Historical challenging period of political authoritarianism in Iran has affected the criminal policy’s ineffectiveness. Public law and especially criminal policy in its both sources - Shiite jurisprudence and western legal thought - has experienced numerous challenges due to the lack of an active and continuous communication between those resources, and also due to the divergence of a broad range of formal and informal norms. Two other flaws in the traditional Islamic criminal policy are the lack of enough attention to Iranian criminal sociology, and the lack of consistency with contemporary collective wisdom. But the most important problem of the current criminal policy is the unavailability and lack of attention to the need for interdisciplinary teaching and neglecting the role of philosophical, sociological, and especially managerial aspects of criminal policy. Suffice to Fiqh i method is sign of limitation in this traditional flow. Scholars support this process, try to introduce the Islamic criminal policy with just Fatwa method; meanwhile criminal policy is not an arbitration-oriented science, and is a constructive paradigm-based science. This article, after criticizing the level, extent and state of presenting Fiqh in contemporary Iranian criminal policy, points to the capacity of other interpretations of Islam (such as Maqasid i Fiqh) in planning the local criminal policy pattern; and it also shows some commons of Islamic rationality and Western rationality in designing this local theory. Under the hypothesis of this article, the most important factor limiting the freedom and inadmissible resorting to violence in soft layers of subjective and objective approaches to criminal policy, including: theoretical foundations weakness, weak social base to believe in culture of participation in the public sphere, the lack of serious commitment to codify Islamic-Iranian model of progress.

In today's world, traveling by air has become common.The reason for this prevalence is to save time;Because the speed of transportation by plane is higher than other means of transportation.In carrying out a flight, the ideal is that the transport operators fulfill their commitment according to the schedule, but this ideal cannot always be realized.Due to various reasons, it is possible that the flight will not depart according to the schedule or, if it departs on time, it will not arrive at the destination at the agreed time.Now, the question that can be raised is whether passengers can claim moral damages due to flight delay if other civil liability conditions are met?This article tries to answer the above question with an analyticalـdescriptive approach and with a comparative look at the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions, as well as by analyzing the new decisions of domestic and foreign courts. This article tries with a descriptive analysis and with a comparative view of the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions, as well as with the analysis and analysis of the new opinions of domestic and foreign courts, which gives an extraordinary question. Anyway, the results of the investigations showed that to answer this question, the flights should be divided into two categories, international and domestic.In international flights, two conventions of Warsaw 1929 and Montreal 1999 are used.Although the courts of different countries have different opinions regarding the answer to the above question, the prevailing practice so far has been that only moral damages caused by the delay cannot be claimed based on the two Warsaw and Montreal Conventions.Regarding domestic flights, the general rules governing the civil liability system should be used.Of course, even when the Warsaw Convention was applied to all flights, the Iranian courts had recognized the possibility to compensate for moral damage;Therefore, it is natural that after the rule of domestic laws and considering the recognition of the principle of the possibility of compensation for moral damages, these courts will accept the ruling on the possibility of compensation for moral damages caused by flight delays.

Considering Article 18 of the Law on Establishment of Public Courts and Revolution and Article 477 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the legislator has planned an extraordinary method called resumption of proceedings through the head of the judiciary. Although this method can have advantages in terms of preventing the survival and implementation of incorrect and illegal decisions and verdicts, it faces many ambiguities and criticisms. The principles governing the proceedings in Iran, such as the principle of correspondence and the two-stage principle of substantive proceedings, remain intact in this procedure, the rule of the validity of the adjudicated case upon or “ res judicata” and the inherent difference between the ruling and the order and several ambiguities remain open in this regard.In addition, the analysis and review of the independence and impartiality of the Supreme Court and its relationship with the Lower courts and the head of the judiciary can be considered in explaining the criticisms received, which should be reviewed in this type of retrial. This article, with emphasis on judicial procedure, examines and criticizes the retrial of Article 477 of the Civil Procedure Code from the perspective of the principles of civil procedure and presents the necessary solutions for the legal system of our country. 

After the victory of the Islamic Revolution, islamization of the all bases of the Islamic .systemwas a prevalent thoughtwhich was revealedas a cornerstone of the society.Accordingly, establishment of the Islamic Judicial system, based on Islamic jstic which consists of judges who are both just and knowledgeable with respect to all Islamic provisions, which has been provided as a main object in Iranian constitutionl law. Consequently, the .first legislation of the newly established Islamic system, i.e. the Islamic Revolution council made velY important changes in hoth substantive and fromal laws. This trend has been continued by the Islamic parliament after being ,stablished.Unfortunately the changes with respect to formal provisions of law particularly on the ground of principals of the criminal procedure and juditial review of the courts decisions have been so deep and imprecise as ths legislator who has to pass a new law with completely different and opposite contents, very soon after any change the situation has been continued up to now and still the legislator does not follow any spesific and stable priniciple with regard to the foregoing changes.Sometimes the law passed by the parliament considers judicial review ofa courts decision against the unlawfull while later on the parliament may change the law so as it legalize such a review of the aforegoing decision in a way that one may think it is improbably of a court to pronounce a binding verdict. Accordingly, it is necessmy to clarify whether these changes are in accordance with common law and whether in which circumstances a court~sdecision may be quashed.On this bases, firstly article trys to distinguish between the judges under the cammon law and those who work in the ministy of justice and second to discuss the issue of the reveiw orland quashing of a judge"s decision under the Imamian school of law to ,find out clear and basic principals of this school concerning the aforesaid issues.Finally, the article will compare these principals with the provisions of the law at current status to indicate that any change concerning of criminal proccedure after Islamic Revoltion wasbased on mimnden-tading of the principals of the Imamian school of law. Passing various legislations by the parliament is a clear evidence in this respect and Islamic jurisprodence not only agrees with the review of unlawfull decsitions of a court but also agrees with other principals on this basis.

After the victory of the Islamic Revolution, islamization of the all bases of the Islamic system was a prevalent thought which wasrevealed as a cornerstone of the society. Accordingly, establishment of the Islamic Judicial system, based on Islamic jstic which consists of judges who are both just and knowledgeable with respect to all Islamic provisions, which has been provided as a main object in Iranian constitutionl law. Consequently, the first legislation of the newly established Islamic system, i.e, the Islamic Revolution council made very important changes in both substantive and fromal laws. This trend has been continued by the Islamic parliament after being stablished. Unfortunately the changes with respect to formal provisions of law particularly on the ground of principals of the criminal procedure and juditial review of the court"s decisions have been so deep and imprecise as ths legislator who has to pass a new law with completely different and opposite contents, very soon after any change the situation has been continued up to now and still the legislator does not follow any spesific and stable priniciple with regard to the foregoing changes. Sometimes the law passed by the parliament considers judicial review of a court"s decision against the unlawfull while later on the parliament may change the law so as it legalize such a review of the aforegoing decision in a way that one may think it is improbably of a court to pronounce a binding verdict. Accordingly, it is necessary to clarify whether these changes are in accordance with common law and whether in which circumstances a court"s decision may be quashed. On this bases, firstly article trys to distinguish between the judges under the cammon law and those who work in the ministy of justice and second to discuss the issue of the reveiw or\and quashing of a judge"s decision under the Imamian school of law to find out clear and basic principals of this school concerning the aforesaid issues. Finally, the article will compare these principals with the provisions of the law at current status to indicate that any change concerning of criminal proccedure after Islamic Revoltion was based on misunderstading of the principals of the Imamian school of law. Passing various legislations by the parliament is a clear evidence in this respect and Islamic jurisprodence not only agrees with the review of unlawfull decsitions of a court but also agrees with other principals on this basis.