Jurisdiction of Lack of Accountability for Parliament Representativeness

Abstract

Parliamentary immunity of MPs has been accepted in laws of most countries. This immunity is manifested in two ways: One way is “lack of responsibility”, meaning that parliament member can freely express his idea as he fulfils his duty of representation and he is not prosecuted and seized because of it. Another way is “nonoffensiveness”, meaning that if an MP commits a crime, he may be sued by permission and approval of parliament. In the post-revolution Iran, majority of members of Assembly of Elites of the Constitution opposed the principle of “non-offensiveness”, calling it against principle of “all are equal in the eyes of law” andinconsistent with “Rules of Islam”. Thus, “lack of responsibility” of MPs was only reflected in the principle 86 of the Constitution. Jurists disagree over limits of “lack of responsibility”. Some hold that lack of responsibility excludes crimes. Council of Guardians has approved the recent idea in its interpretative idea. Some others believe that “lack of responsibility” includes crimes that are committed in line with fulfilling representational duties. This article has accepted the latter idea as regards to rule of subject-order proportion.

Keywords

• Non-offensiveness
• Lack of Responsibility
• Parliamentary Immunity