The difference in the interpretation of the law that leads to the optional interpretation of the deprivation of the right to life and a practical and legal proposal to respect human life

These days, many criticisms have been published in the media about the quality and interpretation of the accusation, the extent of fighting, the amount and quality of the punishment, and basically, its compliance with the specific case, and the work has led to heated debates.

But the side of this issue made me, as a simple law reader, in search of answers to my questions, re-read the laws that I thought would increase my knowledge for two or three days, and I came across strange results, at least for me.

Article 167 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic states that it obliges judges to find the verdict of every lawsuit codified in the "laws" and if there are no works in the laws, they refer to authentic Islamic sources or authentic fatwas, which of course often mean Shia Twelver fatwas.

Obviously, the judge - or the majority of the judges in serious charges such as deprivation of life, has, retribution, etc.- are apparently free to infer from the rules of judgment. These opinions, which are expressed in the form of the views and issuance of court orders, in the stages of appeals, appeals, retrials, and petitions of the head of the judiciary on behalf of the leader of the Islamic Republic, or in rare cases of the application of Article 477 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may be approved by the judges at the first stage. Then there is no handler or it is not the purpose of my discussion.

But from the same Article 167 of the Constitution, it is clearly understood that the ruling and current law are the criterion first, and in the proceedings, where the current law is valid, there is no time for a fatwa. And of course, according to a common rule and custom, if the judges are faced with an ambiguity that requires referring to a fatwa, they refer to Ayatollah Khamenei's fatwa and then, if there is no fatwa, to Khomeini's fatwa and not to other fatwas.

This current law may have many objections or conflicting and sometimes even unanimous views by judges and then its effects on society.

Here is the question:

If there is ambiguity in the law writing or gross interpretations of it, why do the representatives of the revolutionary parliament in the form of a legal plan or the head of the judiciary send a bill to the parliament or through the council of ministers in the form of a single article, with the legal interpretation of that particular article, to this Don't differences of opinion end?

Also, why doesn't the General Board of the Supreme Court investigate the conflict of opinion with the request of each of the judges or lawyers and not come in to end this important dispute determine the task, and create unity of action?

It should be noted that as long as it is not canceled for legal reasons, the votes of this board are following the law and are binding for all judges, even the judges of the Supreme Court.

Of course, if in principle they say that this legal article is against the well-known Shariah or public interest or anything else, it should be remembered that the law is meant to be changed and modified over time and place, and the course of the Islamic Penal Code from the time it was approved until now even In the section on limits and retribution and its generalities, it is also confirmed that it has been modified, added or repealed and re-approved many times.

It seems that the way to end this difference is important; From a legal point of view, it is necessary for the representatives of the Revolutionary Parliament to immediately propose a law in consultation with the Research Center of the Parliament, or the head of the Judiciary to amend or change it in the form of a bill in compliance with other legislation systems and documents.

At the same time, every current law of the country and judicial rulings of this kind is an existing and unworkable reality, and as long as there is no legal article in the current conditions of the country, especially regarding the limits and retribution, it is not completely clear and has not been counted, the way of different and sometimes conflicting interpretations of it. It is open and this is also the word and the hadiths.

These multifaceted perceptions fuel specialized legal and judicial debates, which sometimes deal with human lives, and mistakes that cause a deep impression on society, which prevention is the duty of the government, and the sanctity of human blood requires great caution. This is the emphasis of the holy book.

With clear and limited legislation and avoiding the possible marginalization of tasteful interpretations, the deprivation of the right to life, or execution, will usually end.

In addition, in the new Islamic Penal Code, the jurisprudential rule of Daraa was correctly included in its articles 120 and 121 and it took on a legal dress, which was expected to be used by honorable judges and to be more careful in applying Sharia limits.

Abdollah Abdi