SHARIAsource

The children of an American citizen who was killed in a suicide bombing attack in Israel by Hamas sued Iran, its Ministry of Intelligence and Security, and several high-ranking Iranian officials. They brought suit under the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (allowing sovereign states that financially sponsor terrorism to be sued), alleging that Iran should be liable for providing financial support to Hamas. Iran did not file an answer to the charge. The Court awarded the victim’s estate $1,000,000 for the pain and suffering she experienced before death. The Court further awarded the four children compensatory damages in the amount of $3,000,000 each, for a total of $12,000,000. The Court also awarded punitive damages in the amount of $300 million against all defendants besides Iran jointly and severally.

The plaintiffs, the surviving family members and the estate of an American citizen who was assassinated, allegedly by Hezbollah, while serving as the president of the American University of Beirut, brought a wrongful death action against Iran. They sued under the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (allowing sovereign states that financially sponsor terrorism to be sued), alleging that Iran should be liable for providing financial support to Hezbollah. Iran did not file an answer to the charge. The Court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding compensatory damages in the amount of $31,525,296 to the family for economic loss as well as mental anguish.

On March 6, 2017, President Donald J. Trump issued a revised Executive Order which barred, with certain exceptions, entry to the United States of nationals from six predominantly Muslim countries, suspended the entry of refugees for 120 days, and reduced the number of refugees who can be admitted to the United States by more than half. The Plaintiffs (political activist Linda Sarsour, as well as 26 additional Muslim individuals) filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. While other litigation opposing the revised Executive Order were filed to enjoin only Sections 2 and 6 of the revised Executive Order, in this case the Plaintiffs asked the Court to enjoin the enforcement of the revised Executive Order in its entirety. In order for the Plaintiffs to succeed, they had to prove that (1) they are likely to succeed on the merits of their case; (2) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief; (3) the balance of the equities tips in their favor; and (4) an injunction would be in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22, 129 S. Ct. 365, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008).

Constitution for Iran in English, published with the permission of Constitute.

This document is the first draft of Criminal Procedure Bill prepared and adopted by the parliament and sent to the Guardian Council for review.

This document reflects changes made to the Criminal Procedure Bill following the objections of the Guardian Council.

This document reflects the final changes in the Criminal Procedure Bill following the objections of the Guardian Council.

After several revisions made to the original Criminal Procedure Code according to the opinion of the Guardian Council this law became final and entered into force.

Parliament introduced a bill amending 38 articles of the Criminal Procedure Code adopted a year before.

After revising the first draft according to the opinion of the Guardian Council the law amending 38 articles of the Criminal Procedure Code 2014 became final.

This document contains revisions to the Criminal Procedure Bill following the objections of the Guardian Council.

This document contains revisions to the Criminal Procedure Draft following the objections of the Guardian Council.

A female applicant filed a complaint against the Traffic Police for refusing to grant her a motorcycle license. The Court of Administrative Justice rejected the argument that the police department was allowed to issue such a license only for men and stated that riding a motorcycle has nothing to do with gender and is not prohibited under law.

The plaintiff brought a case before the General Court of Roudehen seeking the Court’s authorization for remarriage. The Court rejected his claimed and stated that Article 16 of the Family Protection Law 1974 was unconstitutional.

The General Body of The Supreme Court of Iran issued a unifying decision requiring the Fund for Bodily Injuries to pay the difference in diyah of men and women both in cases of death and other bodily injuries. 

Fatwā concerning the legality, based on their interpretation of Islamic law, of fasting in the month of Ramadan, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The answer provided by Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei on 19 April 2020 is that individuals must fast during Ramadan, unless an individual has a reason to believe that fasting will 1) cause an illness, 2) intensify an illness, 3) prolong an illness, or delay one’s recuperation. 

English translation of the 1906 Constitution of Persia (now Iran), as amended by and including the Supplementary Constitutional Law of 7 October 1907.

English translation of the 1925 Constitution of Persia (Iran) (Supplementary Constitutional Law of October 7, 1907, as amended to 1925).

English translation of the 1957 Constitution of Iran (Supplementary Constitutional Law of October 7, 1907, as amended to 1957).