نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق کیفری و جرمشناسی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد قم
2 دانشیار گروه حقوق جزا و جرمشناسی دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی
3 استادیار گروه حقوق جزا و جرمشناسی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی قم
4 دانشیار و عضو هیات علمی گروه حقوق جزا و جرم شناسی دانشگاه مفید
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
AbstracOne of the important effects of the fight against terrorist crimes is the dominance of security over fair judgment, which in the light of this prevailing approach, governments prefer to prosecute perpetrators of terrorist acts outside the rules of international law and at their own discretion. The response of governments to dealing with terrorist offenses is not limited to rigorous initial investigations, but most criminal laws provide for the trial of terrorist offenses in special or exceptional courts, and even in states where terrorist offenses are tried in ordinary courts. Take; Their executive laws specify the existence of special rules for these trials. In this article, with the method of description and analysis, we examine this confrontation comparatively in the legal system of Iran and the United Kingdom, and the result is that the differential trial in terrorist crimes under the pretext of maintaining security, has led to violations of civil rights. However, the observance of the citizenship rights of the accused in all necessary crimes and in accordance with the rules of human rights is guaranteed in the constitution.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
)