Judge Writing [Ketabat] as a Basis for Granting Judicial Representation and Enforcement of Court Judgments; An Analysis of Islamic Jurisprudence and Iranian Judicial Practice

‌ ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌
The role of the judge's written decisions in Islamic jurisprudence is a complex and nuanced aspect that has found its way into legal discourse in Iran. This paper delves into the intricacies of this subject, focusing on the implications of the judge's writing concerning the delegation of judicial representation and the execution of court judgments within the framework of the Islamic legal system and the specific judicial practices in Iran. While the content of the judge's writing is rooted in legal sources, the extent to which the legislator has considered its relevance in the refinement of laws related to judicial representation and judgment execution remains a matter of debate.
‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌
The central inquiry of this study revolves around the role and acceptance of the judge's writing in Islamic jurisprudence, with a particular emphasis on its application in the delegation of judicial representation and the execution of court judgments. The overarching question seeks to understand the compatibility of current legal provisions with the fundamental principles of Islamic jurisprudence regarding the judge's written decisions. Additionally, the study explores the divergent views on this matter among Sunni and Shia scholars and aims to uncover the common ground that unifies their perspectives.
‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌
Building upon existing legal scholarship and the intersection of Islamic jurisprudence and the Iranian judicial system, this study posits that the judge's writing serves as a foundational element for the delegation of judicial representation and the execution of court judgments. The hypothesis suggests that despite the differences between Sunni and Shia perspectives, a unified understanding can be achieved through careful consideration and modification of legal provisions. It anticipates that the judge's writing, when properly contextualized within the principles of Islamic jurisprudence, can provide a robust basis for legal procedures related to judicial representation and judgment execution.
‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌
This research adopts a doctrinal and critical approach to analyze the judicial procedures in Iran, focusing on the judge writing and its implications for the delegation of judicial representation and judgment execution. Drawing from extensive legal literature, including the opinions of Sunni and Shia scholars, the study also examines the relevant laws of Iran, such as Article 290 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Articles 119 and 484 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Islamic Republic of Iran. This examination involves a comprehensive review of legal sources, library resources, and judicial practices in Iran.
     The framework of this study encompasses a thorough exploration of the doctrinal foundations of the judge's writing, considering its reception within the broader context of Islamic jurisprudence. The critical analysis extends to the current legal provisions in Iran, evaluating their alignment with the principles derived from the judge's writing. By adopting a comparative approach, the study seeks to clarify the divergences in views and propose a unified perspective that reconciles the practical aspects of the Iranian legal system with the principles of Islamic jurisprudence.
     This research aspires to contribute valuable insights into the multifaceted relationship between the judge's writing, the delegation of judicial representation, and the execution of court judgments, providing a nuanced understanding for both scholars and legislators, ultimately guiding potential legal refinements in this domain.
‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌
The findings of this study, rooted in Islamic jurisprudence, reveal that providing testimony regarding a prior testimony is permissible under certain conditions within the context of the judge writing. However, the significance lies in the consensus among Shia scholars, indicating that the testimony of two individuals on a written judgment by a judge, verbally elaborated by the judge, holds evidentiary weight. This is due to the stabilizing nature of subsequent testimony over the initial one. Contemporary practices ensure the authenticity of the judge's writing through measures such as guaranteeing the non-distortion of its content or the judge's intent in executing representation. From a legal standpoint, compliance with the judge's representation request is considered obligatory upon the receiving judge.
     As elucidated, the statements of legal scholars accept the judge's writing, whether it be an explicit declaration by the judge or his physical presence while verbally endorsing the written document, but subject to the condition of the second judges’ sufficient knowledge. The analysis of the judge's writing revealed its applicability in both scenarios, aligning with the essence of the discussed principles. In essence, the purpose behind the judge writing is the execution of the judgment and the request made by the issuing judge, exercising control and authority over the involved parties.
‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌
In conclusion, the research provides a comprehensive understanding of the judge's writing and its implications for judicial representation and the execution of court judgments in the Islamic legal context. Drawing from Islamic jurisprudence and the Iranian legal system, the study navigates through the intricacies of the judge's writing, revealing its multifaceted role in legal proceedings.
     From a legal perspective, the study suggests two primary objectives. Firstly, it advocates for the codification of regulations in conformity with the nature of the judge's writing in the existing legal frameworks, emphasizing unity of approach. Secondly, the study seeks to address the identified gaps in the current literature on this subject, enriching the scholarly discourse within this domain.
     By aligning with the two stated objectives and harmonizing them with the analyses presented in this research, the final recommendation calls for the amendment or removal of the conclusive clause in Article 290 of the Civil Procedure Code. The requirement for certainty on the part of the representative in verifying the accuracy of the report by the receiving representative contradicts the legal and Sharia purpose of the provision. Additionally, the study clarifies that the judge's writing is not applicable to the execution of Hudud punishments, and current practices fall under the realm of executing the judge's judgment in the same judicial jurisdiction.
     The study hopes that the insights provided will guide legislators and scholars in refining legal provisions related to the judge's writing, judicial representation, and judgment execution. The highlighted issues underscore the need for a nuanced and contextually aligned legal approach, ensuring the compatibility of the legal framework with the principles derived from the judge's writing within the Islamic legal tradition.