فرجام خواهی کیفری در حقوق ایران و فرانسه (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
در نظام های دادرسی کیفری، قانونگذار برای تحقق عدالت، انصاف و رعایت حقوق دفاعی متهم، طرق اعتراض به آرای کیفری صادره از مراجع قضائی را مشخص و حدود و ثغور آن را تعیین می کند. طرق اعتراض به آرای کیفری به طرق عادی و طرق فوق العاده تقسیم می شوند. طرق عادی روش های اعتراضی است که به عنوان یک حق برای طرفین امر کیفری تعیین می شود. طرق فوق العاده در اغلب نظام های حقوقی فقط به عنوان حق اعتراض برای طرفین امر کیفری و خصوصاً برای محکوم علیه در موارد خاص و فوق العاده مقرر می شود. دادستان نیز به عنوان مدعی العموم حق اعتراض فوق العاده نسبت به احکام کیفری قطعیت یافته را دارد. فرجام خواهی کیفری یکی از طرق فوق العاده ی اعتراض به احکام کیفری است که در این مقاله، چگونگی اعمال این حق و موارد و شرایط قانونی آن در دو نظام دادرسی کیفری ایران و فرانسه مورد بررسی و تحقیق قرار می گیرند.A Comparative Analysis of Criminal Appeals in Iranian and French Law
In the Iranian legal system, which is based on the principle of two levels of judicial decisions, particularly in criminal cases, judicial decisions are subject to review by a higher authority to prevent judicial errors. If a criminal decision is issued by the prosecutor’s office, it can be appealed in the general courts. Similarly, if a criminal decision is made by the general courts, it can be appealed in the provincial appellate authorities. However, the Iranian legal system has also introduced another mechanism that allows for the re-examination of judicial decisions, even after a criminal decision has become final. This mechanism is known as the retrial process, which provides a pathway for a criminal decision to be reviewed and potentially overturned. The retrial process, as defined by the law, operates under specific conditions that allow for the possibility of overturning a final decision and presenting it to another judicial branch, ideally the same one. For instance, if a verdict contradicts the principles of Islamic law, Article 477 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits the verdict to be overturned and referred to another branch, upon the approval of the Honorable Chief of the Judiciary. Similarly, if the verdict is found to be inconsistent with certain principles, documents, or provisions of the law, the Supreme Court branch, if it deems appropriate, can order the case to be retried by the Appellate Branch. However, it seems that the Appellate Branch is not obligated to follow the Court's opinion. The institution of retrial challenges the principle of the finality of judicial decisions. This principle, which is crucial to the integrity of the legal system, is undermined by the retrial process. While the finality of verdicts is a cornerstone of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is important to note that retrials are justified based on legal principles and rules, and the rights of the victim should not be disregarded or further harmed in the process. The protection of the victim’s rights is a matter that requires careful attention, especially when considering amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure. In light of these issues, this article aims to examine the role of retrial in the Iranian criminal justice system and its impact on both the finality of judgments and the protection of victims’ rights. It calls for a more balanced approach to retrial procedures, ensuring that legal standards are upheld while also safeguarding the interests of all parties involved.
تبلیغات
