---

The act of a political offender which is manifested in depicting the ineffectiveness of a governing structure or policy with a reformation motive and without violence requires a distinct legislative strategy and differential trial over ordinary criminals.
   In countries that have recognized the principle of freedom of expression, there has been no criminalization of political activities at all, but in countries where criminalization has done, penalizing in comparison to other cases especially with regard to security offenses, is balanced and distinctive.
   In Iran, after nearly four decades after the promise of the constitution to define political offences in ordinary law and how to investigate it, finally in 2015, the Law of Political Offence was adopted. However, on the one hand, the legal ambiguity about the definition of political offences and the explanation of its cases violates the "transparency principle" and has provided the basis for interpretability of legal articles and dispersion in judgments. On the other hand, judges' stereotype in considering any protesting behavior or speech of citizens anti-security due to legislator's high sensitivity to banning any act or statement of protest or critique of the sovereignty and also preferring the presumption of guilt and malice instead of the presumption of Innocence and prima facie by judges has become a serious obstacle in the way of differential investigation to political charges.  This research, in a descriptive-analytical way, explores the criminal policy of Iran with regard to political offence and its challenges using library resources.

---

Mohammad Jafar Habibzadeh Associate Professor, Department of Law, Tarbiat Modarres University Seyed Doraid Mousavi Mojab Ph.D. Student of Criminal Law and Criminology, Tarbiat Modarres University  The necessity to protect to parliament and its members led to determine and assure a particular privilege named parliamentary immunity in the Constitutions or ordinary laws of majority of the countries. This legal institution has been predicted to provide freedom of speech and to maintain the independence of representatives (members of parliament) in order to do their duty favorably. To define and justify the necessity of it, different theories I ike "good service theory" and "the prestige of representatives' legal personality" have been introduced. In this regard, "Doctrine of Necessity" is presented as the most important theoretical basis. The legal supports which observe the parliamentary immunity, can be generally studied in two categories with distinct descriptions and effects. First, it demonstrates the benefits and utilization of immunity by the representatives for their statements, opinions, and the cast of votes in order to do their duty as representative, which idiomatically is called "the principle of non-liability". Second, it supports the members of parliament against legal proceedings, arrest. imprisonment and the rest judicial measures, except by the permission and allowance of the respective parliament, because of irrelevant exercises and non - parliamentary duties and prevents the possibility of immediate prosecution of MPs because of the attributed crimes. This kind of immunity which is practically is the logical consequence of the non-liability principle of representatives before their parliamentary duties, is named "the principle of inviolability". The stand of every country of the world in relation to the various forms of parliamentary immunity is a little bit different. In some countries, one of these two forms and in others. both of them are accepted to guarantee the whole immunity of MPs. Respectively, the first approach is called solo and the second one is called integrative. In Iran, the first approach depended on the non-liability of representatives because of their statements has been accepted in Art: 86 of the Constitution. The accuracy of this acceptance is approvable from the dynamic Fiqh’s point of view and the expediencies and existing necessities require to go along with the rest of countries which accepted the principle of parliamentary immunity.

---

Seyed Doraid Mousavi Mojab Ph.D. Student of Criminal Law and Criminology, Tarbiat Modarres University  More than six decades past since the important and everlasting work of Edwin H. Sutherland, The famous professor of penal sociology in the U.S.A, entitled “white-collar crime”, has been published. Sutherland explained this topic in terms of its importance for the civil society of the U.S.A, and opened a new way which was later pursued by the celebrated criminologists. From the criminologists point of view, white- collar criminals who have no ethical conscience, enjoy high ability to commit a crime on one hand, and their conformitibility is in a high level on the other hand. This point expresses the probable harms of these good- looking criminals and their dangerous state. White- collar criminals belong to high social classes, they enjoy power and effectual influence. They commit crimes such as fraud, embezzlement, bribery, forgery, abuse of credit cards, efc. In Sutherland’s definition, “white-collar crime” is a crime committed by a person of high status in the course of occupation. They are called white - collar criminals, because of their plausible face, public reputation, intelligence and being under social acceptability. The effects of their criminal acts are in a manner, which their results predominantly remain for a long time. However , it’s necessary to study the white- collar crimes whit respect to their destructive effects on communities through a comprehensive approach, especially from criminologicaly aspects.

