A Comparative Study of Parliamentary Immunity in the Constitutional Law of Iran and Some Countries of the World مقالة

خلاصة:

Today, the principle of immunity for members of legislative assemblies is among the concepts accepted in countries around the world. However, with the expansion of democracy-based systems, it is observed that as the principle of equality of persons before the law and the superiority of social justice over other desired goals gain more importance in countries, we are witnessing a reduction in immunities, including parliamentary immunity. In this research, by examining parliamentary immunity in Western countries and Muslim countries, we reach the conclusion that the principle of parliamentary immunity has been accepted in different forms in the constitutions of these countries. In most of the studied countries, parliamentary immunity is accepted in the sense of non-liability while performing representative duties. However, parliamentary immunity in the sense of inviolability or judicial immunity of representatives has not been fully established. In Iran too, although in Article 12 of the Constitution of Constitutionalism, parliamentary immunity was established in the sense of the inviolability of representatives when committing a crime, in Article 86 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, only the non-liability of members of parliament regarding statements and votes has been predicted. Therefore, in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic, ceremonial immunity for the members of the Islamic Consultative Assembly has not been provided, and if a representative commits a crime, they must be prosecuted and, in such cases, will not enjoy parliamentary immunity.