عنوان مقاله [English]
The lawmaker has taken a positive step in securing the rights of the accused and enforcing our country's criminal law with international standards, but the shortcomings in the law are still significant. One of these shortcomings is the determination of the source of dispute resolution between the prosecutor and the prosecutor. Although the legislator in Article 272 of the Code of Criminal Procedure considers the dispute to be settled by the Criminal Court of Justice, the Prosecutor performs its task in this regard, but we know that there may sometimes be a criminal court in dispute settlement. The Prosecutor and the Prosecutor are expected to confirm the theory that Cr Takabi is considered to be in the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court, and it is obvious that the interrogator is obliged to prosecute a charge that has not been upheld by the Criminal Court, and, in the other case, to pursue a finding that is preferable, to seek a final hearing or judgment. If the objection authority not to prosecute the prosecutor (Criminal Court 1) does not agree with the opinion of the Criminal Court in resolving the dispute between the investigator and the prosecutor in determining the jurisdiction of the criminal court and violates the prohibition to prosecute the prosecutor; Order a hearing on a charge that he is competent to deal with. In fact, the Criminal Court One did this by resolving the former dispute between the prosecutor and the investigator, which has rendered the criminal court ineffective and ineffective, causing problems such as the prosecution. So what is the better for the legislator to amend the above article in view of this legal defect and to appeal to the court of appeals where the prosecutor and the investigator disagree on the type of charge assigned to the accused, or in cases where at least one of the charges is within the jurisdiction of the criminal court? Designate the competent authority for dispute resolution.