---

Objective: Leishmaniasis is one of the six most common parasitic infections in tropical regions. There are different therapeutic modalities. However therapeutic resistance is developed and resulted in numerous problems. So evaluation of other therapeutic modalities is performed extensively. We compared the therapeutic response of cutaneous leishmaniasis with Glucantime and Garlic extract and it'R10 in animal model. Materials and Methods: This experimental study was conducted in Shahed University. The therapeutic response of cutaneous leishmaniasis to Glucantime and Garlic extract and R10 in animal model was studied in BALB/c, outbred SW mice and C57BL/6 mice. These three races were divided in four groups according to receiving either one of these three agents or no treatment (control). The therapeutic response was evaluated according to parasitic load before and after treatment and also with measuring the size of the lesions. Results: The results showed that R10 had good therapeutic efficacy in treatment of lesions in mice (P<0.05) that this efficacy was significant in sixth, seventh and eighth weeks after the treatment. There was also a statistically significant difference between the groups regarding the parasitic load (P<0.05). Conclusion: According to the results, it may be concluded that R10 extract would have a good efficacy in treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis that is comparable with glucantime.

---

      The obviation rule is the most applied rule in penal jurisprudential rules and plays a significant role in the scope of specified punishments (Hudud) and other punishments. The rule significance -which coincides to global criterion of human rights, the principle of human dignity, and guarantees the fair trial- explains that whenever the committing crime, the attribution of crime to the defendant or existence of other circumstances in proving the charge lies in doubt, the judge must interpret the laws in favor of the defendants.
         In this article, moreover explaining the legal foundations and jurisprudential predicates of the rule, the definitions and the criterion of doubt is also studied to draw a framework for the rule. The legislator in Islamic Penal Act 2013 has stated the rule’s significance in s. 120 & 121 that contains the doubt in committing the crime and its’ circumstances, doubt in crime’s elements and the conditions of criminal responsibility.
         Some jurists, specially the Hanafi jurists, have extensively applied the rule and others, such as Zaheri and Imami jurists, for example Ibn-e-Hazm Andolosi and Ayatollah Khoyee, have shown indecisions which are signify non acceptance. It must be studied that the rule significance has other thing than innocence presumption or not, or essentially we must suffice to it up to rational principles such as innocence principle. The undue limitation in obviation rule’s scope which arises from inherent human dignity of the defendants will have negative impacts undoubtedly, because the scope of the rule, moreover the procedural and substantive laws, establishes the right of evasion of punishment and the right of non-applying the specified punishment again for persons.
 

---

---

---

The development of the corporates presence in the human social life of the twenticth century has led to the expansion of the criminal aspects of this presence. Corporate criminal and offenses are emerging from the needs of the victims, offenders and community, which are not effectively resolved through traditional criminal justice systems responses and interventions.One of the most important needs associated with corporate crimes is the compensation of somewhat widespread harm caused by corporate criminal behaviors. Problems such as the multiplicity of the victims, the existence of indeterminate losses, the existence of unknowing victims of victimization,the victimization of the state, the high percentage of secondary victimization, because of the power and ability of corporates to escape accountability has led traditional criminal justice processes to compensate for the corporate crimes No be successful. In this descriptive-analytic method, this paper exmine the challenges of traditional and generally retributive approach in response to the needs of the victims and using the experience of countries such as Australia and Canada in adapting to the restorative approaches in this area, the capabilities of the paradigm of restorative justice are responding ,to the damage caused by corporate crimes.Based on the finding of the present paper,restorative responses can resolve the various concerns of the criminal justice system in responding to the needs of the victim and compensate for them.

