چکیده:
One of the issues discussed in national and international criminal procedure is the issue of trial in absentia. In contemporary legal systems, on one hand, and in national and international criminal procedures, on the other hand, there are many differing opinions regarding this subject. Each of the criminal justice systems has reasons and justifications for prohibiting or allowing trials in absentia. In the accusatorial system, in principle, trial in absentia is not considered permissible. Conversely, in the inquisitorial system, conducting a trial in absentia is considered consistent with the principles. The main basis for the prohibition or permissibility of trial in absentia also traces back to the nature of the two aforementioned justice systems. Accordingly, this article attempts to clarify and explain the views of contemporary legal systems, especially the views of the accusatorial, inquisitorial, and Islamic systems, regarding holding trials in absentia in criminal matters. It then proceeds to examine this issue in the practical practice of international criminal courts. The regulations of Iranian criminal procedure regarding the holding of trials in absentia will also be considered. The result obtained from the above discussions can serve as a guide for the Iranian legislator in approving regulations related to the method of holding trials in absentia and bringing the laws closer to the criteria of international treaty rules in this regard.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Of course, the European Court of Human Rights reluctantly accepts trial in absentia, and its acceptance is accompanied by the observance of guarantees, which are: 1) the accused must have been officially informed of the charges against them, 2) there must be reasons to believe that they intentionally refrained from participating in their trial session, 3) the accused must always have the right to appear before the court and request that the trial be restarted, even if they have previously been convicted; in other words, they have the right to ask the court handling their case to adopt a new decision regarding the subject matters, 4) the accused has the right to appoint a lawyer for their defense.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee25 also announced ten years before the Secretary-General's report that in exceptional circumstances, it is possible for a person to be tried in absentia; provided that the accused has been informed of the proceedings and has been summoned to appear in court at an appropriate time when they can defend themselves (Nikouei, 2006:228).
29 Article 124 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Court has also established regulations regarding the voluntary non-appearance of the accused in trial sessions.
The Statute of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon31, which differs in this respect from other international criminal courts (except Nuremberg), provides for proceedings in absentia (Aghaei Jantmekan, 2009:40).
(
, 
, 
)
