Ahmad Mortazi; Amir Amiran Bakhshayesh
Abstract
Abstract:Various views have been raised concerning the rule of law, but what have been accepted by most jurisprudents are the existing narratives in this regard. Even though the existing narrations are absolute and arbitrarily controversial in all its forms, the legislator, in Article 121 of the ...
Read More
Abstract:Various views have been raised concerning the rule of law, but what have been accepted by most jurisprudents are the existing narratives in this regard. Even though the existing narrations are absolute and arbitrarily controversial in all its forms, the legislator, in Article 121 of the Criminal Code, excludes four cases of moharebeh, corruption, theft, and qazf,. It means that mere doubt does not lead to the rule of dar’e in these four cases; rather, the rule applies in other stages where no contradictory reason can be found. The present study shows that such a separation is inadequate in terms of jurisprudential basis and contradicts the general and general narratives related to the rule of dar’e. The reasons given by the scholars in justifying this separation are one-dimensional and obscure, and therefore not acceptable. The present study seeks to analyze the bases and arguments presented in order to justify the four exceptions of Article 121 of the Criminal Code.
