چکیده:
Currently, two models exist in the world: one with an investigating magistrate and one without. In the model with an investigating magistrate, the stages of prosecution and investigation are separated; the former is at the disposal of the prosecutor and the latter is at the disposal of the investigating magistrate. Conversely, in the model without an investigating magistrate, both the duties of prosecution and investigation are assigned to the prosecutor. The investigating magistrate currently faces numerous challenges and criticisms. Changes and developments in countries such as Germany and Italy, whose criminal procedure is based on the model with an investigating magistrate, as well as the model adopted in the Statute of the International Criminal Court, indicate a global trend toward abolishing the investigating magistrate as a judge who directly participates in investigations and the collection of evidence of a crime, and replacing it with supervisory judges who have no role in conducting investigations and whose exclusive duty is to oversee the actions of the prosecutor. This supervision becomes prominent in cases where the prosecutor's actions could infringe upon individuals' freedom or privacy. For example, in Germany and Italy, which have abolished the investigating magistrate from their judicial systems, the prosecutor does not have the right to issue arrest warrants, and this responsibility lies with the supervisory judges. This is while the authors of Iran's Criminal Procedure Code, despite the scientific and practical challenges facing the investigating magistrate and the changes occurring in the world, still believe in the model with an investigating magistrate.
خلاصه ماشینی:
The changes and developments that have occurred in countries such as Germany and Italy, whose criminal procedure was based on the model with an investigating magistrate, as well as the model adopted in the Statute of the International Criminal Court, indicate a global trend toward abolishing the investigating magistrate as a judge who directly participates in investigations and the collection of evidence of a crime, and replacing it with supervisory judges who have no role in conducting investigations and whose exclusive duty is to oversee the actions of the prosecutor.
It is obvious that given Germany's affiliation with the Romano-Germanic legal system and under the influence of the French Code of Criminal Procedure, in the 1877 law, the stages of prosecution and investigation were separated; the former was at the disposal of the prosecutor and the latter was the responsibility of the investigating magistrate.
For example, on one hand and according to article a-1-5432 of the Statute, the duties of prosecution and investigation are merged, similar to the Common Law system, and both are assigned to the prosecutor; and on the other hand, according to article d-6-64, 33, at the main trial stage, the court can order the collection of other evidence that was not collected during the preliminary investigation stage, issue; which is reminiscent of Romano-Germanic systems and the intervention of a judge in investigations.
(
, 
, 
)
