چکیده:
Regarding temporary detention and interrogation, it is essential to recognize that while the investigation and questioning of suspects are necessary to uphold justice after a crime has been committed, temporary detention inherently conflicts with individual rights and freedoms, leading legislators to impose restrictions on its application. Article 217 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 2013 articulates two principal goals: first, the rationale behind issuing detention orders, and second, the objectives of the criminal justice system, namely the pursuit of justice and the maintenance of social order. This paper employs a descriptive-analytical approach, examining contemporary criminological perspectives and the views of Imami jurists through library research, to explore the legitimacy or illegitimacy of detention and interrogation prior to the establishment of guilt, across various levels of criminal accusations. Although classical juristic sources lack a comprehensive discussion specifically on interrogation, insights into the ruling on interrogation can be derived from the broader discourse on pre-conviction detention.The analysis suggests that temporary detention in Islamic law has a solid jurisprudential foundation, as many jurists have issued favorable rulings that align with legal standards, a stance also evident in the Criminal Procedure Code. Moreover, in the Islamic Republic of Iran, laws that explicitly contradict Sharia are not enacted. This study therefore concludes that the primary ruling on detention and interrogation prior to proof of guilt is non-permissibility unless a specific justification applies. It also argues that the negative impacts of detention outweigh its positive aspects; thus, the presumption of freedom for suspects prior to a definitive verdict should be prioritized, with detention as an exceptional measure. To minimize temporary detention, alternative solutions should be emphasized, reserving detention as a last resort in essential cases only.
خلاصه ماشینی:
In this article, considering modern criminological discussions and the opinions of Imami jurists on this matter, using a descriptive-analytical method and through a library-based review of their works across various levels of criminal accusations, the evidence for the permissibility or impermissibility of detention orders and interrogation before the proof of accusation has been addressed.
Therefore, it can be said that temporary detention orders in Islamic laws possess a jurisprudential background, and many jurists have issued fatwas on this matter, and it does not conflict with jurisprudential standards, as can also be observed in the Criminal Procedure Act; furthermore, in the system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, laws that explicitly conflict with Sharia are not approved; consequently, this writing demonstrates that the initial ruling regarding detention and interrogation before the proof of accusation is impermissibility, unless it is exempted due to the existence of specific evidence, and that the negative effects of detention outweigh its positive aspects; therefore, it is necessary to consider the release of suspects before the issuance of a final verdict as the principle, and the detention of suspects before the issuance of a final verdict as an exception, so that by adhering to strategies to reduce detention, cases of temporary detention are minimized and used only in necessary cases and as a last resort.
According to what is stated in the Criminal Procedure Law, interrogation means posing legal questions to the suspect to discover the truth, while respecting the defendant's rights and distinguishing between true and false accusations.
(
, 
, 
)
