Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1 Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Farabi college, University of Tehran, Qom, iran
2 . Ferdows Aghagolzadeh, full professor in linguistics, faculty of Humanities, Department of Linguistics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
3 Ph.D. Student in Criminal Law & Criminology, Farabi college, University of Tehran, Qom, iran
Abstract
Whether a country’s procedural system is inquisitorial or accusatorial is not something explicitly stipulated in its laws. It can only be determined by examining the country’s cultural background, the views of legal scholars, the synthesis of legal provisions, and similar factors. In the domestic literature, it has almost become a cliché that Iran’s criminal procedure system is of a “mixed” type: during the preliminary investigation stage, it bears the characteristics of an inquisitorial system, while during the trial stage, it supposedly adopts features of the accusatorial system. Discussions of the development of this mixed system have so far centered mainly on the pre-trial stages and their gradual movement toward a more accusatorial structure. In contrast, authors have addressed the trial stage far less frequently. This neglect may be precisely why the cliché has seldom been subjected to serious reflection or criticism and is instead accepted as a settled and unproblematic matter.
However, when the existing theoretical literature on inquisitorial and accusatorial adjudication (as typically associated with the Civil Law and Common Law families, respectively) is examined more closely—alongside the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the actual practice of criminal adjudication in Iranian courts—the prevailing belief becomes open to doubt. This article therefore seeks to answer the question: What are the challenges to realizing an accusatorial trial stage in Iranian law?
To address this question, the article employs a descriptive-analytical method and library research. It first discusses the theoretical basis for the idea that a “mixed” criminal procedure system is possible—a model that ostensibly creates balance by drawing on elements of both inquisitorial and accusatorial systems. It then examines, as far as possible, the claim that Iran’s criminal trial stage incorporates accusatorial elements, both in legal doctrine and in the Code of Criminal Procedure adopted in 2013. A conclusion is then drawn from the synthesis of these two parts.
The findings indicate that in so-called mixed systems, the materials collected during the pre-trial stages and the indictment exert substantial influence over the court proceedings. As a result, inquisitorial elements—especially the judge’s investigative role—tend to dominate over adversarial contestation between the parties. The trial becomes largely formal and confirmatory. In practice, the claim that the trial stage is conducted according to accusatorial principles does not materialize.
With regard to Iran specifically, the hypothesis of this research—that criminal adjudication exhibits more inquisitorial than accusatorial characteristics—is confirmed. Although lawyers do have a role, the central role belongs to the case file and to the judge. The adversarial “battle” between the parties does not occur; instead, the struggle appears to unfold between the judge and the accused, with the judge effectively continuing the role of the prosecutor and becoming a party to the case.
An examination of key articles of the 2013 Code of Criminal Procedure that purport to regulate adversarial trials reveals a lack of alignment with the Common Law concept of adversariality. Moreover, the Code’s continued emphasis on truth-finding during the trial stage, together with the recognition of the judge’s personal knowledge as the highest form of probative evidence—a doctrine that can undermine the principles of orality and immediacy—further demonstrates the gap between terminology and substance. From this perspective, many of the 2013 reforms appear superficial, limited primarily to adopting certain vocabulary. At best, they reflect a legislative awareness of, or aspiration toward, European procedural models and an attempt to create a more democratic facade under pressures from the global community.
Overall, the findings of this research suggest that reliance on the label of a “mixed system” can be misleading, detached from procedural reality, and ultimately aligned with existing structures of power.
Keywords
- inquest
- confrontation
- accusatorial procedure system
- inquisitorial procedure system
- mixed procedure system
Main Subjects
)