Jurisprudential and Legal Pathology of in Absentia Trial Rules and Providing Appropriate Solutions

Abstract

The in-absentia ruling has been an important legal issue since the rise of Islam. The strict and unconditional requirement for the presence of both parties in legal proceedings would undoubtedly lead to the infringement of many rights. Especially in modern times, with the growth of life and the complexity of urban relationships, one party in a dispute may violate the rights of others, which undoubtedly contradicts religious and legal principles. After several decades of applying the original civil procedure laws regarding in absentia rulings, the Iranian legislator initially adopted two criteria: actual notification to the defendant and the ability to appeal the in absentia ruling. However, in 2000, these criteria were deemed invalid, and actual notification was considered sufficient to classify a ruling as issued in the defendant's presence. In Imamiyyah jurisprudence, despite permitting in absentia proceedings, the primary factor in distinguishing whether a ruling is in absentia or issued in the presence of the parties remains a topic of debate. This article, using a descriptive-analytical approach, examines the challenges of in absentia proceedings due to their importance and the existing uncertainties surrounding the matter. The study argues that in an in absentia trial, the case is examined without the defendant's presence, leading to the issuance of an in absentia ruling. The issuance of such rulings has been a controversial issue in legal proceedings. To address the existing gaps, legalizing in absentia trials could be a feasible solution. However, granting unlimited and unrestricted permission for such trials does not solve human legal issues; rather, in its unrestricted form, it could worsen many problems. Therefore, it is necessary to establish clear limitations to prevent the opportunistic misuse of this legal exception.