Judicial Procedures for Resolving Conflicts of Judgments in Civil and Criminal Matters, with Emphasis on Revision Under Article 474(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code

Javaher Kalam, Mohammad Hadi; Ommati, Hossein

doi:10.22034/jclc.2025.2051774.1157

Judicial Procedures for Resolving Conflicts of Judgments in Civil and Criminal Matters, with Emphasis on Revision Under Article 474(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Mohammad Hadi Javaher Kalam ¹

Hossein Ommati ²

¹ Assistant Professor, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran

² PhD student in Criminal Law and Criminology, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

10.22034/jclc.2025.2051774.1157

Abstract

All legal disputes must eventually reach a conclusion, and the principle of res judicata serves as an effective guarantee to achieve this purpose. The foundation of the res judicata doctrine lies in preventing the re-litigation of claims and avoiding conflicting judgments. In criminal matters, this principle is further complemented by the principle of ne bis in idem, a fundamental human right and an aspect of the right to a fair trial. Res judicata is a mandatory legal doctrine closely tied to public order. Thus, not only are the parties entitled to object to the reopening of a settled matter, but judges are also obligated to uphold the principle. However, for various reasons—such as the unwillingness or ignorance of the parties, or judicial negligence—multiple proceedings on the same subject may occur, resulting in inconsistent judgments. Mechanisms like cassation and retrial are provided by civil procedure codes to resolve judicial contradictions. In criminal proceedings, beyond the necessity of overturning judgments during appeal or cassation, Article 474(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran (2014) has recognized conflicting judgments as a new ground for revision. This provision acts as a legal mechanism to address violations of res judicata. Therefore, the term "same charge" is interpreted as referring to the "same conduct." Due to the severe nature of criminal punishments, criminal revision is restricted to convictions. This limitation has created significant challenges in addressing certain instances of conflicting judgments.

Keywords

Extraordinary Remedies

Retrial

Conflict of Judgments

Res Judicata

Ne Bis In Idem

Same Conduct

Subjects