Razavi University of Islamic SciencesCriminal Law Doctrines2251-9351222920250421Social Reintegration in Quranic Narratives within the Framework of Restorative Justice: A Case Study of the Stories of Cain, Pharaoh, and the People of JonahSocial Reintegration in Quranic Narratives within the Framework of Restorative Justice: A Case Study of the Stories of Cain, Pharaoh, and the People of Jonah740216710.30513/cld.2025.7696.2202FAMaedehMovaghariM A in Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.HosainAghababayiAssociate Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.Journal Article20251027One of the fundamental challenges in criminal policy is how to design responses to offenses and the effectiveness or efficiency of such responses. Restorative justice, as a novel paradigm in criminal policy and penal philosophy, emphasizes the participation of the offender, the victim, and the local community, favoring dialogue-based responses that focus on social reintegration of the offender and repair of the victim’s harm. In this context, Quranic teachings, by presenting diverse models of wrongdoers and repentant individuals, provide valuable insights for reconsidering modern approaches to criminal justice, particularly restorative justice. The present study examines the social reintegration of offenders through the lens of restorative justice by analyzing selected Quranic narratives. This study employs a descriptive–analytical methodology, drawing on exegetical, jurisprudential, and criminological sources, as well as content analysis of selected Quranic stories. The findings indicate that the Quranic narratives present different models of reintegration and its obstacles. For instance, Cain, due to a lack of responsibility and constructive remorse, represents a complete blockage of reintegration and restoration. Pharaoh, relying on despotic power and expressing belated remorse, illustrates another case of the failure of restorative strategies at the micro level. In contrast, the story of the People of Jonah presents a successful model of social reintegration at the collective level by collective acceptance of fault, repentance and constructive shame. As a result, according to the three quranic narratives it can be said that conditions of success or fail of restorative justice do not depend on a single factor. Internal Factors, including responsivity, constructive shame and acceptance of faut along with social factors, including the presence of restorative institutions, the atmosphere of pardon and collective collaboration along with structural factors like explicit warning of divine prophets all facilitate or prevent the way through rehabilitation and restorative justice.One of the fundamental challenges in criminal policy is how to design responses to offenses and the effectiveness or efficiency of such responses. Restorative justice, as a novel paradigm in criminal policy and penal philosophy, emphasizes the participation of the offender, the victim, and the local community, favoring dialogue-based responses that focus on social reintegration of the offender and repair of the victim’s harm. In this context, Quranic teachings, by presenting diverse models of wrongdoers and repentant individuals, provide valuable insights for reconsidering modern approaches to criminal justice, particularly restorative justice. The present study examines the social reintegration of offenders through the lens of restorative justice by analyzing selected Quranic narratives. This study employs a descriptive–analytical methodology, drawing on exegetical, jurisprudential, and criminological sources, as well as content analysis of selected Quranic stories. The findings indicate that the Quranic narratives present different models of reintegration and its obstacles. For instance, Cain, due to a lack of responsibility and constructive remorse, represents a complete blockage of reintegration and restoration. Pharaoh, relying on despotic power and expressing belated remorse, illustrates another case of the failure of restorative strategies at the micro level. In contrast, the story of the People of Jonah presents a successful model of social reintegration at the collective level by collective acceptance of fault, repentance and constructive shame. As a result, according to the three quranic narratives it can be said that conditions of success or fail of restorative justice do not depend on a single factor. Internal Factors, including responsivity, constructive shame and acceptance of faut along with social factors, including the presence of restorative institutions, the atmosphere of pardon and collective collaboration along with structural factors like explicit warning of divine prophets all facilitate or prevent the way through rehabilitation and restorative justice.https://cld.razavi.ac.ir/article_2167_e6afd83cf4d0e2d46b8b5f8ee0945ccb.pdfRazavi University of Islamic SciencesCriminal Law Doctrines2251-9351222920250421Reconstructivist Theory's Approach to Democratic Criminal Law with a Focus on the Iranian Criminal Justice SystemReconstructivist Theory's Approach to Democratic Criminal Law with a Focus on the Iranian Criminal Justice System4178216810.30513/cld.2025.7341.2168FAHosseinGholamiProfessor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Allameh Tabatabaie University, Tehran, Iran.AtiehParsaeianPhD student, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Allameh Tabatabaie University, Tehran, Iran.Journal Article20250830The present article, adopting an analytical-comparative approach and with a brief reference to the Iranian criminal justice system, explores the capacities of Kleinfeld's Reconstructivism Theory in explaining the structural obstacles to realizing democratic criminal justice.