The subject of this article is the examination of the jurisdiction of judicial authorities in issuing criminal preventive measures and judicial supervision in the legal systems of Afghanistan and Canada, analyzed comparatively. The aim of this article is to identify key points related to the jurisdiction of judicial bodies in issuing criminal preventive orders and judicial supervision within the compared legal systems. The research method used in this article involves consulting the laws of the respective countries. For Canada, the country's Criminal Code has been utilized, which encompasses both substantive legal principles and procedural legal rules. In Afghanistan’s legal system, laws such as the Criminal Procedure Code and the Law on the Structure and Jurisdiction of the Courts have been used. Some academic sources have also been referenced in this context. The article’s key findings indicate that in Canadian law, a "peace officer" — who plays a role similar to that of a judicial police officer or investigative prosecutor in Afghan law — has the authority to issue criminal preventive orders, including summonses and undertakings. However, when it comes to judicial supervision orders — such as enforcing the conditions of release or the temporary detention of the accused — the jurisdiction lies with a justice of the peace or a judge. In these cases, both the accused and the prosecutor have the right to object, agree with, or disagree with certain decisions of the court. In countries like Afghanistan and Iran, the prosecutor or investigative authority has the power to issue temporary detention orders, whereas in Canada, such authority is not granted to the prosecutor. Key Words: measure, summons, detention, temporary detention, accused, court.
Ali Jan Fahim (Tue,) studied this question.