The code of conduct defines repentance as a psychological state of attention and return to God after committing a crime, the consequence of which is remorse, correction, and abandonment of behavior, as well as attempting to make amends for the damage caused. These definitions do not have a specific legal burden. Repentance can be about sins that do not have a criminal aspect, such as abandoning prayer or cutting off ties with relatives, and remorse and attempting to make amends can be without the aspect of attention and return to God. In fact, the definition that has been made seems to have more of a jurisprudential aspect rather than a legal one when it comes to a purely religious matter such as repentance. On the other hand, this definition is the work of the legislator, not the judiciary, and when the legislator did not address it in 2013 and later in the amendments of 2015, the judicial drafters could have presented a more accurate definition.

According to Article 116 of Islamic Penal Code, repentance does not apply to diya (blood money), qisas (retribution), hadd-e qazf (false accusation), and moharebeh (enmity against God). Therefore, repentance only applies to crimes with ta’zir (discretionary punishment) and hadd (prescribed punishment), with the exception of two mentioned cases. Repentance of a mohareb (enemy of God) is also not accepted after arrest or capture (Note 1 of Article 114). In the case of zina (adultery) and lavat (sodomy), if the crime is committed under coercion, force, or deception, repentance can lead to a separate punishment (Note 2 of Article 114). Therefore, the scope of repentance does not apply to all crimes and there are differences in the crimes that are eligible for repentance. This point has no effect on the

Article 5 of the guidelines mentions cases that indicate repentance. These cases are symbolic and may also be used in specific situations to confirm repentance.

• • My commitment to work is to fulfill religious duties.

• • “Compensation for damages and losses resulting from a crime or the establishment of compensation arrangements or efforts to collect from the accused or private claimant.”

• • Expressing remorse and written commitment not to commit a crime, especially if one declares their remorse in some way.

• • Effective collaboration in uncovering a crime or identifying accomplices or collaborators in a crime.

• • Commitment to refrain from communicating and associating with malicious individuals, partners, and accomplices in crime.

• • Providing public services or participating in charitable activities.

• • Taking steps towards treatment and quitting addiction.

• • Written report of the social worker on behavior modification of the perpetrator.

In cases where there is a matter of rights, repentance does not prevent compensation for the damage caused; such as someone who has stolen from another. In such cases, the stolen property or its equivalent value must be returned to the victim and repentance is only for the purpose of avoiding punishment. In cases where there is a matter of divine rights, such as drinking alcohol, compensation for the damage is not applicable. Other cases, such as spying, are also not compensable, as the damage may not be able to be rectified and the individual can seek other ways to compensate. The term “compensation method” is also an attempt to compensate for such cases. It seems that this term is not comprehensive and does not take into account cases where compensation for the victim of crimes against rights must occur.

Another issue that seems to have not been given enough attention is the referral of cases to the deputy of the judicial power and the result of the investigation to the head of the power for appropriate decision-making (Article 7 of the regulations). Since the head of the judicial power has other responsibilities and it is possible that a large number of cases from all over the country will be referred, such concentration can lead to delays in investigations. Meanwhile, with the discretionary delegation that was mentioned in the regulations, the investigation could have been carried out by the heads of judicial districts or the Supreme Court; which is not a thorough investigation of the evidence and has more of a formal aspect, and expediting the process can be beneficial for the judicial system and reduce the workload of the deputy and the head of the power.

Despite all of these points, the beauty of such guidelines can possibly lead to standardizing procedures and, as a result, improving the legal establishment of repentance in Iran at least in appearance.