In recent decades, insulting and hurting religion and religious people has become commonplace and the human rights system has not provided any effective protection for them. Regardless of non-legal motives, the main reason for this is assuming religiosity as a liberty-right in the world human rights system. This has led to the preference of the fundamental right to freedom of expression over religious freedom and has made legal actions against offenders of religion and religious people difficult. Being analytical in terms of the goal, qualitative in terms of processing, and fundamental in terms of results, being conducted as a library research, the present study, through utilizing the Islamic and Western views, seeks to prove that religiosity is beyond liberty-right and is an immunity-right. According to findings of the research and on the basis of numerous philosophical and human rights theories and arguments, because of its proximity to spiritual property, the necessity of paying attention to the dual dimensions of human beings, the necessity of compensating spiritual harm, and the connection between religiosity and human identity, personality and dignity that are protected by human rights, religiosity is an immunity-right and thus must be protected by states and the international community.

Non-opposability” is a legal situation that means the ability to deny legal elements (such as contracts). It means that third parties injured by the legal elements may disregard the effects of such elements on their own and reject the legal existence of such elements. However, their rejection and neglect do not negate all the effects of the legal element, especially its effects on the direct persons (such as parties to the juridical act). In this article, due to the numerous examples of non-opposability in commercial law, by classifying the mentioned examples of inopposability in commercial law, the whyness of non-opposability in these cases is analyzed and this point is studied whether it is possible to present a general and pervasive basis for all of these multiple examples? In this study, for achieving an appropriate answer, through a comparative approach and by means of a descriptive-analytic method, in addition to investigating the foundations put forward in French law as the origin of non-opposability situation, the rules of Imamiyah jurisprudence confirming the aforementioned situation have been examined as well.

One of the developments that was made in the French Civil Code in 2016 as a result of obligation rights' reform was the prediction of independent models to cession commitments and expression of the criteria governing them including the explanation of the status of accessories and guarantees of the original obligation in case of cession to third parties. However, this subject has many ambiguities in Iranian law and there are no explicit and definite articles about it. The Iranian Civil Code with adaptation of former French Civil Code, mentions the methods of Cession of Commitment, but contrary to French law, do not specify their effects and rulings, including the status of Accessory Contracts. The descriptive-analytic study of the subject in the legal systems of France and Iran demonstrates that the new French law of obligations is very similar to the Iranian legal system in this regard and in both legal systems, by ceding the positive aspect of the obligation (cession of the claim), its accessory contracts are also ceded, but the cession of the negative aspect of the obligation (cession of the debt) causes the termination of its accessory obligations.  

The right to recall of the elected officials by people means the right of people to remove the elected officials from office before the end of their term that has gained the attention of some legal-political systems as a procedure based on direct democracy. The difficulty of harmonization of the recall mechanism with effective institutions of indirect democracy is one of the reasons because of which this mechanism is not as widely used as other direct democracy’s tools. But this difficulty should not prevent it from being logically and reasonably used for the realization of increasing participation of the citizens. It would be determined in this comparative study that different countries have incorporated this process, either in a mixed way or fully, in their laws. But, in Iran, among the direct democracy practices, there is no explicit sign of it. Nevertheless, it seems possible to deduce the principle of acceptance of the mechanism's legitimacy from the accepted principles of Islam and the legal system regarding the nature of representation, as well as democratic interpretations of some constitutional principles. In order to expand the direct participation of people in governance, we can apply the mechanism in the legal system by using its successful experience of usage in other countries; provided that this application entails sufficient procedural guarantees to ensure the transparency, legitimacy, and legality of the recall process.

The Doctrine of Strict Compliance of Letters alongside the doctrine of independence of letter of credits is one of the doctrines governing letter of credits as one of the most significant modes of payment in international trade. There are different approaches regarding the concept of the doctrine of strict compliance in case-law of USA, UK, Italy, Germany and China. Two interpretative approaches in this regard are: reflective compliance approach and substantial compliance approach. However, the interpretative criteria of each court differ as to one of these two approaches. Regarding spelling and typographical errors, these two approaches may be expressed in six interpretative aspects. It seems that because of refusing of huge number of letters by the banks, the courts are moving toward substantial compliance approach. This movement is felt in the provisions of UCP 600 in which the prevailing attitude on the provisions is reduction of declaring the conflict of letters. The case law of Iranian judicial law is still doubtful in choosing one of these two approaches.

