Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

---

Mohammad Jafar Habibzadeh Associate Professor, Department of Law, Tarbiat Modarres University Seyed Doraid Mousavi Mojab Ph.D. Student of Criminal Law and Criminology, Tarbiat Modarres University  The necessity to protect to parliament and its members led to determine and assure a particular privilege named parliamentary immunity in the Constitutions or ordinary laws of majority of the countries. This legal institution has been predicted to provide freedom of speech and to maintain the independence of representatives (members of parliament) in order to do their duty favorably. To define and justify the necessity of it, different theories I ike "good service theory" and "the prestige of representatives' legal personality" have been introduced. In this regard, "Doctrine of Necessity" is presented as the most important theoretical basis. The legal supports which observe the parliamentary immunity, can be generally studied in two categories with distinct descriptions and effects. First, it demonstrates the benefits and utilization of immunity by the representatives for their statements, opinions, and the cast of votes in order to do their duty as representative, which idiomatically is called "the principle of non-liability". Second, it supports the members of parliament against legal proceedings, arrest. imprisonment and the rest judicial measures, except by the permission and allowance of the respective parliament, because of irrelevant exercises and non - parliamentary duties and prevents the possibility of immediate prosecution of MPs because of the attributed crimes. This kind of immunity which is practically is the logical consequence of the non-liability principle of representatives before their parliamentary duties, is named "the principle of inviolability". The stand of every country of the world in relation to the various forms of parliamentary immunity is a little bit different. In some countries, one of these two forms and in others. both of them are accepted to guarantee the whole immunity of MPs. Respectively, the first approach is called solo and the second one is called integrative. In Iran, the first approach depended on the non-liability of representatives because of their statements has been accepted in Art: 86 of the Constitution. The accuracy of this acceptance is approvable from the dynamic Fiqh’s point of view and the expediencies and existing necessities require to go along with the rest of countries which accepted the principle of parliamentary immunity.

Keywords: : Parliamentary Immunity, constitutions or ordinary laws, Good service Theory, Representatives, prestige of legal personality, Doctrine of Necessity, Principle of Non-Liability, principle of Inviolability

Full-Text [PDF 9238 kb]   (4066 Downloads)    

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

---