Abstract
The first Pahlavi era was accompanied by structural reforms in the judicial system and the establishment of a modern judiciary. Among the provincial branches, the Kermanshah Judiciary faced numerous challenges, such as the influence of local powers and the issuance of unjust verdicts. On the other hand, the central judiciary served as the higher authority, playing a significant role in reviewing and amending the decisions issued by provincial branches, particularly Kermanshah. This research examines the performance of the Kermanshah Judiciary in handling judicial cases and analyzes the role of the central judiciary in the appeal process and its strengths and weaknesses. The study adopts a descriptive-analytical method based on historical documents and archival materials to investigate the mechanisms of adjudication in the Kermanshah Judiciary and evaluate the role of the central judiciary in the appeal process. Main Research Question: To what extent was the Kermanshah Judiciary successful in adjudications, and how did the central judiciary influence the process of reviewing and amending verdicts? Research Findings: Although the Kermanshah Judiciary was successful in some cases and upheld principles of justice, the influence of powerful individuals and local officials, despite inefficient structures, led to the issuance of unjust decisions. In such cases, the central judiciary, through the appeal process, intervened to correct unjust verdicts or overturn them. However, during the judicial process, the pursuit of rights and justice was often undermined by political, social, and unfair pressures.
Keywords: Kermanshah Judiciary, Central Judiciary, First Pahlavi Era, Appeal, Justice, Judicial Cases.
 
Introduction
This article focuses on the first Pahlavi era, a period marked by fundamental changes in Iran's judicial system and the establishment of a modern judiciary. The purpose of these reforms was to address the deficiencies of the Qajar judicial system and create a foundation for achieving justice in Iranian society. During this period, the judiciary, as a newly established institution, sought to reform judicial processes and replace traditional laws with modern ones to create a coherent system for adjudicating cases throughout the country. Kermanshah, due to its geographic position, ethnic diversity, and the socio-political issues of the region, became one of the key regions for examining judicial cases. Despite these efforts, the Kermanshah Judiciary faced significant challenges, including the pressure of local officials, political considerations, weaknesses in implementing laws, and the issuance of unjust verdicts. The central judiciary, acting as the supervisory and higher authority in the judicial system, held the responsibility for reviewing and amending decisions from provincial branches, including the Kermanshah Judiciary.
 
Materials & Methods:
This article is written based on a descriptive and analytical method and based on unpublished documents.
Objective of the Study: The present research aims to analyze the central judiciary's role in reviewing and amending decisions from the Kermanshah Judiciary during the appeal process and assess the challenges involved.
Research Question: To what extent has the central judiciary been successful in reviewing cases and correcting unjust verdicts through appeals, thereby upholding justice in closed cases?
Hypothesis: The results indicate that in certain cases, the central judiciary has successfully restored the rights of plaintiffs by reviewing and correcting unjust verdicts, taking steps to ensure justice. However, political pressures, corruption, and influence have hindered the full realization of justice in many cases.
 
 
 
 
Discussion & Result
Analysis of the Performance of the Kermanshah Judiciary during the First Pahlavi Era:
This period witnessed structural changes and significant challenges in Iran's judicial system. Based on historical evidence and archival sources, the Kermanshah Judiciary was successful in certain cases in implementing justice and restoring the rights of plaintiffs.
The Role of the Central Judiciary in the Appeal Process:
The central judiciary, as the higher authority, intervened in the appeal process by reviewing cases and amending unjust verdicts. Its actions included:
1. Review and Correction of Unjust Verdicts: In many cases, the central judiciary intervened to correct unjust decisions resulting from flaws in reasoning or abuse of power, thereby restoring the plaintiffs' rights.
2. Increased Transparency in Judicial Processes: The central judiciary's involvement brought greater transparency to adjudication processes and reduced instances of discrimination and unfairness.
3. A Mechanism to Counter Political Pressure: The central judiciary sought to mitigate political considerations and local influences by ensuring that cases were pursued based on fairness and legal principles.
Challenges:
Despite its efforts, the central judiciary faced considerable obstacles, such as the influence of local officials, political pressure, and corruption within judicial institutions. These factors hindered the full realization of justice and sometimes limited the central judiciary's ability to secure the plaintiffs' rights completely.
 
Conclusion
The analysis of the Kermanshah Judiciary's performance during the first Pahlavi era reveals a period of structural reforms and major challenges in Iran's judicial system. While the Kermanshah Judiciary succeeded in some cases in implementing justice and restoring plaintiffs' rights, issues such as corruption, political interference, and weak judicial independence posed obstacles to achieving full justice. The central judiciary played a vital role in the appeal process by reviewing cases and amending unjust decisions, thus restoring the plaintiffs' rights in many instances. Its key contributions included:
1. Review and Correction of Unjust Verdicts: Many plaintiffs regained their rights through the central judiciary's review process, which corrected flaws in verdicts stemming from power misuse or lack of evidence.
2. Increased Judicial Transparency: The central judiciary's actions improved transparency in adjudication, reducing discriminatory practices.
3. Efforts to Counteract Political Pressures: By intervening in appeals, the central judiciary sought to reduce undue political and local influence to ensure impartiality and fairness. However, challenges such as political interference, corruption, and inadequate judicial independence limited the full effectiveness of these efforts. The performance of the central judiciary in addressing appeals demonstrates that while it successfully restored rights and took important steps toward achieving justice, obstacles such as corruption, political pressures, and insufficient independence hindered full success. To build a fair and effective judicial system, improved oversight, increased transparency, combating corruption, and strengthening judicial independence are essential.