مسدودسازی شماره ملی اشخاص در راستای اجرای محکومیت‌های مالی و کیفری؛ اقدامی قانونی یا اعدامی مدنی؟

 ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌
The proliferation of e-government initiatives, underpinned by technological advancements and population growth, has fundamentally altered the landscape of public administration and governance. The integration of modern communication tools into government operations aims to enhance service delivery, reduce inefficiencies, and improve citizen satisfaction. Central to this transformation is the concept of e-government, which emphasizes the use of information technology to facilitate access to personal information, provide social and financial services, and enable direct interaction between citizens and governments. The adoption of unique identity identifiers, such as national ID numbers, is a cornerstone of this digital governance model, ensuring streamlined access to services and efficient enforcement of legal obligations.
     In many countries, national ID numbers are employed as a key mechanism for identifying individuals, facilitating the execution of judgments, and enforcing financial and criminal sentences. This digital approach enables authorities to track and seize assets, ensuring that the penalties imposed by the judiciary are effectively implemented. However, the use of national ID numbers as a tool for enforcing judgments raises critical legal and ethical questions, particularly when such measures involve blocking access to essential services and civil rights. The central issue explored in this article is whether the deprivation of fundamental rights through the blocking of national ID numbers constitutes a legitimate legal measure or an overreach that amounts to civil death.
‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌
The article seeks to address a fundamental question at the intersection of law, technology, and human rights: Is the blocking of national ID numbers as a means of enforcing financial and criminal sentences a legitimate legal measure, or does it constitute a form of civil death by depriving individuals of their fundamental rights? This question encapsulates the tension between the need for effective law enforcement and the protection of individual rights, particularly in the context of digital governance. The research question further probes whether the acceleration of the enforcement process through such coercive measures can be justified, given the potential infringement on non-derogable rights related to personal identity and personhood.
‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌
The hypothesis put forth in this article is that blocking the national ID number of an individual, thereby depriving them of essential rights and services, is neither a justifiable nor effective method for enforcing financial and criminal sentences. This hypothesis is grounded in the belief that such measures are fundamentally at odds with the principles of justice, as they disproportionately affect an individual's ability to participate in society and maintain their personhood. The hypothesis suggests that the deprivation of rights through the blocking of national ID numbers is a punitive measure that exceeds the boundaries of legitimate legal enforcement and encroaches upon the inviolable rights inherent to human dignity and identity.
‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌
To explore the research question and test the hypothesis, this article adopts a doctrinal and critical comparative methodology. The doctrinal approach involves a detailed analysis of existing legal frameworks, statutory provisions, and case law related to the enforcement of financial and criminal sentences through the use of national ID numbers. This analysis is conducted within the broader context of human rights law, with particular emphasis on the principles of proportionality, necessity, and non-derogable rights.
     The comparative aspect of the methodology involves examining the experiences of various legal systems that have implemented or considered the use of national ID numbers for enforcement purposes. By comparing the legal, social, and ethical implications of these practices in different jurisdictions, the article aims to highlight both the advantages and challenges associated with this enforcement mechanism. The framework for analysis also includes a critical examination of the Islamic jurisprudential perspective, given the unique intersection of legal and religious principles in the context of identity and rights.
     The article is structured to first provide a comprehensive overview of the legal foundations of national ID numbers and their role in e-government initiatives. This is followed by an in-depth analysis of the legal and ethical considerations surrounding the blocking of national ID numbers, drawing on comparative legal experiences and Islamic jurisprudence. The methodology is designed to critically assess the balance between effective enforcement and the protection of fundamental rights, ultimately evaluating whether the use of national ID numbers in this context is a lawful and ethical practice.
     By systematically analyzing the legal, ethical, and jurisprudential dimensions of this issue, the article aims to provide a nuanced understanding of the implications of blocking national ID numbers for the enforcement of financial and criminal sentences. This approach ensures that the discussion is grounded in both legal doctrine and practical considerations, offering a comprehensive evaluation of the legitimacy and effectiveness of this enforcement measure.
‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌
The exploration of the use of national ID numbers as a tool for enforcing financial and criminal sentences has yielded significant insights into the legal, ethical, and practical implications of such measures. The findings indicate a complex interplay between the need for effective enforcement mechanisms and the protection of fundamental human rights. The application of national ID numbers in judicial proceedings offers undeniable advantages in terms of efficiency and the ability to locate and identify individuals for the execution of sentences. However, the use of these identifiers as a means to exert pressure through the deprivation of rights raises profound concerns.