---

Good faith as an essential principle in substantive and procedural criminal law, can be discussed not only in the context of justifying the exercise of legal institutions including justifiable causes, legal excuses and mitigating factors for the crime perpetrator, but also in criminal proceedings, from the police stage to the investigation stage and even the execution of the sentence, have a special position. Though in the legal literature and in the criminal laws of many countries, explicitly or implicitly, the principle of good faith and its effect on the decision of the judicial authority and the scope of the criminal responsibility of the perpetrator, providing the basis for the use of the institutions of mutual aid, granting the right of defense to the accused in justifying the committed behavior and removing the charge, balancing the view of the official actors of the criminal justice system, etc. has been mentioned, but in the literature of Iran’s criminal law and criminal procedure, this principle has not been paid attention to in a proper and specific way. Although some judicial activists pay attention to good faith as a justification for adjusting or changing charges and changing the amount of punishments based on legal doctrine, but due to the lack of identification of the legal position of the aforementioned principle and its disregarded place during the criminal proceedings, the effective role of it, is not taken into account. In this research, which was carried out in a descriptive-analytical and at the same time comparative method by using library tools and analyzing the content of some opinions, the position of the good faith principle during the criminal proceedings process was explained and the positive consequences of legal and judicial efforts were explained. It has been mentioned, among other things, narrowing the scope of the population of suspects and accused persons, reducing the rate of court cases, reducing the number of convicts and prisoners, as well as consolidating the position of fair trial.


 

---

---

Undoubtedly, one of the most important legal and judicial challenges in Islamic countries’ criminal law is the duality of Sharia and Law. Despite the Constitutions’ emphasis of the vast majority of Islamic countries that Islam is the official religion and the foundations of Islamic Law are the main source of legislation, in practice, except in a few Islamic countries, including Iran, there is no sign of Islamic Law.
   In criminal laws and regulations of countries such as Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon, not only can no trace of Islamic Sharia be found, but also in them can be seen a serious conflict with the principles of Islamic Sharia, especially the Qurchr('39')an and Sunnah. In this regard, explaining the reason and investigating the most important causes of duality is the main purpose of this study.
   Findings of research in this article show that important and influential causes on the duality of Sharia and Law in Islamic countries are the occupation of some Islamic countries, the influence of intellectual and secular currents in the criminal law system, the globalization of criminal law and inattention to Haqq Allah (what is due to God/God’s right) and contentment with Haqq al-Nas (what is due to men/people’s right).
   This research which using descriptive-analytical method and using library resources, explains the reasons and consequences of the duality of Sharia and Law in Islamic countries.

---

Punishing and prosecuting the offenders of terrorist crimes is the right and duty of every country to ensure the peace and stability in society, and to guarantee the right of the state to punish anyone who violates the system and the public stability. However on the one hand, this right is restricted by the principles of fair trial in order to adopt fair procedures towards the accused of terrorist crimes and meantime, guaranteeing the dignity of these accused, protect them from fraudulent lawsuits and retaliatory complaints; on the other hand, to guaranteeing the rule of law, the criminal procedure and human rights. Despite the importance of upholding the principles of fair trial for the terror accused and the guarantees emphasized by the International Covenants on the need to observe the principles of a fair trial for them and the emergence of a new trend in the observance of these principles, in recent periods, in the domestic legislative system of many countries, there is lack or insufficiency of fair trial for the defendants of terrorist crimes. This problem has led to unimaginable violations. From this perspective, the present study emphasizes descriptive, analytical and comparative methods to explain the theoretical and legal foundations of the issue based on the need for fair trial of those accused of terrorist crimes, various manifestations of fair trial and ways to guarantee them, lest the innocent be convicted and the real criminal escape punishment. The findings of the study confirm the right of the government to try those accused but in line with the principles of fair trial and the need to legislate and observe the mentioned principles in the laws. This right, which is based on theoretical and legal principles at both domestic and international levels, considers it necessary to observe the principles of fair trial and considers the provision of legal, criminal and disciplinary measures if necessary in case of violating these principles and ensures the possibility of referring to the Judiciary for Innocent defendants.