The essence of Diyat in jurisprudence and the rights of Iran
Abolhassan Mojtahed Soleymni1 and Ardeshir Rostami2
1Faculty member of Kharazmi University of Tehran
این آدرس ایمیل توسط spambots حفاظت می شود. برای دیدن شما نیاز به جاوا اسکریپت دارید
- Kharazmi University of Tehran
این آدرس ایمیل توسط spambots حفاظت می شود. برای دیدن شما نیاز به جاوا اسکریپت دارید
Abstract
One of the controversial issues of the Iranian legal and juridical system is the Divya institution. The legislator occasionally gave it the criminal nature to be punished and sometimes gave the institution a civil nature that is paid to compensate for the losses and losses incurred by the victim or his parents. In some cases the amount and the amount of money are matched to the damages inflicted on the victim and in some cases there is no correlation between the damage and the damned damnation of the Shari'ah and the damage caused by the casualties to the guilty party several times the amount It is a damnation against the damage inflicted upon him. If necessary. In the Islamic Penal Code of 21 October 1981 Diyh had only a criminal face and Article 7 had brought the Diat along with Qisas and Ta'zira in the number of punishments. Article 10 of the Act also stated that "Which is determined by the lawyer for the crime."However subsequent experiences with the writers of the law showed that they should stop from this point then in the Islamic Penal Code of Iran adopted in 1992 (Article 15) it reads as follows" The money is from the shareholder For a crime. "Reflecting on the totality of the narrations about the issue of diat and studying the general rules governing this issue the death penalty is not a criminal offense. As well as considering the various points of disagreement between the Diet on the one hand and the civil liability and financial guarantee on the other we find that they are not within the framework of the rules of these two. But in terms of legal nature it is a kind of "legal damages" and it has its own system of rules and regulations. In general opinions about the possibility or impossibility of compensating for the losses caused by physical harm in addition to The divine devoted to the Shari'a can be divided into two general categories of supporters with the possibility of compensating for such losses and opponents by repairing these losses. The narrations that are about Dyya only refer to the necessity of paying the money in general and silence on whether or not the victim is in a position to ask for other damages incurred on their own. While the rules and principles such as the "rule of law" the "rule of law" the rationale and principle of the law which implies the necessity of compensating for all the damages inflicted on the victim is to compensate for the losses that the prescribed blood money is to compensate They do not find them they are bound. Legally the Civil Liability Act also states that it is necessary to compensate for all the damages caused to individuals in order to justify the legality of the application of the theory of the permission to obtain excessive damages on the bloodline while it can not be argued that by the adoption of the Islamic Penal Code this law has not been enacted because the territory These two laws differ from each other and assuming that there is a conflict between them should be allocated not to the prescriptions. Nor should it be conceived that Dye is merely a punishment or merely a loss but has two aspects and that the legislator has set the amount for the dye as minimum but not because all the losses and losses are the same as the legislator has determined Is. In this article the author has criticized and evaluated the reasons and documents of the scholars and lawyers about the legal nature of the Diyah as well as mentioning the disagreements of Diyat with the rules of civil liability and financial penalties and finally the supreme view of the nature of the Diyah Mentioned.
Keywords: Death, punishment, punishment, compensation, civil liability.
