Exclusive - The revolutionary parliament has also failed the investigation and scrutiny exam

These images are the ruling of the investigator from the first branch of the Government Employees Prosecutor's Office, which has been approved by the Tehran Public and Revolutionary Prosecutor and is final and non-appealable due to the lack of a private plaintiff.

The last part of the investigator's order to the office states that, upon notification, if there is an objection, it should be sent to the competent authority. This typed administrative format is a common feature of prosecutor rulings and was not inadvertently omitted because the final ruling of the prosecutor can be appealed by the plaintiff, and there are no charges against any plaintiff in this case.

This ruling from the judiciary is particularly important to me because, as I have repeatedly mentioned in various notes, mere claims of investigation and scrutiny, along with their reading in parliament (like any other claims), do not constitute accusations against any individual or legal entity until they are reviewed by the competent judicial authority and result in a "definitive" ruling.

Interestingly, the investigator did not even regard the involved parties in this case as "accused," indicating there was no need to summon or conduct further investigations with them.

Furthermore, the report on the investigation and scrutiny by the revolutionary parliament lacks the necessary legal depth and robustness and refers to the individuals involved as "those being investigated."

Additionally, the General Inspection Organization of the country has not formed a case in this matter, and the investigator, taking considerable time to request documents from the presidency of the revolutionary parliament, found that no documents existed.