نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
عنوان مقاله English
نویسنده English
The use of firearms by members of the Armed Forces in the course of performing their official duties may result in harm to civilians that constitutes a criminal offense, such as where a military officer's discharge of a firearm causes death or bodily injury. In such circumstances, the initiation of criminal proceedings necessitates determining the jurisdiction of the competent judicial authority. Pursuant to Article 172 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Article 597 of the Criminal Procedure Code, jurisdiction over offenses arising from the specific military or law enforcement duties of members of the Armed Forces is vested in the military courts. Conversely, offenses committed by members of the Armed Forces while acting in their capacity as judicial officers (officers of the judicial police) fall within the jurisdiction of the ordinary criminal courts. The principal issue addressed in this study is whether offenses arising from the use of firearms and the discharge of weapons by members of the Armed Forces should be characterized as offenses connected with their specific military or law enforcement duties, thereby falling within the jurisdiction of the military courts, or as ordinary criminal offenses subject to the jurisdiction of the general courts. This question has given rise to divergent judicial approaches. While one line of judicial authority regards such offenses as ordinary crimes and therefore within the competence of the general courts, another considers them offenses intrinsically connected with military service and consequently subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the military judiciary. This research, conducted through an analytical and applied methodology and based upon authoritative legal literature, statutory provisions, and judicial precedents, seeks to formulate a coherent approach to determining the competent forum and to enhance the consistency and soundness of judicial decisions through adjudication by the specialized court possessing subject-matter jurisdiction. The findings demonstrate that the use and discharge of firearms by members of the Armed Forces constitute offenses arising from the performance of specific military and law enforcement duties, since the lawful use of firearms forms an integral component of such duties. Accordingly, adjudication by military courts is preferable in light of their institutional expertise and specialized competence, which contributes to greater procedural efficiency and minimizes undue delay in criminal proceedings. Furthermore, the necessity of safeguarding classified military and security information during judicial proceedings, the enhanced deterrent effect of military adjudication, the expansion of military court jurisdiction pursuant to the authorization granted by the Supreme Leader, the express criminalization of the unlawful discharge of firearms as a military offense under the Law on Punishment of Crimes of the Armed Forces, and the non-extraditable status of military offenders collectively reinforce the superiority of military court jurisdiction. This approach also finds, to a certain extent, support within comparative legal systems.
کلیدواژهها English
