Political crimes in Iraqi،Iranian and Algerian law (a comparative study)

The views of the laws of Iraq, Iran and Algeria on political crime are twofold. Some deal with it according to modern jurisprudence, while others look at it from a traditional point of view and deal with it harshly. However, these laws, despite their different treatment of political crimes, agree that a political criminal is considered a threat to the ruling regime. The only issue discussed here is the nature of political crimes in the current laws of these three countries. These laws consider political crime from the jurisprudential point of view and the necessity of the time. They define this crime and distinguish it from other crimes. This is important in the laws of Iraq, Iran or Algeria. Laws that deal with political crimes in accordance with the modern jurisprudential point of view and include political crimes in a legal framework different from other ordinary crimes. In the present study, using a combined and descriptive comparative approach, we will address the most important challenges of Iraqi, Iranian and Algerian legislators in the face of political crime, given its danger to the political institution of government and individual freedom. Iraqi, Iranian and Algerian lawmakers have concluded that extradition is not permissible if the purpose of extraditing a political offender is a political one. On the other hand, the laws of Iraq and Iran distinguish the political offender from the ordinary offender and determine his motivation for reform. But the Algerian legislature has not recognized this and has not discriminated between different criminals. He has imposed severe penalties for politically motivated crimes. The law should establish an institution to investigate the political motives of the political reformer and amend what he intended to do before committing the crime.