<br />Within this theoretical framework, which conceptualizes justice as communication, the transition from the traditional paradigm of "criminal law as control" to an institutional architecture based on the three principles of participation, transparency, and institutional balance is considered as the fundamental strategy for rebuilding public trust and repairing normative ruptures.<br />The research findings indicate that these three principles stand in a dialectical relationship with one another, so that the absence or weakness of any of them disrupts the overall function of the criminal justice system. Ultimately, the conducted comparative analysis corroborates the proposition that legitimacy in the contemporary era is founded not on technical efficacy, but rather on the fairness of the processes involved in the production, execution, and supervision of penal power.The present article, adopting an analytical-comparative approach and with a brief reference to the Iranian criminal justice system, explores the capacities of Kleinfeld's Reconstructivism Theory in explaining the structural obstacles to realizing democratic criminal justice.<br />Within this theoretical framework, which conceptualizes justice as communication, the transition from the traditional paradigm of "criminal law as control" to an institutional architecture based on the three principles of participation, transparency, and institutional balance is considered as the fundamental strategy for rebuilding public trust and repairing normative ruptures.<br />The research findings indicate that these three principles stand in a dialectical relationship with one another, so that the absence or weakness of any of them disrupts the overall function of the criminal justice system. Ultimately, the conducted comparative analysis corroborates the proposition that legitimacy in the contemporary era is founded not on technical efficacy, but rather on the fairness of the processes involved in the production, execution, and supervision of penal power.https://cld.razavi.ac.ir/article_2168_e8ab9ae19f9580817e2d988d73c3119f.pdfRazavi University of Islamic SciencesCriminal Law Doctrines2251-9351222920250421State Crime’s Hidden Dimension under the Shadow of LabelingState Crime’s Hidden Dimension under the Shadow of Labeling79118218410.30513/cld.2025.7455.2180FAHosseinJavadi Hossein AbadiAssistant Professor. Department of Law. Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economics. University of Isfahan. Isfahan. Iran.HassanPoorbafraniAssociate Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.Journal Article20250910The aim of the present study is to conduct a criminological analysis of state crime through the labeling theory. This theory emphasizes the constructed nature of criminal phenomena and their connection to power structures. It explains how behaviors are criminalized based on power, dividing crimes into those committed by the powerful and those by the powerless. It illustrates how numerous actions by ordinary citizens are labeled as criminal, while many harmful acts committed by elites—despite their significant social damage—are met with leniency and escape criminal labeling. This research adopts a descriptive-analytical approach. Through conceptual expansion of the key notions within labeling criminology, it seeks to analyze the phenomenon of state crime from a theoretical standpoint. applying labeling theory to state crimes reveals critical dimensions of how these crimes occur. Excessive labeling of citizens leads to the restriction of their rights and freedoms through over-criminalization, violating their access to civil, cultural, economic, and social rights. Conversely, selective labeling results in the non-criminalization of state crimes, making accountability difficult. Furthermore, the processes of dehumanization and devaluation—rooted in labeling perspectives—create fertile ground for victimization caused by state crimes. State crime can be understood as a product of the labeling/de-labeling processes driven by power. This dynamic purifies state delinquency while condemning innocent citizens, replacing a rights-based minimal criminal justice system with a maximalist, citizen-oppressive penal system.The aim of the present study is to conduct a criminological analysis of state crime through the labeling theory. This theory emphasizes the constructed nature of criminal phenomena and their connection to power structures. It explains how behaviors are criminalized based on power, dividing crimes into those committed by the powerful and those by the powerless. It illustrates how numerous actions by ordinary citizens are labeled as criminal, while many harmful acts committed by elites—despite their significant social damage—are met with leniency and escape criminal labeling. This research adopts a descriptive-analytical approach. Through conceptual expansion of the key notions within labeling criminology, it seeks to analyze the phenomenon of state crime from a theoretical standpoint. applying labeling theory to state crimes reveals critical dimensions of how these crimes occur. Excessive labeling of citizens leads to the restriction of their rights and freedoms through over-criminalization, violating their access to civil, cultural, economic, and social rights. Conversely, selective labeling results in the non-criminalization of state crimes, making accountability difficult. Furthermore, the processes of dehumanization and devaluation—rooted in labeling perspectives—create fertile ground for victimization caused by state crimes. State crime can be understood as a product of the labeling/de-labeling processes driven by power. This dynamic purifies state delinquency while condemning innocent citizens, replacing a rights-based minimal criminal justice system with a maximalist, citizen-oppressive penal system.https://cld.razavi.ac.ir/article_2184_c46415b59e0905ac39e8600d139054bf.pdfRazavi University of Islamic SciencesCriminal Law Doctrines2251-9351222920250421The Obligations of the Judiciary of European States Regarding the Implementation of the Prohibition of Torture
