چکیده:
Imamieh jurisprudents disagree about judge's responsibility، the liability of public treasury، lack of responsibility، when the judge's decision is void. Since the source of judge’s error can be different. The sentencing of responsibility or lack thereof is not the same in all cases. If the source of error is lewdness of witnesses so that after the testimony and issuing the sentence، the judge becomes aware of the fact that witnesses had been lawed. Then four theories are presented. The preferred theory is the responsibility of public treasury based on the principle of respect for Muslim blood. Also، if the source of the error is judge’s default on the subject matter or adaptation of the ruling on it، the public treasury will be the guarantor، unlike the case in which the judge neglects in a judgment and thus he will be the guarantor. Dominant jurists of Imamieh have also extended the sentencing of warranty to non-convicts. If the executioner's error in executing a judge's sentence is due to judge’s error، it will be like judge’s error. In financial cases، if an error is made while the object remains as the same، it will be returned to the original owner، and when it is perished، the person who has caused damage (the flashing) is liable، if the object has not yet reached the judge before delivery of the convicted. Otherwise، both of them become responsible because of pursuit of capture.
خلاصه ماشینی:
If the source of the error is the corruption (fisq) of the witnesses—such that the judge becomes aware of the witnesses' corruption after the testimony and the issuance of the verdict—four theories have been presented, and the chosen view is the liability of the Bait al-Mal based on the rule of respecting the blood of a Muslim.
Judge's error, Discrediting witnesses, Judge's negligence, Liability, Bait al-Mal 2- Statement of the Problem 1- Based on Article 171 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran: "Whenever material or moral damage is caused to someone as a result of the negligence or error of a judge in the subject matter, in the verdict, or in the application of the verdict to a specific case, in the event of negligence, the perpetrator is liable according to Islamic standards; otherwise, the damage shall be compensated by the government, and in any case, the reputation of the accused shall be restored.
For example, some jurists, regarding the emergence of the corruption of witnesses, have considered the payment of blood money from the Bait al-Mal conditional upon the judge's lack of negligence (tafrit) in explaining justice (Allamah Hilli, 1413, 8, 546).
3. Ibn Idris Hilli, Muhammad, (1410), Al-Sara'ir al-Hawi li-Tahrir al-Fatawa, Islamic Publications Office affiliated with the Society of Teachers of the Qom Seminary, Qom, second edition.
(
, 
, 
)
