بررسی موجبات یقین حاصل از مستندات بین علم قاضی در حقوق کیفری ایران و فرانسه

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 کارشناس ارشد حقوق کیفری و جرم شناسی، دانشکده علوم انسانی و اجتماعی، دانشگاه شمال، آمل، ایران.

2 استادیار گروه حقوق، دانشکده علوم انسانی و اجتماعی، دانشگاه شمال، آمل، ایران.

چکیده

یقین قاضی به عنوان رکن اساسی صدور رأی در امور کیفری، همواره از مباحث بنیادین حقوق جزا بوده است. در نظام حقوقی ایران، «علم قاضی» به عنوان یکی از ادله اثبات دعوی کیفری به رسمیت شناخته شده (ماده 160 قانون مجازات اسلامی 1392)، مشروط بر آنکه مبتنی بر مستندات یقینی و عینی باشد (ماده 211). این مستندات که «بین» توصیف شده‌اند، نسبت به علم قاضی طریقیت دارند، اما خود علم قاضی حاصل، در کنار سایر ادله اصلی، موضوعیت می‌یابد (مستفاد از مواد 160 و 161). در مقابل، نظام حقوقی فرانسه بر اصل "اقناع وجدانی" قاضی و هیئت منصفه استوار است که آن نیز باید برآمده از ادله مطرح شده در فرایند دادرسی باشد (ماده 427 قانون آیین دادرسی کیفری فرانسه). نظام ایران را می‌توان نظامی تلفیقی از ادله قانونی و معنوی دانست. این مقاله با روش توصیفی-تحلیلی و رویکرد تطبیقی، به بررسی و مقایسه نقش و جایگاه "مستندات بین " ادله عینی و ملموس به عنوان موجبات اصلی حصول یقین قاضی در حقوق کیفری ایران و فرانسه می‌پردازد. تمرکز اصلی بر تحلیل ادله‌ای چون گزارش‌های پزشکی قانونی، نظریات کارشناسی، ادله الکترونیک (فیلم، صوت، داده‌های دیجیتال)، و اظهارات مطلعین/شهود است، ضمن توجه به محدودیت‌های قانونی خاص مانند ماده 102 آ.د.ک ایران در جرائم منافی عفت. هدف، تبیین چگونگی استناد قضات در دو نظام به این مستندات، حدود اعتبار هر یک، چالش‌های پیش رو و نقاط اشتراک و افتراق دو نظام در ارزش‌گذاری این ادله به عنوان پایه و اساس علم قاضی یا اقناع وجدانی است. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد که علی‌رغم تفاوت در مبانی نظری و جایگاه علم قاضی/اقناع وجدانی، هر دو نظام به طور فزاینده‌ای بر ادله عینی و علمی به عنوان پایه‌های ضروری و قابل اتکای تصمیم قضایی تأکید دارند، هرچند در نحوه تحصیل، ارائه، ارزیابی و محدودیت‌های کاربرد این مستندات تفاوت‌هایی مشاهده می‌شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Examining the Grounds of Judicial Certainty Derived from Tangible Evidence in Judge's Conviction: A Comparative Study of Iranian and French Criminal Law

نویسندگان [English]

  • Seyyed Hamed Hosseini 1
  • Hossein Ranjbar 2
1 Master of Science in Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Shomal University, Amol, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Shomal University, Amol, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Judicial certainty, as a fundamental pillar for issuing verdicts in criminal matters, has always been a core subject in criminal jurisprudence. In the Iranian legal system, "judge's personal conviction" is recognized as one of the means of proof in criminal cases (Article 160 of the Islamic Penal Code, 2013), provided it is based on definitive and objective evidence (Article 211). These pieces of evidence, described as "bayyin" (clear/tangible), serve as the pathway to the judge’s conviction, while the conviction itself, alongside other primary evidence, holds substantive value (derived from Articles 160 and 161). In contrast, the French legal system is founded on the principle of the "intime conviction" (inner conviction) of the judge and jury, which must also arise from evidence presented during the trial (Article 427 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure). The Iranian system can be viewed as a hybrid of legal and moral evidence. This article adopts a descriptive-analytical method with a comparative approach to examine and contrast the role and status of "bayyināt"—tangible and objective evidence—as the primary grounds for judicial certainty in Iranian and French criminal law. The focus lies on analyzing evidence such as forensic reports, expert opinions, electronic evidence (video, audio, digital data), and witness/informant testimonies, while considering specific legal limitations, such as Article 102 of the Iranian Criminal Procedure Code in cases of sexual offenses. The objective is to elucidate how judges in both systems rely on such evidence, the scope of their validity, the challenges faced, and the points of convergence and divergence between the two systems in valuing this evidence as the foundation of judicial conviction or intime conviction. Findings indicate that, despite differences in theoretical foundations and the status of judicial conviction, both systems increasingly emphasize objective and scientific evidence as essential and reliable bases for judicial decisions.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Judge's Conviction
  • Tangible Evidence
  • Criminal Evidence
  • Iranian Criminal Law
  • French Criminal Law