(A Study of the Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights)The Obligations of the Judiciary of European States Regarding the Implementation of the Prohibition of Torture
(A Study of the Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights)119166219110.30513/cld.2026.7371.2173FAMortezaRastehGraduate of Master, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Islamic Azad, Chalus Branch, Chalus, IranNasrinMehraProfessor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.BehzadRazavifardAssociate professor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Allameh Tabatabai, Tehran, Iran.MahdiSabooripourAssociate professor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Shahid Beheshti, Tehran, Iran.Journal Article20250929The European Convention on Human Rights, in pursuit of reinforcing and safeguarding the principle of human dignity, recognizes the prohibition of torture as one of the most fundamental values of democratic societies, considering its absolute observance a hallmark of a civilized society. Within this framework, the European Court of Human Rights, as the principal authority for interpreting, supervising, and guaranteeing the protection of fundamental rights enshrined in the Convention, has, by virtue of Article 3 and through numerous judgments, elaborated on the various dimensions of the prohibition of torture. The Court has required the member states to ensure the effective implementation of this rule across all domestic institutions, particularly the criminal justice system, which plays a central role in safeguarding fundamental rights. Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology and drawing upon library and documentary sources, this study examines the Court’s case law concerning individual complaints against the national criminal justice systems of ECHR member states for violations of the prohibition of torture. The findings indicate that the Court, while establishing clear and specific criteria for practical realization of this rule, has imposed a series of binding obligations on national justice institutions. Chief among these are: the duty of judicial police to refrain from disproportionate or unnecessary force and from improper use of restraints or control measures; responsibility of judges to avoid imposing the death penalty and to limit life imprisonment; and the obligation of prison authorities to ensure minimum standard cell space and implement appropriate compensatory measures in cases of inadequate or disproportionate allocation. The European Convention on Human Rights, in pursuit of reinforcing and safeguarding the principle of human dignity, recognizes the prohibition of torture as one of the most fundamental values of democratic societies, considering its absolute observance a hallmark of a civilized society. Within this framework, the European Court of Human Rights, as the principal authority for interpreting, supervising, and guaranteeing the protection of fundamental rights enshrined in the Convention, has, by virtue of Article 3 and through numerous judgments, elaborated on the various dimensions of the prohibition of torture. The Court has required the member states to ensure the effective implementation of this rule across all domestic institutions, particularly the criminal justice system, which plays a central role in safeguarding fundamental rights. Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology and drawing upon library and documentary sources, this study examines the Court’s case law concerning individual complaints against the national criminal justice systems of ECHR member states for violations of the prohibition of torture. The findings indicate that the Court, while establishing clear and specific criteria for practical realization of this rule, has imposed a series of binding obligations on national justice institutions. Chief among these are: the duty of judicial police to refrain from disproportionate or unnecessary force and from improper use of restraints or control measures; responsibility of judges to avoid imposing the death penalty and to limit life imprisonment; and the obligation of prison authorities to ensure minimum standard cell space and implement appropriate compensatory measures in cases of inadequate or disproportionate allocation. https://cld.razavi.ac.ir/article_2191_a2af0839934dabd4017b9dd2d6064ba0.pdfRazavi University of Islamic SciencesCriminal Law Doctrines2251-9351222920250421Crimes against security in light of the principle of quality of lawsCrimes against security in light of the principle of quality of laws167202218010.30513/cld.2026.7087.2124FAAfshinAbdollahiAssociate professor, Department of law, Humanities and Social Sciences,University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran.AzarRezagholiPhD student in Criminal Law and Criminology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.Journal Article20250904The principle of quality of laws is one of the requirements of the principle of legality of crime and punishment which has gained more importance nowadays considering that criminal laws have become technical and false interpretations have got more common. This has urged countries with novel law to incorporate this principle into their laws and even some transnational adjudicating courts have ruled ambiguous laws as invalid and non-adduceable. Applying an interpretative-analytical method, the issue has been examined in this article. The importance of this principle in crimes against security, specifically in countries such as Iran, which has provided several actions under the title of security offenses is doubled as lack of quality in these laws and their ambiguousness, along with the necessity of subjective interpretations which do not necessarily comfort with rules and principles of interpretation, give rise to the violation of personal rights and freedoms. Finally, it was concluded that in many of crimes against security in the Iranian legal system vague and equivocal phrases such as hostile, advertisement against the system, disturbing security of the country, prohibited places, broad disruption, conspiracy against national security and so on have been applied which are serious threats to the violation of the principle of quality of criminal laws. Accordingly, it has been suggested to provide the principle of quality of laws, like the principle of legality of crime and punishment in substantive laws, which might be a hope for amendment of laws and omission of vague phrases in criminal laws.The principle of quality of laws is one of the requirements of the principle of legality of crime and punishment which has gained more importance nowadays considering that criminal laws have become technical and false interpretations have got more common. This has urged countries with novel law to incorporate this principle into their laws and even some transnational adjudicating courts have ruled ambiguous laws as invalid and non-adduceable. Applying an interpretative-analytical method, the issue has been examined in this article. The importance of this principle in crimes against security, specifically in countries such as Iran, which has provided several actions under the title of security offenses is doubled as lack of quality in these laws and their ambiguousness, along with the necessity of subjective interpretations which do not necessarily comfort with rules and principles of interpretation, give rise to the violation of personal rights and freedoms. Finally, it was concluded that in many of crimes against security in the Iranian legal system vague and equivocal phrases such as hostile, advertisement against the system, disturbing security of the country, prohibited places, broad disruption, conspiracy against national security and so on have been applied which are serious threats to the violation of the principle of quality of criminal laws. Accordingly, it has been suggested to provide the principle of quality of laws, like the principle of legality of crime and punishment in substantive laws, which might be a hope for amendment of laws and omission of vague phrases in criminal laws.https://cld.razavi.ac.ir/article_2180_1dcf9167ebd841e6baac75dbb1429b35.pdfRazavi University of Islamic SciencesCriminal Law Doctrines2251-9351222920250421The Dual Structure of Qisas and Pardon in the Punishment of Intentional Homicide: A Jurisprudential Reflection on the Relationship between Retributive and Restorative JusticeThe Dual Structure of Qisas and Pardon in the Punishment of Intentional Homicide: A Jurisprudential Reflection on the Relationship between Retributive and Restorative Justice203234209810.30513/cld.2025.6863.2096FAMahdiaMaaliPhD Student, Department of Jurisprudence and Criminal law, Motahhari University, Tehran, Iran.MohammadRassaiiAssistant Professor, Department of Jurisprudence and criminal law, University of Shahid Motahari, Tehran, Iran.AbolfazlAlishahi GhalehjoughiAssociate professor, Department of Theological Education, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran.Journal Article20250303Punitiveness and tolerance approaches, rooted in different foundations, constitute two predominant paradigms in the systems of criminal law. The former emphasizes punishment and retaliation, leading to the perpetuation of an endless cycle of crime and punishment, while the latter, focusing on rehabilitation and reform, may forfeit some of the benefits of punishment and diminish the deterrent element. Although scholars argue that a rational combination of these two approaches brings us closer to justice, it may pose numerous challenges in balancing retribution and rehabilitation. Studies indicate that Islamic law's approach to the punishment for intentional homicide does not fall into either of these categorizations. Islamic jurisprudence, when addressing the retribution for this offense, initially establishes Qisas (retaliation) as the severest punishment while simultaneously encouraging the victim's heirs to forgive, symbolizing the pinnacle of mercy. Although adopting this dual approach may initially appear contradictory, the gradual process - First, considering it as Haq al-Nas and then trying to compensate and support the victim through his intervention in Proceeding - demonstrates the shrewdness and technicality of this process. Therefore, it can be argued that the rights of Qisas and pardon complement each other in Islam, and this duality aids in compensating for damages and creating better conditions for repairing the injuries inflicted upon the victim. Ultimately, the existence of the right to pardon and simultaneous attention to the victim, the offender, and society weaken punitiveness justice in favor of restorative justice.Punitiveness and tolerance approaches, rooted in different foundations, constitute two predominant paradigms in the systems of criminal law. The former emphasizes punishment and retaliation, leading to the perpetuation of an endless cycle of crime and punishment, while the latter, focusing on rehabilitation and reform, may forfeit some of the benefits of punishment and diminish the deterrent element. Although scholars argue that a rational combination of these two approaches brings us closer to justice, it may pose numerous challenges in balancing retribution and rehabilitation. Studies indicate that Islamic law's approach to the punishment for intentional homicide does not fall into either of these categorizations. Islamic jurisprudence, when addressing the retribution for this offense, initially establishes Qisas (retaliation) as the severest punishment while simultaneously encouraging the victim's heirs to forgive, symbolizing the pinnacle of mercy. Although adopting this dual approach may initially appear contradictory, the gradual process - First, considering it as Haq