اعتبار امر مختوم کیفری و تفاوت آن با اعتبار امر قضاوت شده مدنی (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
اعتبار امر قضاوت شده از جمله دستاوردهای مهم دادگستری مدرن تلقی می شود. مبنای قاعده ی اعتبار امر قضاوت شده ی مدنی جلوگیری از تجدید دعاوی و احتراز از صدور آرای متعارض است و بر همین اساس شرایط استناد به این قاعده در امور مدنی شامل وحدت موضوع، وحدت سبب و وحدت اصحاب دعواست. با توجه به تمایزات بنیادین میان حقوق کیفری و حقوق مدنی، نمی توان از معیارها و شرایط تحلیل اعتبار امر قضاوت شده ی مدنی، عیناً برای تحلیل اعتبار امر قضاوت شده ی کیفری بهره گرفت. اعتبار امر قضاوت شده ی کیفری علاوه بر دو مبنای مذکور، مبتنی بر قاعده ی منع محاکمه و مجازات مجدد است که در اسناد بین المللی و منطقه ای متعددی مورد تأکید قرار گرفته و از جمله اصول دادرسی عادلانه و منصفانه به شمار می آید؛ بنابراین، چنین اعتباری در دادرسی کیفری یک حق بشری نیز تلقی می گردد و از جایگاه ویژه ای برخوردار است. با عنایت به مبانی پیش گفته، شرایط استناد به قاعده ی اعتبار امر قضاوت شده ی کیفری شامل وحدت در رفتار ارتکابی و وحدت اصحاب دعواست؛ البته باید توجه داشت در تحلیل شرط وحدت اصحاب دعوا نیز به دلیل تمایزات دادرسی کیفری و مدنی، از جمله اصل نسبی بودن دادرسی مدنی در مقابل جایگاه ویژه ی نظم عمومی در حقوق کیفری، تفاوت های مهمی میان اعتبار امر قضاوت شده ی مدنی و کیفری وجود دارد.The Concept of Criminal Res Judicata and Its Distinction from Civil Res Judicata
Res judicata is recognized as one of the foundational principles of modern judicial systems. In civil law, its primary aim is to prevent the re-litigation of disputes and to avoid conflicting judgments. Accordingly, invoking this principle in civil cases requires the identity of subject matter, cause of action, and parties. However, due to fundamental distinctions between civil and criminal law, these conditions cannot be applied identically in criminal proceedings. In criminal law, res judicata is not only based on the avoidance of contradictory rulings but also firmly grounded in the principle of ne bis in idem —a principle enshrined in numerous international and regional legal instruments and widely recognized as an essential element of the right to a fair trial. Thus, criminal res judicata is also considered a human right. In the criminal context, res judicata bars prosecution only where the new case involves the same person and the same conduct. Yet, due to inherent differences between civil and criminal procedures—such as the doctrine of privity in civil law versus the importance of public order in criminal law—there are significant analytical distinctions, particularly concerning the identity of parties. This study is theoretical in nature and adopts a descriptive-analytical method. Data have been collected through a comprehensive review of legal sources, including Iranian statutes—especially the Criminal Procedure Code—and scholarly writings in criminal law and procedure. The study critically explores the legal concept of res judicata within Iran’s criminal justice system and compares it with its civil counterpart. Through doctrinal analysis, the research identifies conceptual and procedural differences, focusing specifically on the principle of ne bis in idem . Structural distinctions between the two fields—such as the relative nature of legal relationships in civil matters, the neutrality of civil judges (e.g., their prohibition from gathering evidence), the relativity of judgments, the role of public order in criminal law, and differing understandings of "cause," "person," and "parties"—highlight that applying civil res judicata standards to criminal proceedings is both analytically flawed and legally problematic. While classical civil doctrine requires the identity of subject matter, cause of action, and parties—a widely accepted standard in civil procedure—criminal res judicata is limited to two conditions: (1) the identity of the conduct, and (2) the identity of the parties. The first condition means that a single criminal act may only be prosecuted and adjudicated once. Even if the act can be classified under multiple legal categories, it must give rise to only one final judgment. Any attempt to issue additional judgments based on alternative classifications of the same act violates ne bis in idem . Regarding the second condition, the concept of "party identity" in criminal law must be interpreted in light of the distinct roles of private complainants and public prosecutors. Although the term appears in both civil and criminal doctrines, it carries different legal implications in each. Once prosecution has concluded—whether initiated by a private complainant or a public prosecutor—a new prosecution for the same conduct is barred under criminal res judicata. However, victims may still pursue civil claims for damages in competent courts. Moreover, a person prosecuted, tried, and sentenced for a specific act as a principal or accomplice cannot later be prosecuted for the same conduct under a different classification (e.g., aiding and abetting). Similarly, a final conviction for direct perpetration precludes the prosecution of others as direct perpetrators unless they are shown to have acted as accomplices.
تبلیغات
