Iranian Legal system
The principle of legality of crimes and punishments (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege)
states that an act is not regarded a crime and does not warrant punishment unless the
legislator first determines and publishes the criminal title and penalty.
Individual security is protected by the legality principle, which ensures basic individual
liberties against the state's arbitrary and unlawful intervention. As a result, a criminal court
cannot declare an individual's actions to be crimes and assign punishments to them, or impose
punishments that are not authorised by the Legislator and are not based on the wording of the
law. It is not considered a criminal whether an act is morally rebuked or socially against the
public order, and the Legislator is the only authority who may identify such actions as crimes.
The Constitution and regular legislation of Iran's legal system, both before and after the
Islamic Revolution, have clearly highlighted the compliance of the aforementioned concept.
When there is no text, silence, or a lack of law, the criminal court is obligated to pronounce
an innocent judgement.
Ordinary rules, such as s. 214 of the Criminal Procedure of Public and Revolutionary Courts
Act 1999 and s. 8 of the Revolutionary and Public Courts Act 1994, have allowed the
criminal judge to refer to jurisprudence and religious decrees in order to assign criminal titles
and related punishments in recent years, as a result of widespread misunderstanding of Art.
167 of the Constitution.
In Criminal Law, the constructional underpinnings of the crime are explored, including the
actus reus, mens rea, and legal grounding. The need of passing laws relating to criminal titles
is underlined in this debate, and this concept is established in the legality principle of crimes
and punishments in Criminal Law. The Latin phrase "nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege"
inspired this notion.
As a result, no conduct, no matter how immoral or against the public interest or public order,
is deemed a crime unless it is specifically prohibited by law. As a result, even if the criminal
judge proves that the act is worthy and useful in the interests of the community, the criminal
judge cannot construe the act as a crime and assign punishment because the Legislator is the
only authority who can assign criminal titles and predict appropriate punishments because he
is the representative of the community and is elected by the individuals of the society. We
cannot allow the criminal court to view as a crime whatsoever he considers to be against the
public interest or order, and he should not assign a punishment to it if the legislator is
negligent or inattentive.
The second result is that the Criminal Law must be interpreted strictly, with the criminal
court referring to the content of legal documents to award punishments and determine
accusative titles, rather than relying on analogy or an unfavourable idea. In the Logic of Law,
the aforementioned claims are related and coherent occurrences. As a result, the legality
principle and its implications are inextricably linked. It is impossible to accept part of it while
rejecting the rest. Unless under rare circumstances, the Legislator who creates the Criminal
Law cannot vary from this concept and its ramifications. He also won't be able to apply his
new laws and standards to past activities of persons.