The Rohingya people are the native inhabitants of Arakan (Rakhine) land in Myanmar, who have faced a series of crimes by the Myanmar army and government. Based on the norms and regulations of INTERNATIONAL and customary INTERNATIONAL LAW and the principles of INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW and considering the incidents that occurred against the religious minority group of Rohingya Muslims, the continuous violation of human rights and the occurrence of the crime of genocide by the Myanmar government are a matter of fact. There are numerous examples of deliberate actions, which prove the governmental steps to eliminate the Rohingya group, and deliberate measures, which cause the INTERNATIONAL responsibility of the Myanmar government. Iran has raised three specific positions regarding the Rohingya Muslim crisis.The major question of the research is to evaluate the occurrence or non-occurrence of violations of INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW, the crimes of genocide, and crimes against humanity by the Myanmar army and government against the Muslim minority in Rakhine state.The hypothesis emphasizes the definite occurrence of violations of humanitarian LAW and INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW, especially committing crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity. The purpose of the research is to examine one of the important cases of violation of Muslim rights in today's world, which has not been noticed by INTERNATIONAL legal societies. It tries to discuss briefly the Iranian positions on the Issue. The analytical-descriptive research method is based on official docs and undeniable facts, especially the documents issued by the INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL Court.

One of the most important issues in INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW is defenses. This issue has also significance in national LAW. In civil and CRIMINAL LAW system, there is a different approach with this question. The LAWyers have named this question as forgotten point in INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW. INTERNATIONAL and national jurisprudence is often different and controversial in this matter. There are some reasons for this controversial and differentiated. This paper is studying about defenses in INTERNATIONAL and national CRIMINAL LAW from view point of comparative and criticized the rules on this matter. The defenses (Grounds excluding from CRIMINAL responsibility) are regarding in this article are: self-defense, mental incapacity, intoxication, coercion and necessary, the defense of superior obedience. In this article we are looking for to describe which approach is taken by INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL court statute.

The INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW by seeking to provide the INTERNATIONAL order and security, gradually has attempted by moving away from common LAW, aiming to use, such as municipal LAW, serious and crucial punishment to penalize the INTERNATIONAL CRIMINALs. Because of some difficulties and problems related to INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL cooperation of the countries, it has been usually moving from an INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL policy to an INTERNATIONAL penal (CRIMINAL) policy very slowly. And there is no doubt that the mere CRIMINALization view rising of the source of the CRIMINAL municipal LAW of the countries which indicates itself as an INTERNATIONAL and suppressing policy, can not solely prevent and confront the INTERNATIONAL crimes. So, we should as municipal systems came to this result, by planning and efforts of LAWyers and by programming and using the INTERNATIONAL legal procedures as well as CRIMINAL municipal LAW seeking a coordinated action; in this way and as a unique and active «INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL policy» we can prevent atrocities and murdering innocent people. Changes and interferences of different systems of United Nations Organization such as Security Council, on the one hand, and the six stages experience of INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL courts and the efforts in order to consider all instruments and CRIMINAL process for these courts, on the other, showing a kind of globalization of LAW and consequently refer to an INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL policy. Accepting a kind of judicial role for Security Council in founding these courts, on the one hand, and the appearance of municipal CRIMINAL literature in the texts of articles of statutes and rules of the penal code as well as the arguments of these courts, on the other, relate a gradual illustration of an INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL policy that, as municipal LAW characteristics put the individual CRIMINAL responsibility in the highest point of importance.

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW for interpreting its basic concepts and its fundamental subjects is owed to municipal LAW of countries, specially civilized countries. Municipal LAW in compare with INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW has a longer history and so INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW actually notice to municipal LAW for setting INTERNATIONAL agreements and conventions. Also we could see this notice in judicial processes at INTERNATIONAL courts. On the other hands, we could not deny that municipal LAW accommodates more detailed and widespread rules and regulations than INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW. At following, we will discuss about some samples of justifying grounds in the area of INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW, such as LAWful defense, Necessity and superior order.Also remember that, adopting the theory of municipal LAW followed by INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW, provides the possibility of reference to municipal LAW in situations which there is lacking, brevity or ambiguity of INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAWs.

