Volume 19, Issue 60 (4-2025)
MLJ 2025, 19(60): 956-968 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Khorshid Kordlar H, Rostamzad H, Javid E. The Possibility of Receiving Mental and Physical Damages due to Confiscation of Property in the Iranian Legal System, while
Comparing it with Human Rights Principles and the
Practice of the Common Law Legal System. MLJ 2025; 19 (60) :956-968
URL: http://ijmedicallaw.ir/article-1-1989-en.html
URL: http://ijmedicallaw.ir/article-1-1989-en.html
1- Department of Law, Maragheh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Maragheh, Iran.
2- Department of Law, Tehran Central Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Law, Tehran Central Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract:
Background and Aim: Following a judicial conviction, assets may be confiscated from the convicted person. Human rights sources, while respecting the functioning of the independent judiciary, recommend preserving the dignity and honor of the convicted person and this issue is also mentioned in the rules for the execution of sentences. However, mental and physical harm may be inflicted on the convicted person during the confiscation of property.
Method: This research was conducted using an analytical-descriptive method and attempted to identify the legal responsibilities for the harm caused to the convicted person during the confiscation of property.
Ethical Considerations: In all stages of writing, the research principles were followed.
Results: Sentence enforcement is carried out by the judicial and quasi-judicial systems and with the help of judicial officers, preventive measures are taken to prevent incidents. Therefore, in the context of legal enforcement, the harmful act/omission of an act cannot be attributed to the sentence enforcement unit. Given the similarity of the rules for paying blood money with civil liability, the judicial system cannot be held responsible for physical harm caused under these circumstances. However, regarding mental damage, there are many ambiguities in this regard and therefore, no specific mechanism is evident for the judiciary. In this regard, in the current situation with the current sentence enforcement mechanism, responsibility for compensating for mental damage cannot be attributed. In the common law of England and Canada, confiscation of corporate property against shareholders, confiscation of movable property of tax-exempt individuals in their presence and in the common law of Australia and the United States, confiscation of immovable property in the presence of individuals who are part of income groups 8, 9 and 10 are prohibited.
Conclusion: The final conclusion is that the sentence enforcement mechanism regarding the mental protection of the convicted person needs to be revised and in the current situation, due to its implementation within the framework of the law, civil and criminal liability cannot be attributed to the judicial system and quasi-judicial sentence enforcement units. However, in the event of a violation of these rules, while the rules for paying blood money are clear, there have been challenges regarding emotional damage due to the lack of specific judicial practice in this area. In addition, the causal relationships in this situation require explanation. In the common law legal system, emotional damages are determined by a forensic physician as part of the blood money.
Method: This research was conducted using an analytical-descriptive method and attempted to identify the legal responsibilities for the harm caused to the convicted person during the confiscation of property.
Ethical Considerations: In all stages of writing, the research principles were followed.
Results: Sentence enforcement is carried out by the judicial and quasi-judicial systems and with the help of judicial officers, preventive measures are taken to prevent incidents. Therefore, in the context of legal enforcement, the harmful act/omission of an act cannot be attributed to the sentence enforcement unit. Given the similarity of the rules for paying blood money with civil liability, the judicial system cannot be held responsible for physical harm caused under these circumstances. However, regarding mental damage, there are many ambiguities in this regard and therefore, no specific mechanism is evident for the judiciary. In this regard, in the current situation with the current sentence enforcement mechanism, responsibility for compensating for mental damage cannot be attributed. In the common law of England and Canada, confiscation of corporate property against shareholders, confiscation of movable property of tax-exempt individuals in their presence and in the common law of Australia and the United States, confiscation of immovable property in the presence of individuals who are part of income groups 8, 9 and 10 are prohibited.
Conclusion: The final conclusion is that the sentence enforcement mechanism regarding the mental protection of the convicted person needs to be revised and in the current situation, due to its implementation within the framework of the law, civil and criminal liability cannot be attributed to the judicial system and quasi-judicial sentence enforcement units. However, in the event of a violation of these rules, while the rules for paying blood money are clear, there have been challenges regarding emotional damage due to the lack of specific judicial practice in this area. In addition, the causal relationships in this situation require explanation. In the common law legal system, emotional damages are determined by a forensic physician as part of the blood money.
Keywords: Confiscation of Property, Emotional Damage, Physical Injury, Enforcement of Judgments, Blood Money, Damage
Type of Study: Original Article |
Received: 2025/04/3 | Accepted: 2025/09/8
Received: 2025/04/3 | Accepted: 2025/09/8
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
