چکیده:
In the Iranian judicial system, the investigating magistrate is one of the officials of the prosecutor's office who is responsible for preliminary investigations of crimes, collecting evidence for and against the accused, and evaluating these evidences. The independence of the investigating official (magistrate) from the prosecuting official (prosecutor) is one of the important principles for achieving a fair trial and a main pillar of human rights impartiality in criminal proceedings. The unity of the investigating judge and the prosecutor, or the interference of other judicial authorities in preliminary investigations, leads to the violation of the defendant's defense rights because the prosecutor himself, as the representative of society and a party to the criminal case, is responsible for prosecuting the accused. It is clearly evident that such a person cannot be entrusted with the investigation and the collection of evidence—for or against the accused—due to the lack of the quality of impartiality. The results showed that given the importance of preliminary investigations, which are the foundation of criminal proceedings, it is necessary for the investigating official to be independent of the prosecutor, the court, and the litigants. Unfortunately, in the law known as the 'Revival of the Prosecutor's Office' passed in 2002, the investigating magistrate, who is the investigating official, did not enjoy full independence from the prosecutor. In fact, it can be said that the law known as the 'Revival of the Prosecutor's Office' practically placed both prosecution and investigation in the hands of one person, namely the prosecutor, who could sometimes interfere in the path of investigations and the execution of judicial justice by exercising his own opinion. In the Criminal Procedure Law of 2013, this problem has been resolved, and the investigating magistrate enjoys independence from the prosecutor regarding the issuance of temporary detention orders, the aggravation or mitigation of bail orders, determining jurisdiction, determining the type of crime or its legal instances, and issuing final orders such as summons to trial or dismissal of prosecution, etc. In the event of a dispute between them, the court is the authority for dispute resolution.
خلاصه ماشینی:
In the Criminal Procedure Law of 2013, this problem has been resolved, and the investigating judge enjoys independence from the prosecutor regarding the issuance of temporary detention orders, the aggravation or mitigation of criminal security measures, determining jurisdiction, determining the type of crime or its legal instances, and issuing final orders such as summons to trial or dismissal of prosecution, etc.
(Yousefi, 2011, 215) In the first regulations related to criminal proceedings in Iran, following the French Code of Criminal Instruction (Napoleonic Code of 1808) and its reforms in 1856, the investigating judge, in addition to being responsible for investigation and collecting evidence for and against, in another category 54 the persons mentioned in Article 19 were considered judicial officers; although the investigating judge (Bazpors) has sufficient freedom and independence of action against the prosecutor (prosecution authority) in many judicial decisions, especially final orders, in cases where he performed his duties as a judicial officer, he was under the command of the prosecutor.
In the first regulations related to criminal procedure in Iran, following the French Criminal Investigation Law (Napoleon Code 1808) and its reforms in 1856, the investigating judge, in addition to being responsible for investigation and collecting favorable and unfavorable evidence, was recognized as a judicial officer in the same category as the persons mentioned in Article 19.
Therefore, in criminal systems where preliminary investigations are the responsibility of the prosecutor's office, they have progressed to the extent of separating the prosecution authority from the investigation authority by stripping the prosecutor of the referral of investigation matters, the issuance of temporary detention orders, and the distribution of cases, and assigning them to the court judge.
(
, 
, 
)
