نشریه تعالی حقوق
سال سیزدهم شماره 2 (تابستان 1401)

Today, with the adoption of the Copyright Directive of 2004 and the Lisbon Treaty of 2009 and the granting of policy jurisdiction to the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, absolute protection of copyright in works in the European Union has been modified. Specifically, These provisions, in cases of conflict between the copyright of the owner of the work and the fundamental rights of individuals, prioritize the observance of the fundamental rights of the people and, as a result, do not consider copyright applicable in such cases. However, in Iran, due to the lack of legislative policy, the approach of this system has an effect on the absolute protection of property rights. This has negative effects such as creating a monopoly and preventing the development of science and technology, which reinforces the need to amend the regulations of the Iranian legal system. To achieve the stated goals, the present study in five speeches first describes the status of the EU legal system, the approach of the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights and the scope of jurisdiction of these authorities in assessing the possibility of copyright infringement. Phenomenon deals with the rules governing the Iranian legal system.

Moral vices, as one of the criteria of moral reproach, involve "purely immoral" behaviors. Therefore, the present paper will examine the challenges of criminalizing these behaviors from the perspective of self-governance theory and the principle of harm. And it argues precisely that the criminalization of certain moral vices violates the right of citizens to self-determination. Therefore, criminalizing these behaviors will not be justified. On the other hand, from the point of view of the theory of virtue, a moral vice is not a sufficient condition for criminalization. Moreover, assuming that the criminalization of a vice is justified on the basis of a reading of the principle of harm, Then, it cannot necessarily be said that the application of criminal law against this behavior is effective.

The judiciary, as one of the branches of the Islamic Republic of Iran, has important and important duties. Regardless of the judicial duties and the hostility to this power, according to the constitution, the serious and important task of protecting individual and social rights, the responsibility for restoring and supporting public rights and promoting justice and legitimate freedoms has been entrusted with this power. The attention of the judiciary to these important and fundamental rights, which have always been historically demanded by the public, can increase public confidence in the judiciary and promote public satisfaction and the establishment of justice in society. But it must be borne in mind that, along with the importance of these rights, there are numerous challenges and problems that imped the full realization of these demands and make it difficult for the judiciary to carry out its duties.

The Right to citizenship means individual’s right to have civil, political and economic rights. This right has been noticed by many human rights instruments, but no instruments contain the right to citizenship in general for all human being. This is why there are many homeless and stateless people in the world. The individual free right to citizenship emerges as an opponent for the sovereign authority of a states to granting nationality. So, states have always ignored to recognize the right to citizenship as a human right. globalization and international human rights instruments Explosion in the second half of the 20th century lead to more restriction of state sovereignty and enhanced individual’s significance in international system. The concept of the right to citizenship has been also affected by such evolutions. Thus, current post-nationalism approaches that caused the emergence of some concepts such as global citizenship and universal personhood, also lead to restriction of national sovereignty in the context of citizenship and developing the concept of citizenship. So, as a result the right to citizenship can be introduced as a human right; a right that has been consolidated and developed in the aftermath of globalization.

The principle of legality On Seizing the Computer Data and System means to comply with legal rquirements since the issuance of the judicial order to stop the seizure. the effects of the principle of legality On Seizing the Computer Data and System are that: justice-oriented, according to which the Seizing the Computer Data can lead to the discovery of a crime or identification of the accused or evidence of a crime, judgment- oriented, based on which just seizure is based on a judicial authorization, and officers, even in obvious crimes, do not have the authority to do so. Consent oriented that the occupier has given permission the Computer Data and System to seize the Data and System and her presence at the time of seizure is a condition.The present article uses the method of description and analysis to explain the principle of legality On Seizing the Computer Data and System and by examining the challenges of this principle, especially from the relevance of 671 to 682 to each other and from the point of view of the condition of individual or sharing Seizing On the System. It has been concluded that the principle of legality On Seizing the Computer Data and System, although in the Code of Criminal Procedure, this is a step forward,but the judicial procedure is generally measured in terms ofconfiscation of property and objects, while the foundation of theelectronic environment and cyber space is based on data confidentiality and privacy.The purpose of this paper isto emphasize the difference between thedata and thesystem with theseizure ofphysical property in order to balance the balance between justice and the confidentiality of the data and the system.

Some of the international treaties have been concluded in order to harmonize the procedures of countries in adopting the desired criminal policy in Combating threats that target public order beyond a specific country. Due to the principle of legality, the national implementation of such treaties with penal provisions is fraught with challenges.In the present article, it is determined by a descriptive analytical method that these treaties are the source of legislation in most systems, although in Muslim countries with a legal system based on Islamic law, the Shari'a standards do not allow their acceptance. If the treaty passed by the parliament is self-executing, it will not be a problem for the national courts to recognize it as valid, although the implementation of the provisions of the treaties, especially in the criminal dimension, often requires the enactment of a supplementary Act. The interpretation of these regulations is within the Jurisdiction of the national judge, and in case of conflict, different solutions have been offered according to the approach of the legal system, Which is Affected by the position of treaties in the hierarchy of internal regulations and the approach to the theory of unity or duality. The rules of criminal law also do not allow the retroactivity of these provisions, However, in some countries this rule has been violated.

In vegetative state, a person seeks irreparable damage to the cells of his cortex and brainstem, in a state that, despite the ability to perform involuntary activities of the body, lacks any awareness and consciousness. Due to the fact that these people are considered alive and their inability to manage their property, it is necessary to think of a plan to manage their property. Given the lack of explicitness of the law in this regard, this study seeks to answer the question of how in the Iranian legal system, the management of individual property in “vegetative state"? The exclusion of these people has no legal basis and cannot provide the necessary protection for them; however, a person in the vegetative state can be considered as an example of people who are not incapable but need legal support to manage their property. It seems that until the amendment of the law, it can be suggested that the courts, with the unity of the criterion of the verdicts of the Incapables, determine the missing or incapable of administering the property of such trustees; However, in any case, the final solution is to amend Article 104 in future amendments to the non-Litigious jurisdiction act in such a way that it includes incapacitated persons who are unable to express their will.