     One of the key findings is the effectiveness of national ID numbers in the identification and tracking of assets, which is crucial for enforcing financial judgments. In many legal systems, the ability to identify the debtor's assets is a prerequisite for successful enforcement. The use of national ID numbers can significantly streamline this process by linking all assets and financial transactions to a single, unique identifier. This approach not only facilitates the execution of judgments but also reduces the potential for fraud and evasion by ensuring that all assets are accounted for under one identifiable entity.
     However, the discussion also highlights significant ethical and legal challenges associated with the use of national ID numbers for enforcement purposes. The practice of blocking an individual's national ID number as a punitive measure is particularly contentious. Blocking a national ID number essentially strips an individual of their ability to participate in many aspects of civil life, including access to financial services, healthcare, and social benefits. This form of deprivation can be likened to a modern form of civil death, where an individual's legal and social existence is effectively nullified.
     From an Islamic jurisprudential perspective, this approach is problematic. Islamic law emphasizes the protection of individual dignity and rights, even in the context of punishment. The complete deprivation of rights through the blocking of a national ID number is seen as disproportionate and contrary to the principles of justice and fairness that underpin Islamic legal traditions. Moreover, such measures may violate the non-derogable rights related to a person's identity and dignity, which are safeguarded under both international human rights law and Islamic jurisprudence.
     The discussion further suggests that while the blocking of national ID numbers might achieve the goal of enforcing judgments, it does so at the cost of infringing on fundamental human rights. The disproportionate nature of this measure, coupled with the potential for abuse, makes it a legally and ethically questionable practice. The findings underscore the need for a more balanced approach that achieves enforcement objectives without resorting to extreme measures that compromise individual rights.
     In light of these findings, alternative mechanisms are proposed that could balance the need for effective enforcement with the protection of fundamental rights. For instance, rather than completely blocking a national ID number, which results in total deprivation of civil and social rights, a more nuanced approach could involve restricting access to specific services that are directly related to the enforcement of financial judgments. These might include limitations on opening new bank accounts, transferring property, or engaging in significant financial transactions. Such targeted restrictions would exert sufficient pressure on the convicted individual to comply with legal obligations while avoiding the broader consequences of civil death.
     Furthermore, the revival of Islamic regulations, such as Iflas (bankruptcy), offers a culturally and legally appropriate alternative that aligns with Islamic principles and provides a structured process for dealing with debtors. Under these regulations, debtors who are genuinely insolvent would be subject to specific restrictions that reflect their financial status, rather than being subjected to the sweeping and punitive measure of blocking their national ID number. This approach not only respects the rights of the debtor but also upholds the integrity of the enforcement process.
‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌
The use of national ID numbers in the enforcement of financial and criminal sentences presents a double-edged sword: while it offers significant advantages in terms of efficiency and traceability, it also poses serious risks to individual rights and freedoms. The findings of this article strongly suggest that the complete blocking of national ID numbers as a method of enforcement is an excessive and unjustifiable measure that equates to civil death. This approach is incompatible with both international human rights standards and Islamic legal principles, which prioritize the protection of individual dignity and the proportionality of punishment.
     The discussion concludes that while the use of national ID numbers can be beneficial in certain aspects of enforcement, such as asset identification, the scope of their application must be carefully limited to avoid infringing on fundamental rights. The proposal to impose targeted restrictions on specific services, rather than a blanket deprivation of all rights, offers a more balanced and legally sound alternative. Additionally, the revival of Islamic Iflas regulations provides a culturally appropriate framework for addressing the challenges associated with debt enforcement, ensuring that the rights of both creditors and debtors are respected.
     Ultimately, this article calls for a re-evaluation of the legislative and judicial practices surrounding the use of national ID numbers in enforcement. Legislators and policymakers at Islamic states, as well as others, are urged to consider the ethical and legal ramifications of such measures and to seek solutions that uphold the principles of justice, fairness, and respect for human dignity. The blocking of national ID numbers should be reserved, if at all, for the most serious offenses where the deprivation of rights is justified by the gravity of the crime, and even then, it should be implemented with caution and respect for the individual's fundamental rights.