A Comparative Study on Damage Remedy resulting from Injury in Iranian Criminal Law and International Criminal Law

There are controversies in Iranian law in terms of the existence of Qisas (retaliation in kind) and Diyah (blood money and ransom) as a religious response. Most of the Islamic jurists, based on the jurisprudential foundations, still have not regarded as legitimized that the perpetrators be responsible for damages more than Diyah. In addition to that, the scope of damages remedy has included the indirect victim in Iranian law in limited cases and in international criminal law in a broader way. Albeit, the necessity of full remedy resulting from injuries is of more significance in international criminal law in terms of seriousness, importance and extent. This point is well recognized in the documents of International Criminal Court (ICC) and is paid attention to in the documents of ad hoc international criminal tribunals in a restricted manner. According to the results of this article –that is conducted in a descriptive-analytic method and a comparative way- it appears that in accordance with jurisprudential and legal bases of Iran, compensating the injuries resulting from crimes differs from other offences and does not include the generals of civil responsibility. But through careful consideration of injuries and the related damages, the damages associated with the injury and damages resulting from it, provided that they are independent from injury to one's body or soul and that the criminal be its reason or cause, are capable to compensate more than Diyah and it seems that in international criminal law, all physical and spiritual injuries resulting from crimes are compensable. In same way, the indirect victim is protected as regards compensating for damages resulting from crimes in national and international systems; although this protection is broader in international criminal law.