مراجع

  1. Ardabili, Mohammad Ali (2020), General Criminal Law, Vol. 2 {In Persian}
  2. Ashoori, Mohammad. (2001). Criminal Procedure. Volume 2, Second Edition. Tehran: Samt Publications. {In Persian}
  3. Ashoori, Mohammad. (2004). Criminal Procedure. Volume 1, Tehran: Samt Publications. {In Persian}
  4. Buisson, J. (2001). Proof. In Encyclopedia of Criminal Law (Vol. V, 2nd ed.). Dalloz.
  5. Dehkhoda, Ali Akbar. (2008). Dehkhoda Dictionary. Tehran: Tehran University Press. {In Persian}
  6. Delmas-Marty, M. (1995). European Criminal Procedures (1st ed.). Paris: PUF.
  7. Elham, Gholamhossein. (2012). Electronic Evidence and Its Impact on Iranian Criminal Procedure. Quarterly Journal of Criminal Law Research, 1(1), 9-34. {In Persian}
  8. Ghorbani Farimani, Ahmad. (2023) October 30. The role of the judge's knowledge derived from the documents in proving criminal claims. Paper presented at the conference. The 18th International Conference on Management and Humanities Research in Iran, Tehran. {In Persian}
  9. Goldoust Jooybari, Rajab. (2007). (Generalities of Criminal Procedure. Tehran: Jangal Publications. {In Persian}
  10. Guinchard, S., & Buisson, J. (2007). Procédure pénale (5th ed.). Paris: LexisNexis Litec.
  11. Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2001). Inside the Judicial Mind. Cornell Law Review, 86(4), 777–830.
  12. Haji Dehabadi, Ahmad. (2019). Criminal Evidence in Islam. Qom: Islamic Culture and Thought Research Institute Publications Organization. {In Persian}
  13. Hashemi Shahroudi, Seyed Mahmoud. (2000.) The Essentials of Criminal Jurisprudence. Tehran: Dadgostar Publication. {In Persian}
  14. Heidari, Elham. (2012). The Principle of Freedom of Education and Evaluation of Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in Iran and England. (PhD thesis. University of Tehran (Qom Campus {In Persian}.
  15. Heydari, Alireza (2023), Technology and Artificial Intelligence Law {In Persian}
  16. Hosseini, Zahra (2022), Modern Criminal Law {In Persian}
  17. Jafari Langroodi, Mohammad Jafar. (1979). Islamic Law. Tehran: Ganj Danesh Publications. {In Persian}
  18. Jafari Langroodi, Mohammad Jafar. (1988). Encyclopedia of Islamic Sciences (Volume 2. Tehran: Ganj Publications. {In Persian}
  19. Jafari Langroodi, Mohammad Jafar. (1999). Detailed in Legal Terminology. Tehran: Ganj Danesh Library. {In Persian}
  20. Karimi, Naser (2020), Legal Challenges of Technology
  21. Katouzian, Nasser. (2001). (Proof and proof of proof. Tehran: Mizan Publication. {In Persian}
  22. Khaleghi, Ali (2021), Criminal Procedure, Vol. 1 {In Persian}
  23. Khaleghi, Ali (2021), Criminal Procedure, Vol. 2 {In Persian}
  24. Khazzani, Manouchehr. (2008). Criminal Procedure Code Pamphlet. Polycopy, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University. {In Persian}
  25. Khomeini, Seyyed Ruhollah. Bita. Tahrir al-Wasilah . Volume 2, 6th edition. Qom: Islamic Publishing Institute. {In Persian}
  26. Khorsandian, Mohammad Ali. (2004). A study of the authority of the judge's knowledge in Iranian jurisprudence and law. Journal of Social and Human Sciences, Shiraz University, 21 (Special Law), 119-140. {In Persian}
  27. Law Research Group, University of Islamic Sciences Razavi. (2007). Evidence to prove criminal claims. Mashhad: Razavi University of Islamic Sciences. {In Persian}
  28. Mehrpour, Hossein. (1993). New Perspectives on Legal Issues (1st edition). Tehran: Information Institute. {In Persian}
  29. Merle, R., & Vitu, A. (2001). Traité de droit criminel: Procédure pénale (5th ed.). Paris: Cujas.
  30. Mirmohammad Sadeghi, Hossein (2022), Criminal Law of Computer Crimes {In Persian}
  31. Mirmohammad Sadeghi, Hossein (2022), Evidence in Criminal Law {In Persian}
  32. Mirmohammad Sadeghi, Hossein (2022), Special Criminal Law 1 {In Persian}
  33. Moazin zadegan, Hassan Ali. (1999). Science of the Judge. Journal of Law and Politics Research, (2 and 3), 177-213. {In Persian}
  34. Mohaqeq Damad, Seyyed Mustafa. (2000). Rules of Jurisprudence, Criminal Section. Tehran: Islamic Sciences Publishing Center. {In Persian}