al-Nas and then trying to compensate and support the victim through his intervention in Proceeding - demonstrates the shrewdness and technicality of this process. Therefore, it can be argued that the rights of Qisas and pardon complement each other in Islam, and this duality aids in compensating for damages and creating better conditions for repairing the injuries inflicted upon the victim. Ultimately, the existence of the right to pardon and simultaneous attention to the victim, the offender, and society weaken punitiveness justice in favor of restorative justice.https://cld.razavi.ac.ir/article_2098_64b11106d5d08a0378436c9faa2693d0.pdfRazavi University of Islamic SciencesCriminal Law Doctrines2251-9351222920250421The Role of the Economic Discourse of the Construction Era on Criminalization (1368-1376)The Role of the Economic Discourse of the Construction Era on Criminalization (1368-1376)235272216910.30513/cld.2025.7325.2163FAMohsenEiniAssociate Professor, Department of law, Faculty of Social Sciences, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran.ُSaberQamartabarMaster's Graduate in Criminal Law and Criminology, Department of law, Faculty of Social Sciences, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran.Journal Article20250921The discourse of the Islamic left party believed in a state economy and activity in the cooperative sector, and did not consider the private sector to have a prominent role. The discourse of the Islamic right wing, which believed in a less governmental intervention in the economy and privatization, emerged with the victory in the 1368 presidential election and the election of the Supreme Leader. The question is, what effects did the dominance of the new discourse have on criminalization? In this article, using a descriptive-analytical method, library study, and an interdisciplinary approach, we have examined the emergence of economic discourse during the so-called Constructivist era, the interaction of Iranian legislative criminal policy actors with each other, and the formation of economic criminal laws. The findings show that the change in discourse led to a change in the list of crimes and that the economic discourse prevalent during this period had a positive role in the criminalization of certain behaviors. The article suggests that the future economic plans of political factions should be discussed in economic working groups consisting of economic and legal experts, and in light of expert review, strategies to counter economic threats should be formulated in the form of non-criminal laws, and that necessary criminalization should be achieved only as a last step. The discourse of the Islamic left party believed in a state economy and activity in the cooperative sector, and did not consider the private sector to have a prominent role. The discourse of the Islamic right wing, which believed in a less governmental intervention in the economy and privatization, emerged with the victory in the 1368 presidential election and the election of the Supreme Leader. The question is, what effects did the dominance of the new discourse have on criminalization? In this article, using a descriptive-analytical method, library study, and an interdisciplinary approach, we have examined the emergence of economic discourse during the so-called Constructivist era, the interaction of Iranian legislative criminal policy actors with each other, and the formation of economic criminal laws. The findings show that the change in discourse led to a change in the list of crimes and that the economic discourse prevalent during this period had a positive role in the criminalization of certain behaviors. The article suggests that the future economic plans of political factions should be discussed in economic working groups consisting of economic and legal experts, and in light of expert review, strategies to counter economic threats should be formulated in the form of non-criminal laws, and that necessary criminalization should be achieved only as a last step. https://cld.razavi.ac.ir/article_2169_12cccb99f4ec858774adb840f5fc74ab.pdfRazavi University of Islamic SciencesCriminal Law Doctrines2251-9351222920250421A Criminological Study of International Crimes in Light of the Theory of Social FormsA Criminological Study of International Crimes in Light of the Theory of Social Forms273306220310.30513/cld.2026.7704.2205FAMohammadFarajiAssistant Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.Journal Article20251101Despite being among the most pressing issues confronting contemporary human society, international crimes have, for understandable reasons, received relatively little attention within criminological studies. The present study seeks to provide a criminological analysis of such crimes. Methodologically, this analysis is grounded in Georg Simmel’s theory of social forms, according to which the forms of sociation and conflict, along with their constituent elements, are theoretically explained in light of psychological and historical contexts. This theoretical framework offers an analytical foundation for understanding the emergence of international conflicts. The central concept derived from this analysis is the formation of a mental world in which the “self” is regarded as superior—on historical, national, racial, religious, or sectarian grounds—leading to the perception of the “other” as inferior. Consequently, an objective world of intolerance emerges, resulting in the denial, elimination, and violation of the other’s territory, identity, and physical and psychological integrity, culminating in the commission of international crimes. This theoretical framework helps explain the criminogenic dynamics behind, inter alia, the First and Second World Wars, the conflicts in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the genocidal acts committed against the Palestinian people.Despite being among the most pressing issues confronting contemporary human society, international crimes have, for understandable reasons, received relatively little attention within criminological studies. The present study seeks to provide a criminological analysis of such crimes. Methodologically, this analysis is grounded in Georg Simmel’s theory of social forms, according to which the forms of sociation and conflict, along with their constituent elements, are theoretically explained in light of psychological and historical contexts. This theoretical framework offers an analytical foundation for understanding the emergence of international conflicts. The central concept derived from this analysis is the formation of a mental world in which the “self” is regarded as superior—on historical, national, racial, religious, or sectarian grounds—leading to the perception of the “other” as inferior. Consequently, an objective world of intolerance emerges, resulting in the denial, elimination, and violation of the other’s territory, identity, and physical and psychological integrity, culminating in the commission of international crimes. This theoretical framework helps explain the criminogenic dynamics behind, inter alia, the First and Second World Wars, the conflicts in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the genocidal acts committed against the Palestinian people.https://cld.razavi.ac.ir/article_2203_b438c9892a89e3945f833d4577090b98.pdfRazavi University of Islamic SciencesCriminal Law Doctrines2251-9351222920250421The Expansion of the Scope of Inherently Lethal Conduct in Judicial JurisprudenceThe Expansion of the Scope of Inherently Lethal Conduct in Judicial Jurisprudence307352209710.30513/cld.2025.7306.2159FASaeedGhaediPhD Student in Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Judicial Law, University of Judicial Sciences, Tehran. Iran.MohammadFarajihaAssociate Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.Journal Article20250826The present study, employing a descriptive–analytical methodology, examines the manifestations of the expansion of inherently lethal conduct within the Iranian judicial system. It analyzes how judicial practice—particularly as reflected in the rulings of the Supreme Court—interprets paragraph (b) of Article 290 of the Islamic Penal Code (2013) and, on that basis, issues sentences of Qisas. The findings indicate that the judiciary, through expansive interpretations and occasional disregard for certain statutory conditions and legal excuses, has tended to broaden the scope of inherently lethal conduct. Accordingly, factors such as the extension of the sphere of executive conduct, insufficient attention to the establishment of causation and attribution of death to the accused, the characterization of conduct as inherently lethal in cases involving doubt, and the qualification of intentional homicide arising from gross recklessness (with respect to the actus reus), as well as the neglect or misinterpretation of awareness and consciousness (with respect to the mens rea), have emerged as prominent indicators of this expansion. The issuance of unifying precedents or the adoption of interpretive guidelines by the Supreme Court to clarify the notions of “awareness and consciousness” and the parameters of statutory excuses—such as excessive self-defense and juvenile criminal maturity—together with the annulment of Qisas judgments where such elements or fundamental principles of criminal law have not been duly observed, constitute essential corrective mechanisms. Furthermore, refraining from extending executive conduct to accomplices in homicide except in well-substantiated cases involving direct intervention and attributable causation, overturning Qisas sentences in the absence of a complete causal link to death unless intent to inflict severe injury or compelling evidence thereof is established, applying the rule of doubt in cases of uncertainty regarding the type of crime or attribution, and aligning intentional homicide based on gross recklessness strictly with the conditions set forth in paragraph (b) of Article 290, represent strategic approaches whose effective and comprehensive implementation could reduce interpretive inconsistency, limit the expansion of Qisas sentences, and enhance the coherence and effectiveness of criminal policy.The present study, employing a descriptive–analytical methodology, examines the manifestations of the expansion of inherently lethal conduct within the Iranian judicial system. It analyzes how judicial practice—particularly as reflected in the rulings of the Supreme Court—interprets paragraph (b) of Article 290 of the Islamic Penal Code (2013) and, on that basis, issues sentences of Qisas. The findings indicate that the judiciary, through expansive interpretations and occasional disregard for certain statutory conditions and legal excuses, has tended to broaden the scope of inherently lethal conduct. Accordingly, factors such as the extension of the sphere of executive conduct, insufficient attention to the establishment of causation and attribution of death to the accused, the characterization of conduct as inherently lethal in cases involving doubt, and the qualification of intentional homicide arising from gross recklessness (with respect to the actus reus), as well as the neglect or misinterpretation of awareness and consciousness (with respect to the mens rea), have emerged as prominent indicators of this expansion. The issuance of unifying precedents or the adoption of interpretive guidelines by the Supreme Court to clarify the notions of “awareness and consciousness” and the parameters of statutory excuses—such as excessive self-defense and juvenile criminal maturity—together with the annulment of Qisas judgments where such elements or fundamental principles of criminal law have not been duly observed, constitute essential corrective mechanisms. Furthermore, refraining from extending