پژوهشنامه حقوق کیفری
سال دهم شماره 1 (پیاپی 19، بهار و تابستان 1398)

"Deprivation of liberty" has been known as one of the traditional executive guarantees of criminal law, used in the form of punishment for convicts. However, today with certain social norms and necessities, we are witnessing the use of "deprivation of liberty" in other branches in the form of official, educational, hygienic, disciplinary, and similar guarantees. The increasing importance and the extending use of this type of non-criminal "deprivation of liberty" in recent years, has caused the laws of various countries and international documents to recognize this type of "deprivation of liberty". Among these documents is the European Convention on Human Rights, which. as an advancing legal document in the international realm, in its 5th article, has considered an independent nature of criminal "deprivation of liberty", by numerating the instances of non-criminal "deprivation of liberty", while accepting the notion of non-criminal "deprivation of liberty".

Committing a crime in a group and organized manner, with the leadership of one or more individuals, is a problem of the current societies. Such a phenomenon requires a proper legal response. Our legislator, in article 130 of the Islamic Penal Code, has made progress in predicting the maximum punishment of the most severe offense committed for the leadership. Nevertheless, the concept and conditions for the leadership in our law are ambiguous and questionable. Eliminating this ambiguity requires an investigation into Article 130, dispersed laws and judicial procedures.
In the United States, the leadership is the subject of law, and at the same time, the judicial system of the country attempts to clarify the conditions of leadership by issuing various opinions. In the present article, we try to clarify the concept and study the conditions of leadership in Iranian and American laws through a comparative approach.

The debate of committing a crime by legal entities as a credit institution has long been a controversial issue in criminal law. Iranian lawmakers, until 2014, had not criminalized acts committed by legal entities, but, the penal code ratified in 2014 in its article 143 recognized criminal liability of legal persons. In Germany, officials have almost some authority to enforce legal safeguards, although there is no explicit law on the criminal liability of legal entities. To overcome this problem, in 2013, a draft law on criminal liability of legal entities has been drafted, but has not yet ratified as a law. To better explain the issue, we study the two criminal systems comparatively, in order to clarify why, despite the greater involvement of legal entities in the lives of individuals, the German legislator has not foreseen criminal liability for legal entities like Iran. The research methodology will be analytical.

M.A in Criminal Law & Criminology at University of Guilan According to the nature of international crimes which are often committed because of the conspiracy between two or more persons, there is much more need to criminalize conspiracy for international crimes than for ordinary crimes. Although there was the conspiracy in the Nuremburg and Tokyo Charters in general, it has been limited to Genocide in ICTY and ICTR Statutes and finally, it was removed from the ICC Statute. Exploring the statutes and jurisprudence of the international criminal courts shows that there are two different kinds of conspiracy: conspiracy as an inchoate crime, and conspiracy as a mode of participation. Even though by introducing various modes of collective responsibility in Art. 25(3) of the statute of the ICC, it is not necessary to express conspiracy as a mode of participation in the ICC, there also remains the necessity of criminalizing conspiracy as an inchoate crime in the ICC.

Legislative system in Islamic Penal Code (1392/2014) has mentioned an unfamiliar institution named "Designated Tazir" and made it difficult for lawyers and scholars to understand its notion and examples. The author believes that in law enacted in 2014 it has explicitly accepted the Principle of Legality in Tazirat penalties; therefore, to recognize specific instances of "Designated Tazir" only penal law must be referred to. This article aims to identify specific instances of designated Tazir punishments taking different views into account. Two criteria are highlighted: according to the first criterion, a designated Tazir must be explored in accordance with the principle of legality like other Tazir punishments. As for the second criterion, designated Tazir punishments are like Hudud, the specific instances of which must be identified in accordance with article 220 of the Islamic penal code. The author believes that neither of these two criteria is sufficient and suggestion such a mechanism is futile and baseless.

The purpose of this study was to investigate and categorize the crime preventive measures at residential block level. Paying attention to different levels of residential space and the categorization of solutions derived from concepts such as natural surveillance, territory, access control and audibility can be an effective step in clarifying how strategies are influenced and it is influential in presenting and predicting the results of strategies. Different levels of residential space are space, unit, block, complex, neighborhood, district, town or city. The information gathering method in this paper is taking notes from library resources and the questionnaire tool for field studies that were analayzed with statistical methods. The findings indicate that the application priority of each of principles of natural surveillance, territory, access control and audibility in providing solutions is different according to the residential level of block and in particular the type of its attributes.

Criminal procedure is a system that ensures the accused's rights. One of the norms of this system is accused's access to an attorney. The importance of this norm is so great that international instruments and domestic laws, identifying this right, have expressed necessity of attorney presence in favour of the defendant in some cases. This article seeks to answer two questions: What is the foundations attorneyship of accused? How much do the international documents and Iranian criminal justice makers pay attention to these bases?
The findings of this research illustrate that human right foundations, criminal policy strategies and criminology doctrines justify access to a lawyer in favour of accused. In recent year's positive change have occurred in the approach of the Iranian criminal justice system to the right of accused to have a lawyer. However, limitative provisions such as 48 article of Criminal Procedure Law and failure to provide a guarantee of the violation of the right are the things that can be criticized.

Linguistic and cultural attitudes to social and religious approaches to the phenomenon of sexual assault causing this phenomenon as a real criminal with specific constituent elements is not in Iran's legal system. Criminal titles after the domain of blaming, with a separate title, enter into a legal area and with a special view, appear in the judicial process. The rape of this process is a far-reaching process and, at the very first step, it is blamed on the challenges that these challenges face in the legislative sphere. The lexical force of the Persian language is high in the sense of being part of the rape, the low level and the values supported by this phenomenon. The fundamental reason for this is gender conflict. Gender conflict in this paper is a general conception of social-conflict approaches. Due to various gender-based attitudes, the legal process of rape in Iran's legal system has not been established and has resulted in violent sexual behaviors and sexual orientation.