Challenges Facing the Additional Jurisdiction of the Criminal Court One

J urisdiction of Criminal Court One is enumerated (reckoning; computation) in Article 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enacted in 1392 and Article 9 of the Law on anti-terrorism financing enacted in 1394 (2016). However, in addition to the main jurisdiction, this court also has additional jurisdiction and articles 313 and 314 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1392 (2014) are examples of crimes committed under the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court Two for additional jurisdiction in the Criminal Court One. Due to the additional jurisdiction of Criminal Court One, the judicial procedure has faced challenges in the various stages of the preliminary inquiries, trial (proceedings) and objection. One of the findings of the researching is that if the public defender (defender au officio service, court appointed advocate) in connection with the crimes causes the punishment mentioned in paragraphs A, B, C, D of Article 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and during the trial the court finds the crime milder (lenient), the lawyer in question has still the right to defend in the case even for less serious crimes in this case. The present article descriptively-analytically, by gathering library resources and reviewing judicial opinions, highlights these challenges and finally offers practical solutions to overcome this challenge to those in charge of criminal policy-making. One of the most important findings of the present article is the lack of need for special legal formalities (due process of law) in additional jurisdiction. f