A Critique of the Binding Precedent No. 790 Made by the General Board of the Supreme Court (Payment of Blood Money from the National Treasury in Intentional Felonies Short of Murder)

Researcher in the Iranian Law and Canon Research Centre, Head of the First Branch of Salehabad General Court and Head of the Salehabad Jurisdiction (Khorasan Razavi)In this regard, there are two general views on relevant articles in the Islamic Penal Code adopted in 2013, regarding the payment of blood money from the National Treasury in cases where the party inflicting an injury has fled without being identified. Some have considered the payment of blood money from the National Treasury in intentional felonies to be conditional on the identification of the perpetrator, while others hold the view that National Treasury has absolute responsibility for the mere occurrence of an intentional felony, even if the perpetrator is not identified.This disagreement in the courts led to two different inferences from the Act, finally leading the General board of the Supreme Court to get involved in this dispute and to practically end the existing conflict by making the binding precedent No. 790 dated 10/04/1399, and creating a uniform procedure in this regard.In this article, we shall review and evaluate the existing views and that of the binding precedent.