition and enforcement of agreements and foreign arbitration awards is the result of the aforementioned legacy, which has remained popular for 60 years and its fundamental mission is to standardize the laws and procedures of recognition and Sees the implementation of arbitration decisions and agreements. According to paragraphs a and b of paragraph 2 of article 5 of this convention, respectively, arbitrability and public order are among the obstacles to the recognition and implementation of issued decisions, which the courts can refer to. These predicted criteria, whose mission is to support and protect the basic principles and standards of the rights and values of each country, and which are considered to be among the judicial supervision of the country that recognizes and enforces the decision, are closely related to each other, and it is assumed that each Multiple arbitrability and the impossibility of referring some specific cases to arbitration have been formed based on the general order of the countries, although they have common roots, they are distinct from each other and they are different from each other. The effort of this article will be to focus on explaining this importance and specifying the limits and boundaries of these criteria and obstacles to identifying and implementing foreign arbitration awards.

The main issue tried to be investigated in this article is what is the structure and process of the preliminary branch of the International Criminal Court? This article is descriptive and analytical and the mentioned question has been investigated using the library method. The findings indicate that the existential philosophy of the establishment of the preliminary branch, in the face of the prosecutor's office, is that countries at the time of the Rome Statute, wanted to establish an institution that could protect the prosecutor from any suspicion of non-compliance with the standards of justice and fairness. Therefore, with the establishment of the preliminary branch, the way is closed to any doubt in the performance of the duties of the prosecutor. The preliminary branch of the International Criminal Court is an advanced judicial system that has been able to meet the goals of a standard trial to some extent by the interaction of the prosecutor's office in the preliminary investigation phase, by issuing the necessary licenses and regulatory policies. The result is that at the stage of starting the prosecution and conducting the preliminary investigation, if the prosecutor does not want to observe the principles of justice and fairness as an impartial judge, he can easily start the prosecution against a country and this is the preliminary branch that prevents this.

The significance of comparative study in the field of administrative law, which heavily relies on foreign legal frameworks unlike other domestic legal fields, cannot be overstated. Within this context, the examination of administrative justice, which plays a pivotal role in the establishment and evolution of administrative law in influential legal systems, becomes increasingly important. This article aims to explore the characteristics and distinctions of administrative justice models across the globe, with a focus on the legal foundations of each respective legal system and the extent to which these distinctions are reflected in the procedural components. Among the various classifications of administrative justice patterns, the classification of countries based on organizational criteria and competency appears to be the most meaningful and comprehensive. From this perspective, countries can be categorized into three models: judicial unity (English model(, judicial duality (French model(, and mixed system (Germany-Belgium model(. Key factors such as the definition of the concept of public interest, the relationship between substantive and formal rules, the nature of the judge-administration relationship, and the unity or duality of the legal framework and judicial authorities significantly influence the formation and differentiation of each justice model. These factors manifest themselves to varying degrees in the quality and manner of justice, as well as in the issue of control and the authorities of the administrative judge.

Background and Aim The diagnostic competence of administrative organizations, including the tax affairs organization, is one of the important issues of administrative law, which is closely related to the rights of citizens, and its supervision is of great importance in order to realize good administration. The purpose of this article is to examine the role of judicial supervision of the Administrative Court of Justice on the diagnostic competence of the Tax Administration in the realization of good administration. This paper is descriptive and analytical using library method.Ethical Considerations: In this paper, the originality of the text, honesty, and trustworthiness are respected. The findings indicate that the judicial supervision of the Court of Administrative Justice on the diagnostic competence of the Tax Affairs Organization. It plays an important role in the realization of good administration. The rule of law and fairness in front of the law and accountability are the most important components of good administration, and the supervision of the administrative justice devolve can cause the realization and implementation of these components in the process of diagnostic competence in the tax affairs organization, in which case the rights of tax payers are respected. The role of judicial supervision of the Court of Administrative Justice on the diagnostic competence of the Tax Affairs Organization in the realization of good administration is faced with challenges such as multiplicity and ambiguity in the laws, which need to be reformed.

The judicial control of the Administrative Justice is realized by conforming the provision with the law. The correct interpretation of the law requires a coherent intellectual-scientific system that negates the possibility of any misapprehension. The general body of the Administrative Justice influenced by the standards of the principles of Islamic jurisprudence has explicitly or implicitly attempted to annul or confirm the provisions of the Executive. The wide application of the topics of principles of Islamic jurisprudence, ranged from words to practical principles, in the judgements of the Administrative Justice implies that this institution has focused on practical issues by avoiding the theoretical differences between the Osulis. The reasons for annulling or confirming the act which are known as the reasons for annulment in the legal literature are resulted from the issues of the principles of Islamic jurisprudence. Although the view of Administrative Justice on the standards of inferring the Islamic law is not immune to criticism, but more than three decades of experience of judicial control has left a fruitful practice and it implies that the standards of the principles of Islamic jurisprudence are effective in any issue.

Pilot Judgment, taken by the European Court of Human Rights, is a method that reduces both the number of claims with the same source and the structural defects that lead to the violation of human rights and, consequently, the making of multiple uses. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the feasibility of pilot-judgment in the Administrative Justice Court. The research method is comparative; in this way, based on the rules and precedent of the European Court of Justice, the nature, function, and manner of pilot-judgment are identified, and the existing grounds and gaps for its application in the Administrative Justice Court explain through analytical examination. Pilot judgment means taking action to reform a structural problem to stop the making similar lawsuits in the future, has the necessary capability to promote the position of the Administrative Justice Court as the highest institution for reviewing the administration and can role play as a tool for creating a scientific dialogue to reform structures between the administration and the Court. In the rules governing the Court, there is the capacity to enforce pilot-judgment to cause significant review under administration, and of course, this capacity is subject to self-awareness and the will to effectively judicial review.

Welfare rights, by providing a minimum of an honorable life, have a significant role in the development of mankind. On the other hand, without welfare rights, civil and political rights remain abstract freedoms. Thus, we must also ensure and protect the rights in addition to recognizing them. Otherwise, they are only claims and nothing more. Therefore, the existence of a judicial authority that acts as a guarantor to the implementation of an individual's welfare rights before the administrative apparatus is inevitable in any legal system so that people can sue in order to restore their rights. In other words, welfare rights, including the right to social security, the right to education, the right to employment, equality, and non-discrimination, require judicial authority to ensure their realization. In the Iranian legal system, according to Article 173 of the Constitution, the Administrative Justice Court is recognized as a special authority for dealing with grievances and objections of all persons to the actions and decisions of administrative bodies, which, through the handling of complaints, guarantees the rights of individuals. Therefore, in this study, which has been done by the analytical-descriptive method and by analyzing the contents of books, articles, and opinions of the General Assembly of the Administrative Justice Court, we will seek an answer to the question of the performance of the Administrative Justice Court in the position of judicial supervision. What is the purpose of guaranteeing welfare rights in the Iranian legal system?