نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی
نویسنده
استادیار دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد اسلامشهر.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
Substantive and procedural criminal laws have no differences in relation to interpretive approaches and general canons of interpretation. They also have no differences in these respects with other legal branches. There are two special canons of interpretation (i.e., strict interpretation and interpretation in favor of the accused), which although they have a common core in both substantive and procedural criminal law, their applications are not the same. The strict interpretation could be defined as interpretation limiting the right-breaking. The principle of legality and fair trial are respectively the focal concepts in substantive and procedural criminal law. So, the canon of strict interpretation in substantive and procedural criminal law could be respectively defined as interpretation “based on” or “compatible with” the principle of legality and as interpretation “based on” or “compatible with” fair trial. The canon of interpretation in favor of the accused has a completing role for the canon of strict interpretation and is the last chain of the interpretive process in substantive criminal law. This canon has, in the light of the principle of balancing the rights, a broader scope in procedural criminal law than in substantive criminal law and is manifested as the canon of favor-based interpretation, which is subdivided into three canons, i.e., interpretation in favor of the accused, interpretation in favor of the crime victims and interpretation in favor of the society.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)