The restrictive interpretation in favor of the accused in criminal law of Iran and England

The findings suggest that the restrictive interpretation of Iran's rights which is the result of theprinciple of legality of crimes and punishments, in most cases, emerges in favor of the accused.Principles such as "the legality of crime and punishment and the presumption of innocence are amongthe most important principles of interpretation. The use of broad interpretation of criminal law inrestrictive interpretation is much weaker than the restrictive interpretation and it will be used only incase it leads to interpretation in favor of the accused. By virtue of rule of (major penalty is not given incase of suspicious proof), place of interpretation in jurisprudence is not independent. Thisinterpretation is compatible with issues such as principle of innocence, authenticity and principle ofpermissibility and can be studied under these titles. But in England law, law is interpreted with literalmethod and text description. They think that the law text should respond to the events. Therefore, thewording of law shall be read according to the meaning understood by customary law. Less attention ispaid to intention of the legislator and the spirit of the law. The court is not responsible for filling gapsof law and compensating for its defect and silence because this means that the judge has acted onbehalf of the legislator and has usurped legislation capacity and that the judge has rewritten the law.

Keywords:

interpretation , restrictive interpretation , criminal law , English law , the rights of Iran