executive conduct to accomplices in homicide except in well-substantiated cases involving direct intervention and attributable causation, overturning Qisas sentences in the absence of a complete causal link to death unless intent to inflict severe injury or compelling evidence thereof is established, applying the rule of doubt in cases of uncertainty regarding the type of crime or attribution, and aligning intentional homicide based on gross recklessness strictly with the conditions set forth in paragraph (b) of Article 290, represent strategic approaches whose effective and comprehensive implementation could reduce interpretive inconsistency, limit the expansion of Qisas sentences, and enhance the coherence and effectiveness of criminal policy.https://cld.razavi.ac.ir/article_2097_832266abba1e9ecaa2d52c02f45ea196.pdfRazavi University of Islamic SciencesCriminal Law Doctrines2251-9351222920250421Law as a Tool and Challenge for Government Tax Collection; A Grounded Theory on the Behavior of AttorneysLaw as a Tool and Challenge for Government Tax Collection; A Grounded Theory on the Behavior of Attorneys353392218110.30513/cld.2025.7117.2130FAHassanGhasemi MoghadamAssociate Professor, Department of Law, , Faculty of law, political science and history, Yazd university, Yazd, Iran.Journal Article20250614The purpose of this research is to explore the mindset and behaviors of attorneys at law regarding their obligation to pay taxes to the government. As defenders of the law, how do attorneys behave when faced with tax regulations? How might they utilize legal foundations and statutory strategies to prevent governmental tax collection? And what are the consequences of such behaviors? This study employs the Grounded Theory method to answer the above questions. In this regard, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 attorneys at law in Yazd Province during the year 2023. Following open coding, 433 concepts were identified. Subsequently, based on the similarities and differences among these concepts, they were categorized into 84 sub-categories. In the next stage, to outline the research paradigm, 13 main categories were extracted from the aforementioned categories. The challenge of governmental tax collection was considered the central phenomenon (main problem) of the research. The causes of this central phenomenon, such as the delegitimization of the government, along with the strategies employed by attorneys—such as seeking exemptions—and the resulting consequences, like legal formalism, revealed that "instrumentalization of the law against tax collection" is the core category that connects all obtained concepts and categories. The results of the research indicate that the government's lack of regulation in the realm of tax collection coincides with a form of lawlessness on the part of attorneys. On the one hand, the government lacks rule-based order, and on the other hand, attorneys tend to instrumentally use the law to avoid paying taxes. Such a cycle leads to the reproduction of the tax collection challenge in Iran.The purpose of this research is to explore the mindset and behaviors of attorneys at law regarding their obligation to pay taxes to the government. As defenders of the law, how do attorneys behave when faced with tax regulations? How might they utilize legal foundations and statutory strategies to prevent governmental tax collection? And what are the consequences of such behaviors? This study employs the Grounded Theory method to answer the above questions. In this regard, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 attorneys at law in Yazd Province during the year 2023. Following open coding, 433 concepts were identified. Subsequently, based on the similarities and differences among these concepts, they were categorized into 84 sub-categories. In the next stage, to outline the research paradigm, 13 main categories were extracted from the aforementioned categories. The challenge of governmental tax collection was considered the central phenomenon (main problem) of the research. The causes of this central phenomenon, such as the delegitimization of the government, along with the strategies employed by attorneys—such as seeking exemptions—and the resulting consequences, like legal formalism, revealed that "instrumentalization of the law against tax collection" is the core category that connects all obtained concepts and categories. The results of the research indicate that the government's lack of regulation in the realm of tax collection coincides with a form of lawlessness on the part of attorneys. On the one hand, the government lacks rule-based order, and on the other hand, attorneys tend to instrumentally use the law to avoid paying taxes. Such a cycle leads to the reproduction of the tax collection challenge in Iran.https://cld.razavi.ac.ir/article_2181_4ada5d93c4f07cd3a8cb68c0f08251cc.pdfRazavi University of Islamic SciencesCriminal Law Doctrines2251-9351222920250421Criminalization of Cyberterrorism Against the Security of Critical Infrastructure; Feasibility of Designing a Development Model within the Jurisdictional Framework of the International Criminal Court StatuteCriminalization of Cyberterrorism Against the Security of Critical Infrastructure; Feasibility of Designing a Development Model within the Jurisdictional Framework of the International Criminal Court Statute393430209610.30513/cld.2025.7238.2148FAPeymanNamamianAssociate Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economics, Arak University, Arak, Iran.Journal Article20250805The commission of cyberattacks by terrorists, in addition to its growing impact on the economic, social, political, and security dimensions, poses the risk of violating the security of critical infrastructures as strategic international targets. Therefore, the International Criminal Court (ICC) should expand its jurisdiction to address such crimes, thereby enabling a