| Abstrakt: |
The right to imprisonment is optional for the parties of the contract, according to which they can defer the fulfillment of their obligation to the fulfillment of another person's obligation. The necessity of writing this paper is to explain the nature of the right to imprisonment, since most of the differences in the rulings and the realm of the right to imprisonment are because it remains unknown. Following the discovery of the truth of the right to imprisonment, the present paper has concluded that some differences are due to the confusion of concepts related to the right to imprisonment in Western law and Islamic jurisprudence. By re-examining these concepts in Imamiyah jurisprudence, Iranian law, and international documents, it was concluded that imprisonment is a purely financial right and despite its similarities with objective and religious rights, it cannot necessarily be considered objective or religious rights, but depends on the obligation and is also a kind of guarantee of mutual implementation that takes place in the place of defense and of course, it can be abolished or stipulated otherwise. The present findings are significantly effective in determining the limits of imprisonment, sentences, and its effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
