Criticizing the Iranian Criminal Procedure Code Approach in Absenteeism (A Comparative Study with Islamic and Western Laws)

Article 406 of the Iranian Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits absenteeism in crimes involving the divine right and prescribes this type of sentence in other crimes. This approach apparently relies on the consensus of Imamiyah jurists. With the permission of the trial and in absentia conviction, all types of lawsuits are included, but due to the rule of the principle of discount, the rule of threshold, as well as the taste of Sharia, the sentence of absenteeism in the crimes of God's right does not include. The question is that to what extent the consensus adopted by the Iranian legislature is consistent with the principles of Islamic jurisprudence derived from the narrations of the infallibles on the one hand and customary judicial systems including mixed systems and accusations on the other? Accuracy in the narrations of face-to-face and absentee trials indicates that consensus is not consistent with the principle of the presence of a fair trial based on the narrations of the infallibles. Mixed trial and its security-oriented approach requires the absolute permission of the trial and in absentia in all crimes, including the crimes of the right of God and the crimes of human rights. According to Article 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it does not meet the needs of the current Iranian security system, nor does it represent a fair and transparent trial based on the narrations of the Infallibles. The crimes are the right of God, which disrupts public order, and complying with the fair and transparent trial of Islam, which is somewhat similar to the accusation, calls for an absolute ban on absenteeism in all crimes.