response to transnational threats affecting global security. To this end, reforms in the ICC Statute and the criminalization of cyberterrorism, particularly through the development of clear criteria for identifying, prosecuting, and punishing perpetrators of these crimes, as well as strengthening international cooperation in cybersecurity, are essential. In this context, this study, using a descriptive-analytical approach, aims to answer the question: "Is it feasible to design a model for expanding the jurisdiction of the ICC to address cyberterrorism against critical infrastructures?" Accordingly, the research first examines the feasibility of expanding the ICC’s jurisdiction in this area and its impact on international security, and then assesses the necessity of reforms in the ICC Statute for the criminalization of cyberterrorism and the design of a necessary legal model for identifying, prosecuting, and punishing the perpetrators of such crimes, in line with enhancing global security and facilitating international cooperation.The commission of cyberattacks by terrorists, in addition to its growing impact on the economic, social, political, and security dimensions, poses the risk of violating the security of critical infrastructures as strategic international targets. Therefore, the International Criminal Court (ICC) should expand its jurisdiction to address such crimes, thereby enabling a response to transnational threats affecting global security. To this end, reforms in the ICC Statute and the criminalization of cyberterrorism, particularly through the development of clear criteria for identifying, prosecuting, and punishing perpetrators of these crimes, as well as strengthening international cooperation in cybersecurity, are essential. In this context, this study, using a descriptive-analytical approach, aims to answer the question: "Is it feasible to design a model for expanding the jurisdiction of the ICC to address cyberterrorism against critical infrastructures?" Accordingly, the research first examines the feasibility of expanding the ICC’s jurisdiction in this area and its impact on international security, and then assesses the necessity of reforms in the ICC Statute for the criminalization of cyberterrorism and the design of a necessary legal model for identifying, prosecuting, and punishing the perpetrators of such crimes, in line with enhancing global security and facilitating international cooperation.https://cld.razavi.ac.ir/article_2096_19bbbcd25534996f2490981a620458cb.pdfRazavi University of Islamic SciencesCriminal Law Doctrines2251-9351222920250421Juridical Analysis of Silence against escape of Prisoner or Detainee in light of the Principle pf Prohibition of Assistance to Sin (with emphasis on Articles 549 and 551 of the Islamic Penal Code, T’azirat Section)Juridical Analysis of Silence against escape of Prisoner or Detainee in light of the Principle pf Prohibition of Assistance to Sin (with emphasis on Articles 549 and 551 of the Islamic Penal Code, T’azirat Section)431453220210.30513/cld.2026.5066.1824FASaeedehRangrazPhD in Jurisprudence and Foundations of Islamic Law, Farabi Campus, University of Tehran, Qom, Iran.MohammadAdibi MehrAssociate Professor, Department of Jurisprudence and Foundations of Islamic Law, Farabi Campus, University of Tehran, Qom, Iran.Journal Article20230702Remaining silent when facing escape of a prisoner or detainee means that a person does not act against the escape despite knowing about it, either intending to help the fugitive or not. <br />Despite the legislator's specific attention to spiriting a prisoner or detainee and its criminalization in Articles 549 and 551 of the Islamic Penal Code (T’azirat Section) the silence against the escape of a prisoner has been neglected. This article applying analytical-critical method and adducing the rule of "prohibition of assistance to sin", studies feasibility of assisting by silence ;It extracts three juridical theories for the issue according to the necessity or non-necessity of the assistant's intention to the occurrence of the sin and the complete occurrence of the sin on the realization of the assistance to sin. Finally, considering the customary realization of the assistance to sin, the prohibition of the officer's silence is chosen, provided the realization of the prisoner's escape. Therefore, although the officer's intention is not provable by silence, considering the effect of the officer's silence in the escape in custom, according to the above rule, the prohibition is proved for the present issue, provided on the escape of a prisoner.Remaining silent when facing escape of a prisoner or detainee means that a person does not act against the escape despite knowing about it, either intending to help the fugitive or not. <br />Despite the legislator's specific attention to spiriting a prisoner or detainee and its criminalization in Articles 549 and 551 of the Islamic Penal Code (T’azirat Section) the silence against the escape of a prisoner has been neglected. This article applying analytical-critical method and adducing the rule of "prohibition of assistance to sin", studies feasibility of assisting by silence ;It extracts three juridical theories for the issue according to the necessity or non-necessity of the assistant's intention to the occurrence of the sin and the complete occurrence of the sin on the realization of the assistance to sin. Finally, considering the customary realization of the assistance to sin, the prohibition of the officer's silence is chosen, provided the realization of the prisoner's escape. Therefore, although the officer's intention is not provable by silence, considering the effect of the officer's silence in the escape in custom, according to the above rule, the prohibition is proved for the present issue, provided on the escape of a prisoner.https://cld.razavi.ac.ir/article_2202_7c2fda5a0d73b42264a182f99ee028cc.pdf