A Comparative Study of Rights of Culprit in Islamic Jurisprudence, Codes of Legal Procedure of Iran and International Documents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attention to rights of culprit has instances in divine religions as well as Islam but in the past few decades, especially after establishing and approval of charter of the United Nations and global documents such as Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, this subject has drawn more attention to itself. Rights of defense by culprit as one of the items of fair judgment is a set of advantages and rights assigned to the culprit to secure his rights and benefits. The obvious fact is that establishing judgment justice is one of the long-term wishes of humankind the realization of which becomes possible through creating fair trial based on provision of right of defense and justice. Among these rights, one can items such as equal tribunal, fair and public judgment in a competent, independent and impartial court, right to counsel, right of immediate to silence, right of immediate trial and the prohibition of torture and coercion to confess. In the present study, the author seeks to comparatively study this subject from the viewpoints of Imami Jurisprudence, new code of legal procedure passed in 2014 and international documents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".