A Comparative Analysis of Judicial Security in Iran

Abstract

Judicial security, as one of the fundamental pillars of the rule of law, ensures both criminal and civil justice and is considered essential for safeguarding individual rights and personal security. The realization of this principle requires the structural and functional independence of the judiciary, transparency in the adjudication process, effective oversight of judges' performance, and a systematic fight against corruption within the judicial system. This study, through examining the challenges to judicial security in Iran, reveals that organizational and financial dependence of the judiciary on the executive branch, political and security interferences in legal proceedings, delays in case processing, a weak transparency framework, and ineffective judicial oversight are among the most significant barriers to achieving judicial security in Iran. A comparative analysis with the legal systems of the United States and France indicates that the establishment of independent bodies for appointing and overseeing judges, the reinforcement of jury authority, public disclosure of court decisions, enhancement of financial transparency among judicial officials, and the reduction of political influence in legal proceedings are among the most critical factors contributing to judicial security. In contrast, an examination of the legal systems of Turkey and Afghanistan demonstrates that the erosion of judicial independence, the spread of corruption, and the absence of effective oversight have led to the weakening of the legitimacy of judicial rulings and a decline in public trust in the judiciary. This research, by proposing solutions such as reforming the judge appointment and promotion process, establishing independent supervisory commissions, structurally combating judicial corruption, developing electronic adjudication systems, and strengthening the role of juries, emphasizes the necessity of implementing fundamental reforms within Iran’s judicial system. The study’s findings indicate that achieving justice and restoring public trust in the judiciary will not be possible without ensuring independence, transparency, and efficiency in the structure and functioning of the judicial apparatus.