The latest unified ruling of the Supreme Court has been published in the Official Gazette.

**File Report:**

It is reported that Mr. Mohammad Mahdi Khurasi, the esteemed Deputy Prosecutor of Varamin, has submitted a request for the Supreme Court's General Assembly to address differing opinions between the Second and Thirty-Eighth Chambers of the Supreme Court regarding whether a request for review under Article 475 of the 2013 Criminal Procedure Code is personal to the Prosecutor or not. The report is as follows:

**A)** According to Judgment No. 140006390000028238 dated 2021/01/22 from the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court, the Deputy Prosecutor of Varamin, through a report dated 2019/11/21, argued that the original judgment had incorrectly reduced the prison term and should be revised. The Second Chamber accepted the review request and ordered the case to be re-examined by an equivalent chamber.

**B)** In Judgment No. 1400063900000207394 dated 2021/06/26 from the Thirty-Eighth Chamber of the Supreme Court, the Deputy Prosecutor of Varamin's request for review was deemed inadmissible on the grounds that only the Prosecutor has the authority to file such requests.

The differing opinions of the Second and Thirty-Eighth Chambers highlight a need for clarification. The Second Chamber accepted the Deputy Prosecutor's request, while the Thirty-Eighth Chamber did not, interpreting that only the Prosecutor has such authority. The previous unified ruling No. 674 (2005/04/19) did not prevent this discrepancy.

**Proposal for the General Assembly:**

Given the inconsistency in interpretation, it is proposed to address this issue in the General Assembly of the Supreme Court to establish a unified judicial practice.

**Opinion of the Attorney General:**

1. According to Article 23 of the 2013 Criminal Procedure Code, the Prosecutor oversees the prosecution office, and deputies or legal assistants act under the Prosecutor’s supervision. This includes handling review requests.

2. The Prosecutor's authority to delegate tasks, including objections and reviews, is comprehensive and not limited to the Prosecutor personally, as supported by previous rulings and legislative provisions.

3. Since review requests are a normal part of the Prosecutor's duties and not uniquely personal, they can be handled by deputies or assistants assigned by the Prosecutor.

**Unified Ruling No. 825 (2022/10/18):**

Based on Articles 22, 23, 88, and 484 of the 2013 Criminal Procedure Code, the right to request a review under Article 475 is related to the execution of criminal judgments and is not personal to the Prosecutor. It can be exercised by a Deputy Prosecutor or a designated representative. The ruling by the Second Chamber, which aligns with this interpretation, is deemed correct and legally valid.

This ruling is binding for similar cases and applicable to the Supreme Court, courts, and other relevant authorities.