Context and purpose: One of the important issues of the procedure is the issuing of votes and the certainty of votes. The purpose of this article is a comparative study of the principle of certainty of vote in Iranian and British law.
Materials and methods: The research method is descriptive and analytical and this research is theoretical. The method that has been used to collect information is library-based and it has been done by referring to international and domestic books, articles and documents.
Ethical considerations: In this article, the originality of the texts, honesty and trustworthiness are respected.
Findings: In the laws of Iran and England, although the legislator has apparently placed the principle on the certainty of votes, but despite specifying the principle of certainty, the majority of votes have been considered amenable to review. In fact, the legislator has allocated the majority with this provision. Therefore, from a practical point of view, the principle is on the revisionability of votes.
Conclusion: One of the important differences between English and Iranian criminal law, in the field of appeals of verdicts and final verdicts, is related to the suspensive effect of appeals. if an appeal is filed against the issued decision, until the outcome of the appeal proceedings is clarified, the decision enforcement order should not be issued. This is despite the fact that in the English legal system, after the completion of the proceedings in the preliminary stage, the issued verdict is executed.