Joint CRIMINAL enterprise is now one of the most important forms of CRIMINAL responsibility in INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW. One of the most important reasons for this is the suitability of this form of responsibility، with the method of committing INTERNATIONAL crimes. Because of the crimes with the presence of superiors (including political، military and administrative officials) as the leader and often committed، they should be grouped and based on a common plan and in a broad area. Considering the widespread use of this form of CRIMINAL responsibility by prosecuting authorities for accountability to defendants of group crimes and on the other hand، there are many challenges in the legal foundations of this form of responsibility and its comprehensive interpretation by the prosecution authorities in the exclusive courts (Yugoslavia and Rwanda) and، consequently، the hybrid courts (the Special Court for Sierra Leone، the Extraordinary Chambers of Cambodia and the Courts of Cambodia). . . ) caused. In the wider context of this form of responsibility، by scholars of LAW، LAWyers and academia، scientific and judicial criticism. Much of the criticism about the fact that، When the Yugoslav court accepted this form of responsibility for the case Tadic، at the time، this form of liability was not accepted in customary INTERNATIONAL LAW، and many critics do not regard this form of responsibility as the result of customary INTERNATIONAL LAW، but also consider it a form of judicial innovation beyond the scope of the Statute of the court Yugoslavia and customary INTERNATIONAL LAW. Therefore، the cause of research in this field is the identification of challenges and legal and scientific ambiguities Which the INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL Tribunals are responsible for dealing with this way. The achievements of this study are mainly to identify the concept of CRIMINAL responsibility based on joint CRIMINAL enterprise and determine the elements of this form of responsibility in INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW.

Defining the concept of victim in INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW has a considerable significance in terms of its tight relations with crime and reparation that must be paid to victim. In simple meaning, victim is a person-natural or legal-suffered from perpetration of INTERNATIONAL crimes. Persons could be victimized both directly and indirectly; in this sense, family and relatives of a direct victim also could be known as victims. Subsequent to this, suffered incurred could be physical, psychological, mental, emotional, financial and etc. According to instruments in humanitarian LAW and statute of INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL court and other INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL tribunal, there are two categories of victims; first, natural persons that they are the main victims of INTERNATIONAL crimes and second, institutions, organizations and sometimes cultural properties. Of course, INTERNATIONAL community as history shown also can be introduced as a permanent victim in every INTERNATIONAL crime. Thus, any kind of damage incurred to any of these victims must be repaired when an INTERNATIONAL crime committed against them. Generally speaking, it could be said that damages could be repaired even in situations that there is no direct victims because there is always an INTERNATIONAL community.

Joint CRIMINAL responsibility as one of the manifestations of CRIMINAL responsibility for crimes under INTERNATIONAL LAW. This concept is clearly the first time in the former Yugoslavia Tribunal Appeals Chamber in the Tadic case was brought in 1999 And later was used by INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL court. According to this type of responsibility all participants in a CRIMINAL scheme may be responsible for the crimes of all the group members Even though their direct involvement in it does not. The feasibility of applying this kind of responsibility in the internal LAW of iran with capacity of islamic CRIMINAL LAW in Institutions such as Complicity and Participation in a CRIMINAL group and Leadership shows that Iranian LAWmaker emphasized the principle of personal CRIMINAL responsibility is to avoid this kind of responsibility, but in some of the cases can be applied to this type of responsibility.

Sexual violence specially against hundreds of thousands of the women and children throughout the world is a bitter fact. The sexual violence is often used as a war tactic to destroy the national pride and dignity during the history that affects not only victim but also his society which leads to destruction of their culture and identity. The sexual violence is a term wider than rape, covers different cases and has been considered in the INTERNATIONAL treaties related to armed conflicts as well as judgments of the INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL Tribunals like former Yugoslavia and Rwanda Tribunals during a process as an INTERNATIONAL crime which has several CRIMINAL subjects.

Inherent human dignity, which is opposite to acquired dignity, is so important in the INTERNATIONAL system of human rights and INTERNATIONAL documents that it is recognized as the basis of human rights, privileges and duties, to the extent that even the realization of values such as justice, freedom and equality without It is not possible. This dignity is also extremely important in CRIMINAL LAW. This dignity plays a fundamental role in the formation, modification and change, interpretation and justification, legitimacy or illegitimacy of CRIMINAL rules. The inherent dignity of human beings standardizes and institutionalizes the stages of CRIMINALization and CRIMINAL proceedings and prevents the unnecessary and discriminatory intervention of CRIMINAL LAW in the freedom of behavior of citizens. By providing standards and criteria such as justice, freedom of expression, equality and fairness and prohibiting cruel and inhumane, arbitrary and disproportionate punishments and punishments, as well as prohibiting punishment and double trial, torture and harassment and generally using CRIMINALs and victims of crime in CRIMINAL proceedings limit the absolute and exclusive CRIMINAL sovereignty of states and provide the ground for further convergence in the process of globalization of CRIMINAL LAW.

The Iraqi Special Tribunal is a body established under the Iraqi national LAW to try Iraqi nationals or residents accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or other serious crimes committed between 1968 and 2003. The statute of Iraqi Special Tribunal was enacted on 10. 12.2003 by the Iraqi Governing Counsel. The tribunal recognizes the wishes of the Iraqi people to establish a legal instrument suitable for proving their rights and uncovering the truth about what happened during the past years. The intention of the drafters of the statute was to attempt insofar as possible to comply with the INTERNATIONAL standards of due process of LAW and to focus on the crimes committed under the INTERNATIONAL LAW such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. But do they success in doing so or not will be discussed in this paper.