نوع مقاله : پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 کارشناسی ارشد حقوق جزا و جرمشناسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، اهواز، ایران.
2 دکتری حقوق جزا و جرمشناسی، دانشگاه ارومیه، ارومیه، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Jurisdiction is a foundational principle in criminal procedure, as the authority to adjudicate a case is contingent upon its prior establishment. Non-compliance with jurisdictional rules may result in the annulment of judgments by superior judicial bodies. The Peace Court, established following the enactment of the Dispute Resolution Councils Law on 22/06/1402, has altered the jurisdictional authority for certain offenses, including seventh- and eighth-degree crimes, traffic accidents, and workplace accidents. The adjudication of these offenses, previously under the purview of the Second Criminal Courts, has been transferred to the Peace Court. This transfer, however, has generated jurisdictional conflicts among criminal authorities in cases involving multiple offenses or multiple grounds for liability. It has also created ambiguities regarding: the authority to authorize renewed prosecution, the enforcement of the Peace Court’s criminal judgments, and indirect jurisdictional conflicts along with the temporal scope of jurisdictional application. Through an analysis of existing legislation and judicial practice, this study demonstrates that these ambiguities can be resolved by: identifying explicit statutory provisions for various crimes, determining the principal offender in cases with multiple causative factors, adopting a restrictive interpretation of the Peace Court’s jurisdiction, and clarifying the Court’s responsibilities throughout all stages of criminal proceedings.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)