عنوان مقاله [English]
One of the features of a fair and powerful judiciary is the immediate and final implementation of punishments. Immediate and definitive execution of punishments is a feature of a fair and powerful proceedings system, and basically the result of all the efforts that are made in the preliminary investigation and proceedings stages is achieved during the execution of the sentence. However, sometimes during the execution of sentences, there are assumptions that cause hesitations about the urgency of the execution of punishments. Accordingly, the issue under consideration in this article is that if a person sentenced to death, whether for retaliation or hadd, commits another crime after the conviction has been finalized and before the execution of the sentence; Or, after a punishment which sentenced to death and before the execution of the sentence, it should be established that the respondent person has committed another crime before committing the crime subject to the punishment which sentenced to death, and should be discovered and proved now. In such a situation, is the execution of Hadd (borders, boundaries, limits) or Qiṣāṣ (retaliation) delayed or not? In this article, we examine this assumption from a legal and jurisprudential point of view by an analytical-interpretive method. The results of the research indicate that such issues are examples of conflicts of rights with each other in which more important instances exclude the important ones. It is very effective in recognizing the importance of the right, the right of God (what is due to God) or the right of the people (what is due to people) to commit a new crime. Therefore, in each case, it is necessary to make a decision according to the different conditions and characteristics and the right of God (what is due to God) or the right of the people (what is due to people) to commit crimes, and it is not possible to state a single verdict for all cases.