On the one hand, the right of property of employer generally requires that any possession be permitted for him/her, even if the possession leads to the violation of the privacy of the workers and employees. On the other hand, respect for the privacy of individuals, including workers, requires that the confidentiality of their information and communications be protected and consequently, all of the actions violating privacy be forbidden. The question which arises here is how to act in the event of a conflict between these two rights? In the American law, most of the courts, with some considerations, take the employer's side on the basis of "the employer's right to own the workplace space", "the workshop policy right" as well as "the lack of confidentiality and lack of normal expectation of privacy". In Iranian law, it seems that on the one hand, the exercise of the employer's right, in practice, corresponds to the violation of another's right and loss, and on the other hand, the impossibility of exercising the supervision right is to the detriment of the employer and his interests. Therefore, based on the “rule of importance” the priority is given to the right of the one of more s9gnificance. In this regard, it can be said that the employer, in order to bring the two interfering rights together, can take actions to control the relationships among the workers inside the network under his supervision with the prior allowance or announcement. In this case, the electronic communication of workers can be considered within the scope of the "execution" (Eqdam) and "extinction of respect" (Esqat-e-Ehteram) rules. In this paper, through a descriptive-analytic method, the relationship between these two rights in the two mentioned systems is studied.  

Transparency as the free circulation of political, social and economic information has a key role in the governance. There are some exceptions for this principle in the public law. In this article, these exceptions have been studied by referring to the Iranian public law specially the IRI Constitution.  Then, in order to clarify the Islamic approach in this regard, the subject is followed in Quran and Islamic narrations. The findings of this article that is conducted in a descriptive-comparative method, demonstrate that this principle has not been accepted absolutely in Quran and Islamic narrations and some limits are taken into account for it that can be divided into public law and the fundamentals of Islam domains. These limitations in the public law domain can be understood from those ayahs of Quran and narrations referring to the protection of sanctity and respect and those prohibiting the propagation of prostitution and rumors disrupting the independence and disclosure of military secrets as well. Furthermore, the limitations relating to fundamentals of Islam are deduced from ayahs and narrations on prohibition of insulting Islamic sanctities and publishing illusory books and weakening the beliefs of.

Obliging the obligor to perform the contractual obligations is one of the remedies or guarantees for breaching the contract. This remedy is foreseen in Imamiyah jurisprudence, Iranian law, and the relevant international instruments, but there are certain differences in domestic law and international instruments in this area.  Contrary to Iranian law in which the remedies are not equal with each other and the obligee is not free in choosing them, and he/she must initially demand obliging the performance of the obligation, in these international instruments, the right to obliging the performanceof the obligation and resorting to other means are along each other. That is, the obligee is free to choose the type of the remedy. Furthermore, in the aforementioned instruments, opposed to domestic law, the seizure of property of the debtor or obligor and his/her imprisonment for payment of debts or performance of contractual obligations is not foreseen. According to the dominant opinion in Imamiyah jurisprudence, assuming the possibility of obliging and compelling the obligor to perform the obligation, the obligee has no right to abolish the contract. However, some of the Islamic jurists have considered the possibility to obliging the performance and abolition as equal.  

Proper implementation of the law in order to establish justice is the concern of all legal systems and requires some changes in the course of procedure. Some changes, due to the increasing progress of new communication methods, in addition to providing a safe communication mainline between judicial authorities and judicial officers, will play a notable role in documentations recording and maintaining confidentiality of documents. Therefore, the encounter of the judiciary with electronic communications and the need to prepare the executive arrangements for this process of cooperation with the cooperation of e-service providers, both public and private, seems to be inevitable and essential. The Legislator, by enacting Article 175 and Section 9 of 2013 Criminal Procedure Code, prescribed the Electronic Procedure for the first time. In recent decade, the Judiciary has made its efforts paving the way and securing the necessary infrastructure by issuing numerous bylaws including the Bylaw on the Way to Use Computer and Telecommunication Systems. At the time, many of the procedure-related affairs are conducted electronically and the Judiciary’s Center for Statics and Information Technology and Information Center supervising subsidiary judicial offices is responsible for it. By exact investigation of the functioning of bodies responsible for electronic procedure, analyzing existing laws through examination of the infrastructure needed to create a system for e-proceedings, and identifying some problems including non-obligatoriness of using this type of procedure, the necessity to change the way for notification and electronic holding of proceedings inspired by French laws and providing appropriate solutions including the need to develop regulations and related instructions are among the goals of this article.