Abstract

The institution of “submission to the verdict” under Article 442 of the Iranian Code of Criminal Procedure, as a statutory ground for mitigation of punishment, has been regulated without differentiation between adults and children or juveniles in conflict with the law. Such uniform regulation, when examined in light of the principles governing differential juvenile justice and the requirements arising from the Convention on the Rights of the Child, gives rise to legislative ambiguities and practical inconsistencies. These include uncertainties regarding the proper applicant for submission to the verdict, the resolution of conflicts between the will of the child or juvenile and that of the legal guardian, the applicability of this mechanism to educational and security measures, and the scope of judicial discretion in determining the extent of sentence reduction.

The present study, employing an analytical–descriptive method and relying on statutory analysis and relevant jurisprudential practice, critically evaluates existing interpretations. The findings indicate that a differential construction of Article 442 requires recognition of the active role of the family in decision-making, prioritization of the best interests of the child in resolving conflicting intentions, the potential extension of submission to the verdict to certain liberty-restricting protective measures, and reconsideration of the criteria governing sentence mitigation. Accordingly, the uniform and inflexible application of this institution to both adults and juveniles is incompatible with the foundational principles of juvenile justice and necessitates either a differential judicial interpretation or legislative reform.