“Hojjat al-Islam Hassan Gharib”: It is the Month of Ramadan and Personal Vehicles are Not Considered Private Domain
Hojjat al-Islam Hassan Gharib, referring to the beginning of the month of Ramadan, spoke about personal vehicles which are not considered private domain.
Hojjat al-Islam Hassan Gharib, the prosecutor of Qom, announced the selection of special branches in the Qom courthouse during the month of Ramadan to handle cases of individuals who break their fast in public.
According to reports from “Avakalepress”, Hassan Gharib, on the previous day of the 12th of Esfand, while emphasizing the necessity of preserving the sanctity of Ramadan, stated: “Special branches have been designated in the Qom courthouse to handle cases of norm-breakers in public view and individuals who break their fast in public, and since Ramadan in the current year coincides with Nowruz, special centers have been designated to provide services to Nowruz travelers across the province, and necessary instructions have been issued to all law enforcement agencies, executive bodies, and guilds.”
The prosecutor of Qom also announced: “According to Article 638 of the Islamic Penal Code, punishments are prescribed for individuals who break their fast in public places and display sinful acts. Furthermore, personal vehicles are not considered private domain, and breaking one’s fast in a vehicle will also be subject to legal action.”
He further added in this regard: “The main approach of police surveillance over places, while monitoring food sales centers especially in transportation terminals, includes preventive measures, education, admonition, and legal guidance, and if preventive measures are ineffective, legal action will be taken.”
Hassan Gharib, while emphasizing the support of the judiciary for enforcers and those commanding the right, also asked the people of Qom to cooperate and collaborate with them as needed. The prosecutor of Qom’s remarks that personal vehicles are not considered private domain, breaking fast in vehicles, and legal action against them, were met with criticism from legal experts.
Dr. “Ali Khaleqi” also, in criticism of the Qom prosecutor’s remarks, published a note in which he described “what is private domain” from a legal perspective. He wrote in this matter: “On the eve of the arrival of the blessed month of Ramadan, a letter was sent by the prosecutor general of the country to the commander of law enforcement forces, in which emphasis was placed on respecting the sanctity of this month and dealing with those who violate this sanctity. Regardless of whether breaking fast secretly or openly, and in the latter case with display and ostentation or without them, is a crime and compliant with Article 638 of the Islamic Penal Code subject to discretionary punishment or not (which some believe it is not), a part of the mentioned letter in which it is announced to officers that ‘vehicles are not considered private domain’ does not appear to be without problems. Since the time the Law on Protection of Those Commanding the Right and Forbidding the Wrong was approved on the 23rd of Farvardin 1394 with the designation of two urgencies and a phrase followed Article 5 of that law, concerns about incorrect interpretations or misuse of it also formed. According to this phrase: “Places that are exposed to public view without snooping, such as common areas of apartments, hotels, hospitals, and also means of transportation, are not subject to private domain.”
From a legal perspective, a person’s home and vehicle are considered part of their private domain, and entry into them requires the permission of the owner or legal occupant. This criterion that a place be exposed to public view without snooping is not an acceptable measure for denying the designation of private domain to that place; because windows of residential homes may also lack curtains on certain days of the year due to painting or general cleaning, and the interior of those places may be visible to the public without snooping. In these circumstances, can anyone deny such homes the status of their owner’s private domain?!
To restrict the scope of the aforementioned phrase, which has disregarded the legal principles related to private domain, one must resort to its purposive interpretation within the scope intended by the legislator. The aforementioned phrase appears in the form of a provision to Article 5 of a specific law. In our positive law, from the perspective of legislative drafting method, a “provision” does not have independent existence; rather, it is a subordinate phrase and supplementary to the ruling of the “text of the article.” In interpreting a provision, one must pay attention to the ruling of the text of that article and consider the provision as pertaining to and supplementing that ruling. The ruling of Article 5 is the prohibition of harming honor, life, property, residence, occupation, private domain, and the rights of persons in the performance of commanding the right and forbidding the wrong, and only for this purpose, vehicles are not considered private domain, not for the purpose of declaring a general ruling. Therefore, one should not make a general rule from the specific, limited, and exceptional ruling contained in the provision of Article 5, and use it for other cases where respect for citizens’ private domain is necessary, including in determining the duties of judicial officers in confronting the crimes mentioned.”
