Comparative Studying of Without examining judge ICCmodel and with examining judge Iranian model

The "interrogator" is currently facing many challenges and criticisms. The removal of the investigator has occurred in countries such as Germany, and has faced numerous judicial restrictions in France. The criticisms of the investigator can be raised in three main directions: First, since the investigator personally conducts the investigation and collects the reasons for the crime, there is ambiguity in the possibility of impartiality. This ambiguity becomes more pronounced in cases where the judge's decisions conflict with the fundamental rights of individuals, such as the right to freedom and privacy. Secondly, the presence of an interrogator will be the agent of criminal proceedings; as with the prosecutor's model of criminal procedure, in addition to the conviction of the judge of the court after the end of the trial, the persecution of conscientious objection is also required after the completion of the preliminary investigation phase. The existence of two conscientious persuasions in the process of prosecution of a criminal case is not necessary and results in no longer than a prolonged criminal procedure. Thirdly, the interrogator, in the pattern of an investigator due to practical problems and lack of human resources, only works in some more important cases. The practical consequence of this is the lack of a complete breakdown of the prosecution and prosecution and the prosecutor's office (as the executive and the prosecutor) to investigate. In Iran's criminal procedure, despite the criticisms, the pattern has been accepted by the prosecutor; while in the International Criminal Court model there is no interrogator and the prosecutor is simultaneously conducting a prosecution.