چکیده:
The requirement of judicial security or justice dictates that no one should be prosecuted, tried, or punished more than once for a crime or behavior. The principle of non-bis in idem is an important principle of criminal procedure in domestic systems that has also entered the field of international law and has a special place. This principle is explicitly stated in the statutes of international criminal tribunals, both temporary, ad hoc, and permanent. Considering the superiority of international trials over domestic trials and the assumption or possibility of a fair and impartial trial, the rulings of international criminal tribunals are absolutely binding on national criminal courts, but the reverse is not true. If a state prosecutes an individual for one of the charges of international crimes in domestic courts, international criminal tribunals can, under certain circumstances, retry the same individual, and the reason for this is nothing but observing some of the most important indicators of a fair trial and preventing impunity for perpetrators of heinous international crimes. Despite this, with the expansion of grounds for retrial and prosecution in terms of the conditions of the international community and the conflict arising between the jurisdiction of national governments and international tribunals, the question arises as to what impact the issuance of a ruling by national criminal courts based on certain different criminalization situations of international crimes compared to international tribunals [specifically the Court] has on the trial or proceedings by the Court? Examining the provisions of the statutes of international tribunals suggests that the issuance of a ruling based on the aforementioned situations does not affect retrial by the Court. In this research, the aforementioned principle is analyzed descriptively and analytically from the perspective of the provisions of the statutes of international tribunals with a look at Iranian laws.
خلاصه ماشینی:
ir Date Received: 2017/09/01, Date Accepted: 2017/12/27 Introduction The principle of non-bis in idem originates as a crucial procedural rule in domestic criminal systems, but has also entered the realm of international law, as its root lies in the authority of res judicata or adjudicated matters as one of the obstacles to pursuing public prosecution.
This article, as dictated by its subject matter, has been carried out using descriptive and analytical methods and, given the importance of the subject, is organized into three parts; The first part deals with the conditions of the prohibition of double jeopardy in Iranian criminal law, and the second and third parts deal with the impact of the aforementioned rule on national and international criminal courts.
Conditions of the Prohibition of Double Jeopardy in Iranian Criminal Law Clause "Ch" of Article 13 of the Iranian Code of Criminal Procedure considers the authority of res judicata as one of the grounds for issuing a decision to suspend prosecution or enforce a judgment, while not stipulating the conditions of the rule.
After the execution of the sentence, the buyer of the deposited item, who had not been present in the previous proceedings, filed a complaint against the convicted person for the crime of selling another’s property, which, after being referred to the investigating branch, the investigator correctly determined that the complainant’s action of filing a criminal complaint was due to the same act of the accused that had previously been ruled upon, and based on Clause 5 of Article 6 of the previous law, considered the matter subject to res judicata and issued an order to suspend prosecution of the accused (Katuzian, 1387: 281-274).
(
, 
, 
)
