نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانش آموخته کارشناسی ارشد حقوق جزا و جرم شناسی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، واحد چالوس، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، چالوس، ایران
2 دانشیار، گروه حقوق جزا و جرم شناسی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران
3 دانشجوی دکترای حقوق جزا و جرم‌‌شناسی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Introduction
Public hearings in courts are universally recognized as a fundamental mechanism for ensuring judicial transparency and enabling public oversight of legal proceedings. Such hearings allow litigants to present evidence and arguments before both the public and the media, while judges—under societal scrutiny—adjudicate cases with precision and impartiality. To function effectively, public hearings must balance competing imperatives: upholding judicial dignity, safeguarding participants’ security, and maintaining courtroom order. A chaotic environment disrupts judicial concentration, undermining the fairness of verdicts. Thus, public attendance demands a culture of respect for legal decorum. This study investigates the nature and scope of disorder in public criminal hearings under Iran’s legal framework.
It analyzes domestic mechanisms for preserving order while benchmarking them against international human rights standards. The central research question is: What legislative measures has Iran adopted to ensure order in public criminal court sessions?
Methods
Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology, this research draws on library sources, notably Iran’s 2013 Criminal Procedure Code (Article 354), to examine legal responses to courtroom disorder. A comparative analysis of international human rights instruments and practices contextualizes Iran’s approach. The paper is structured as follows:
Iranian Framework:
Part 1: Legislative strategies for addressing disruptions, focusing on Article 354’s prescribed conduct.
Part 2: Taxonomy of disruptive behaviors and the roles of actors referenced in Article 354.
International Standards:
Overview of human rights documents and monitoring bodies.
Analysis of global norms on courtroom order.
Results and Discussion
Key findings reveal that Iran’s criminal justice system categorizes courtroom disorder as an offense never justifying private trials. Judicial authorities bear absolute responsibility for maintaining order, wielding tools such as:
Expelling or detaining disruptors.
Issuing warnings to parties.
Directing spectators.
Article 354 mandates judges to utilize all legal means, including collaboration with bailiffs, to uphold order. Crucially, it prohibits citing disorder as grounds for closed proceedings. By contrast, international human rights regimes, while prioritizing open trials, permit limited exceptions where "interests of justice" necessitate privacy—provided measures like warnings or expulsions prove insufficient. Such exceptions require proportionality and case-specific justification.
Conclusions
Iran’s approach to courtroom order is markedly stricter than international standards. Unlike global norms, its legal system admits no exceptions for private trials due to disorder. Judges must enforce order exhaustively, leveraging all available legal instruments. This reflects Iran’s unique balance between transparency and judicial control.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
)