Ma`rifat

In Islamic law and consequently in Iranian codified law, judges will be held civilly liable if they commit negligence or unusual negligence in handling a case. However, in the event of a mistake or omission in issuing a ruling, they will be responsible for compensating the public treasury, and in any case, the defendant will be reinstated. Using a descriptive-analytical and library method, this research examines the similarities and differences between the Imamiyya school of jurisprudence and the common law system. In this context, we will seek to answer the question: Who will be responsible for compensating the victims in the event of negligence or fault of the judge in the common law system? The findings of the research indicate that the legislator of the Islamic Republic of Iran has foreseen the civil liability of judges in case of error and fault in Article 171 of the Constitution, while the common law legal system, based on case studies in the United Kingdom and the United States, has exempted judges of the Supreme Courts from paying damages in order to have immunity, but judges of the lower courts are liable and are guarantors of compensation due to their limited jurisdiction. The United States of America, believing in the principle of "exercise of sovereignty" derived from the federal system, has exempted itself from compensation in the event of error or fault, and judges in subsequent courts have found a solution to potential problems by insuring themselves up to a certain limit.