مطالعۀ تطبیقی شهادت غیرحضوری در آئین دادرسی کیفری ایران و دادگاه بین‌المللی کیفری با تاکید بر پروندۀ ویلیام روتو

شهادت غیرحضوری عنوانی کلی و شامل روش‌هایی است که دادگاه به شهادتی که در خارج از دادگاه ضبط شده است به‌عنوان دلیل اثبات جرم اعتبار می‌دهد. حقوق کیفری ایران به مشروعیت برخی از مصادیق شهادت غیرحضوری تصریح کرده است. در پروندۀ «ویلیام روتو» (william ruto)، معاون رئیس‌جمهوری کنیا، در پیوند با خشونت‌هایی که پس از انتخابات سال 2007م در این کشور رخ داد، دادستان شهودی را به‌عنوان دلیل معرفی کرد که حاضر به ادای شهادت در دادگاه نشدند. تلاش‌های زیاد دادستان در این مورد نتیجه نداد و درنهایت دادگاه رای خود را مبنی بر عدم پذیرش شهادتِ ازقبل ضبط‌شده صادر کرد. با اینکه در رویۀ قضایی و اسناد بین‌المللی برخی از مصادیق شهادت غیرحضوری به‌صراحت مورد پذیرش قرار گرفته است، اما اعتبار حقوقی آن به‌عنوان دلیل همچنان مورد تردید قرار دارد. از جانب دیگر در راستای حمایت از حقوق متهم مواردی در قوانین کیفری ایران و اسناد بین‌المللی و اساسنامۀ دیوان دیده می‌شود که در تناقض با پذیرش شهادت غیرحضوری است. برخی اما روش‌هایی را به‌عنوان بدیل روش شهادت غیرحضوری مطرح کرده‌اند، از قبیل روش ادای شهادت در حضور شخص و یا نهاد بی‌طرف و روش اعطای نیابت قضایی. نگارندگان پژوهش حاضر با استفاده از روش تحقیق تحلیلی توصیفی و با بهره‌گیری از شیوۀ کتابخانه‌ای شهادت غیرحضوری و مصادیق آن را در آئین دادرسی کیفری ایران و اسناد بین‌المللی و رویۀ قضایی بین‌المللی مورد بررسی قرار داده‌اند. همچنین تبیین شده است که شهادت غیرحضوری چگونه و کدام حقوق متهم را نقض می‌کند و برای اینکه بتوان هم از روش شهادت غیرحضوری در جهت اثبات جرم استفاده کرد و هم حقوق متهم را رعایت نمود، چه راهکارهایی وجود دارد.

A Comparative Study of Unconscientious Testimony in Iran’s Criminal Procedure and the International Criminal Court, with an Emphasis on William Ruto’s Case

In all legal systems, testimony is one of the most important reasons to prove. Witness one of the key actors in the criminal justice system who plays an effective role in proving the crime. The importance and role of witnesses in criminal proceedings in the field of reason goes back to one of the most widely used arguments in the judicial system, the hearing of witness statements, so that witnesses are seen as part of the criminal justice system through their participation in the criminal process. Witnesses who bear the brunt of martyrdom, especially in severe and organized crime, are subject to physical,, and psychological threats. Accordingly, due to distance, job loss, administrative problems, etc., the witness may refuse to appear in court and testify. On the other hand, witness statements have a prominent role in the discovery of crime and the punishment of criminals and the provision of justice. The above considerations of domestic legal systems and international conventions seek to incorporate measures of witness protection and encourage them to participate in the process of judicial justice in criminal law. One of the measures that can provide intuitive security and sharing is the use of inperson testimony. Especially in international crimes, which are mainly witnesses to their own victims and on the other hand, the difficulty of the physical presence of the witness in court, due to the distance and the lack of material facilities. Whereas prior to the legal literature there has been no discussion of witness testimony and the majority of writers have analyzed the testimony of witnesses under the terms of witness testimony to the extent that they author an independent research paper in this field. Has not been affected. In this respect, the present research is a new topic that needs further discussion.Untitled testimony is a general title that includes methods that the court credits to testimony taken outside the courtroom as a proof of guilt. The most important cases can be: written testimony, testimony, testimony through the internet and technology or nonpublic hearings, testimony without the presence of the defendant or his or her defense counsel. While it has benefits such as protecting witnesses, encouraging witnesses to testify, reducing court costs, etc., it may also conflict with the defendant’s defense rights in some cases. Iran’s criminal law has stated the legitimacy of some examples of nonformal testimony, but insists that nonpersonal testimony does not lead to a violation of the defense’s right to be accused of equality of arms. Iran’s Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that the prosecution is primarily concerned with the intent to dispose of the parties to the dispute, but the trial is primarily attended by witnesses unless its presence is proven. Although international documents and the Statute of the International Criminal Court have recognized some of the evidence of nonofficial testimony, in the case of Kenya’s Vice President William Ruto, he referred to the intentional prosecution in connection with the violence that took place after the 2007 elections. He had presented a reason for refusing to testify in court. The prosecutor’s efforts failed in this case and the court ultimately ruled that the prerecorded testimony was rejected. After Ruto was released from trial and punished, the need to discuss extrajudicial testimony was further reinforced by the belief that how to ensure that witnesses are convicted of international crimes. Encouraged them to participate actively in the judicial process.Unlawful testimony Although some of its cases have been explicitly accepted in international court and international law, its legal validity as a reason remains in doubt. On the other hand, in defense of the rights of the accused, there are cases in Iranian criminal law and international documents and the Statute of the Court which contradict the acceptance of unnecessary testimony. Some, however, have proposed methods as alternatives to unnecessary testimony, such as the method of testifying in the presence of an impartial person or entity and the method of granting judicial power. The present study, using the analyticaldescriptive research method and using the library method of nonexistent testimony and its cases in Iran’s criminal procedure and international documents and international judicial procedure has investigated. It also, Emphasizing on the case of William Ruto, the indictment materials and international documents, in particular the Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Rules of the Court, explains how and where the abusive testimony violates the defendant’s rights, and what are some ways to use both the not in perosn testimony method to prove the crime and the rights of the accused.