Second Discourse: Discussion on Crimes Against Honor from the Perspective of Procedural Law (1) مقاله

خلاصه ماشینی:

Second—since in the event of a private claimant's complaint, only the subject matter can be raised, the court has no right whatsoever to listen to their statements regarding the original crime, and thus, they have not been able to prove their claim, and therefore Article 271 applies to them and they must be convicted; opponents also respond with this view. Chapter Two Course of Investigation The General Penal Code has made the prosecution of certain crimes contingent upon a complaint by a private claimant, such that if they refrain from complaining, the prosecution is also halted; Article 277 determines those cases, which include Articles 270, 272, and 273. A slanderer was previously mentioned in Article 269 as someone who attributes a misdemeanor or felony, and the crimes intended in this article and Article 269 bis are not the same; therefore, the provisions of the latter article, which are not related to Article 271, especially since the punishment for the perpetrator is determined within that article itself, thus do not require a private claimant's complaint. At first glance, it might be said that the request of the aforementioned complainants and the secondary prosecution of the fabricator is not problematic, based on the argument that his previous prosecution and punishment were due to the commission of the act in a certain way, and since the fabricator's initial statement included slander against several people, his statements naturally had a greater impact and he committed multiple crimes, and accordingly, his punishment should be determined to be greater; therefore, just as the first person compensated for the insult to themselves through complaint and punishment, others to whom the slander was directed also have this right, and it may be possible to investigate each complaint separately and conduct multiple investigations.