There are several years that we discuss, in Iran, the issue of reviewing or
critisism of courts judgements. The situation looks so critical that we have to
convene the meetings to express the objections and to write the books on the
matter.
Anyway, regardless of these circumstance, reviewing and analyzing court
decisions is not only desirable but also necessary. Interpretations of courts
decisions and jurisprudence are the basis for the natural evolution of legal
knowledge. The courts enliven the so-called dry and soulless Acts of legislator
in the body of cases. Law is not the only the Acts of legislator; Judicial practice
and the practice of the courts are also sources of law. The courts are the testing
ground for laws and their conformity with the realities of society, and of course
this testing ground has its own rules, it is not a place of trial and error, nor a
hotbed of dirt road desires and fantasies.
Machine summary:
البته آراء دادگاهها براي اين که خوب فهميده شوند نياز به تجزيه و تحليل دارند و اين کاري است که در کشورهايي که نظام حقوقي و قضايي موفق و کارآمدي دارند معمولا و مرتبا انجام مي شود اما اين که تصور کنيم که آراء دادگاهها آن قدر آکنده از ايرادهاي نگارشي، شکلي و ماهوي است که بايد نشست و ايرادهايشان را گفت و نوشت ، داستان ديگري است .
اما اين يک واقعيت است که دادنامه هاي پر ايراد ما چند دسته اند: يک دسته آراء کليشه اي هستند که يک قالب و محتواي از پيش تعيين شده دارند که اعداد و ارقام و اسامي را در درون آن ميريزند و به رأي تبديل ميکنند.
اما صرف نظر از اين شرايط ، اصولا بررسي و تجزيه و تحليل آراء دادگاهها نه تنها پسنديده است بلکه ضروري هم هست .