A Comparative Study of Judge Immunity and Civil Liability in Imamiyah Jurisprudence and Common Law

Abstract

Judgment in the Iranian law will be civil if the perpetrator commits a mistake or unconventional negligence by refusing to hear the case, but if he makes a mistake, he will be responsible for compensating the government. Recruiting an analytical-descriptive design, the study is aimed at clarifying the commonalities and differences between Imamiyyah jurisprudence and the common law system in this regard. Findings indicate that in addition to Article 171 of the Constitution, the State of the Islamic Republic of Iran recognizes relative immunity under the influence of Imamiyyah jurisprudence in order to protect the independence of the judge. They knew absolutely. In general, by anticipating the principles of ethics to monitor the misconduct of the judiciary along with appealing their decision to the extent that the US government believes in the principle of "exercise of sovereignty" is derived from the federal system, refrain from making decisions in the US. He was acquitted and the judiciary in this country, by insuring itself, found a certain limit for possible problems.

Keywords

• fault
• mistake
• compensation
• judge immunity
• civil liability