A Comparative Study of Acceptable Judicial Proceedings in French and English Law and Its Realization in Iran

Abstract

It is challenging to definitively determine whether another categorization of judicial proceedings into "acceptable" and "unacceptable" exists. However, the following points can be made: Firstly, the answer is negative, as there is no precedence for such a categorization in the legal literature authored by prominent professors and legal experts in our country. In principle, judicial proceedings should be acceptable and admirable, leaving no room for the recognition of unacceptable or objectionable proceedings. Secondly, the answer is affirmative. This is because, when discussing judicial proceedings deemed acceptable and desirable by the framers of the Constitution and the proponents of the judicial process, it is apparent that there exists a form of proceeding that does not align with the intentions of the lawgiver and is not desirable for the public seeking judicial recourse. Doubts arise because, when examining and scrutinizing the notion of "unacceptable judicial proceedings," resistance is encountered from both judicial authorities and legal scholars. The opposition from the former is seemingly natural, as they view the judicial process in the courts as legitimate and do not tolerate anything to the contrary. From the perspective of the latter, there is a concern that by recognizing unacceptable judicial proceedings, actions within this framework may appear justified, even though such proceedings lack the characteristics, privileges, and status of acceptable judicial proceedings.