The Rule of Appropriateness Prosecution in the Iranian legal system and international criminal proceedings (A comparative study)

Although the Rule of Mandatory Prosecution.is one of the characteristics of advanced legal systems, but from the perspective of Policy Paper on the Interests of Justice, sometimes it is necessary to abandon this principle and turn to the Rule of Appropriateness Prosecution. Adopting such a policy is closer to the goal of correcting the offender and from the perspective of legal sociology is considered a step towards avoiding labeling of offenders. This judicial policy has been implemented not only in the Iranian criminal system but also in many legal systems of the world, especially the international criminal system. The present study, based on a descriptive-analytical method, has examined the implementation of The Rule of Appropriateness Prosecution in both the Iranian criminal system and the international criminal system, especially in the International Criminal Court (ICC), The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (Tokyo Trial), International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and it has been concluded that the policies of policy paper on the Local Remedies, Policy paper on case selection and prioritization, Policy Paper on the Interests of Justice and Policy Paper on the Interests of Expediency are among the most important judicial policies in the issues raised by these courts. The Iranian legal system has also tried to implement these policies in its criminal system, with the difference that in the international system, the implementation of the principle is mandatory, while in the Iranian system, is in many cases optional and it depends on the opinion of the judge or prosecutor. Adopting such a procedure, of course, in comparison with the international criminal system and also considering the positive consequences of this principle, is considered as a shortcoming in judicial policy.