عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]چکیده [English]
Interpretation of the statute is essential to reason. Therefore the constitution, on the one hand, implicitly grants the Supreme Court the jurisdiction of interpretation of statute and, on the other hand, has transformed the exercise of such jurisdiction into a responsibility through the exercise of the duty to supervise the proper implementation of the statutes and creation the unity of judicial procedure. The interpretation of statute means the process of understanding the intended meaning of the legislature, requiring a coherent system of norms, presumptions, and guides. In interpreting the criminal Acts, in addition to applying the general elements of this system, it is necessary to consider some of the other terms and conditions. The Supreme Court, despite nearly a century of experience in interpreting statutes and control the quality of their understanding in other judicial authorities, has not yet presented a clear and strategic approach to the Interpretation of the statutes and has not adhered to specific norms, presumptions and guides for interpreting criminal Acts. The interpretation of the Supreme Court of Criminal statutes is sometimes principled and instructive and sometimes departs from the rationale of the law and the purpose of the legislature under the influence of practical considerations. This article, by analysing a few examples of the latest procedural unity votes, has shown the Court's unplanned method to exercise this jurisdiction/responsibility.