  35. Molinan, M. (2000). La liberté de la preuve des infractions en droit français contemporain. Thèse (dactyl.), de l'université d'Aix-en-provence.
  36. Moradi, Kamran (2022), Application of Artificial Intelligence in Criminal Law {In Persian}
  37. Mughniyeh, Mohammad Javad. (1404 AH). Fiqh al-Imam al-Sadiq (1st edition). Qom: Quds Mohammadi Publishing House.
  38. Mujtabawi, Seyyed Jalal al-Din. (1988). Philosophy in Iran (3rd edition). Tehran: Tehran University Press. {In Persian}
  39. Naini, Mohammad Hossein. (1409 AH). Benefits of the Principles (Volume ?). Qom: Islamic Publishing House. {In Persian}
  40. Naraqi, Ahmad bin Muhammad Mahdi. (1417 AH). Awa'id Al-Ahkam (First Edition). Qom: Publishing Center affiliated to the Islamic Media Institute.
  41. Nashat, Ahmad. (2005) M. Risale-i-Ithbat. Beirut: Maktaba Al-Ilm Ljmi'.
  42. Peymani, Zia-eddin. (1977). Judicial Reasons in French Revolutionary Law. Tehran: Khorami Press. {In Persian}
  43. Pradel, J. (2000). Droit penal comparé (2nd ed.). Paris: Dalloz.
  44. Pradel, J. (2007). Manuel de procédure pénale (13th ed.). Paris: Cujas.
  45. Pradel, J. (2016). Droit pénal général (20th ed.). Paris: Cujas.
  46. Pradel, J. (2016). Procédure pénale (18th ed.). Paris: Cujas.
  47. Qadimi, Noorallah. (2006). The validity of the judge's knowledge. (Master's thesis. Teacher Training University. {In Persian}
  48. Rahmadal, Mansour. (2009). Burden of Proof in Criminal Matters. Tehran: Samt Publications. {In Persian}
  49. Ramzani, Mahmoud. (2012). English-Persian-English Persian-Persian Bidirectional Legal Dictionary. Tehran: Akhavan Publications. {In Persian}
  50. Rassat, M.-L. (2007). Procédure pénale (15th ed.). Paris: PUF.
  51. Rassat, M.-L. (2019). Procédure pénale (2nd ed.). Paris: Ellipses.
  52. Renault-Brahinsky, C. (2007). Procédure pénale (8th ed.). Paris: Gualino.
  53. Sakshaug, J. W., Yan, T., & Tourangeau, R. (2010). Nonresponse error, measurement error.
  54. Shamloo Ahmadi, Mohammad Hossein. (2015). Analysis of Article 211 of the Islamic Penal Code of 1392 regarding the knowledge of the judge. Quarterly Journal of Judicial Law Perspectives, 20(70), 111-134. {In Persian}
  55. Shamloo, Baqir. (2004). The principle of criminal innocence in modern judicial systems. In criminal sciences, a collection of articles in honor of Professor Dr. Mohammad Ashouri. Tehran: Samt Publishing. {In Persian}
  56. Sharani, Abolhassan. (1994). (Introduction to the Punishment of the Evil One. Secretariat of the Sheikh Ansari World Congress. {In Persian}
  57. Sheikh Tusi, Muhammad ibn Hassan.) Al-Tabyan fi tafsir al-Quran (Volume 4. (Research by Ahmad Habib Qusayr al-Amil). Najaf: Al-Mutabah al-Ilamiyah.
  58. Tabatabaeinejad, Hassan (2023), Investigation of Criminal Offenses and the Role of Specialized Evidence {In Persian}
  59. Taddion, Abbas. (2009). Evaluation of Criminal Evidence in the Judicial System of Iran and France. Humanities Lecturer - Comparative Law Research, 14(2), 57-78. {In Persian}
  60. Taheri Bajd, Muhammad Ali. (2004). Determining the regime of criminal evidence in the Iranian judicial system. In Criminal Sciences, a collection of articles (pp. 219-246). Tehran: Samt Publication. {In Persian}
  61. Tarkhani, Shahriar. (2002). Principles Governing the Acquisition and Presentation of Criminal Evidence in Iranian and French Law. (Master's Thesis. Faculty of Law, Imam Sadeq University (AS), Tehran. {In Persian}
  62. Vela'i, Isa. (2002). (Explanatory Dictionary of Principles Terms (2nd Edition). Tehran: Ney Publication. {In Persian}
  63. Yousefi, Hamidreza (2021), Legal Evolution in the Age of New Technologies. {In Persian}
  64. Yousefian, Behnam. (2004). The Path or Relevance of Evidence in Iranian Criminal Law. Master's Thesis.. University of Tehran. {In Persian}
  65. Zeraat, Abbas., and Hajizadeh, Hamid Reza. (2009). Evidence of Proof of a Case. Tehran: Law-oriented publishing. {In Persian}

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 08 اردیبهشت 1404
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 11 مرداد 1404
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 11 دی 1404

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار