hamed parsa
Abstract
Article 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Iran prohibits investigation and inquiry into crimes against chastity unless there is a private complainant in these cases. However, the ...
Read More
Article 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Iran prohibits investigation and inquiry into crimes against chastity unless there is a private complainant in these cases. However, the question is what the basis for this permission is, and whether the requirement of a complaint is an initial condition or a continuous one? In other words, in numerous cases, a complaint exists at the outset, but during the investigation, for various reasons, the complaint is withdrawn. Yet, the obligation of the judicial authority remains unclear—whether they should halt the investigation or continue it—due to ambiguity in the law. Given that this matter pertains, on one hand, to the obligation of the judicial authority and, on the other hand, to the religious ruling on investigation and intrusion into the privacy of others, resolving this ambiguity is essential. "It is worth noting that no research has been conducted to address this question. This paper, using a descriptive-analytical method, first examines the Islamic jurisprudential foundations of the permissibility of investigation at the request of the complainant and its considerations. And subsequently, relying on credible Islamic jurisprudential and legal evidence, it demonstrates that the condition of having a complainant in Article 102 is a continuing condition. Consequently, if the complaint is withdrawn during the investigation and before the crime is proven, the judicial authority must cease the proceedings. Additionally, the arguments (evidences) cited to justify the continuation of the investigations are reviewed and critiqued.
