Guaranteeing the Order of Public Hearings in Criminal Courts in the Mirror of Iran’s Legislation (With a View to International Standards)

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 M.A. in Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Islamic Azad University, Chalus Branch, Chalus, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran

3 Ph.D. Student in Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Aghmesheh, A. & Salmanpour, A. (2015). The Media's Right to Access Judicial Information (With a Comparative Study in Iran, France and America), News Sciences, 4(15), 117-140. [In Persian]
Ansari, B. (2011). A Comparative Study of the Right of Media Access to Judicial Proceedings and Information, Public Law Research, 13(35), 269-308. [In Persian]
Barrett, J. (2009). Protecting Court: A Practitioner's Guide to Court Security, Florida: Mill City Press, Inc.
Bicskei, T.; Csizmár, A. & Kotsis, J. (2018). Content Creators v. Judges, (How Open Can a Courtroom be in the Information Age?), EJTN Themis Semi-Final D - Judicial Ethics and Professional Conduct, 1(2), 1-19.
Carter, R. & Harris, R. (2018). Court Security For Judges, Officers and Court Personnel, Park City: Blue360 Media.
Dick, T. (2010). Open Justice and Closed Courts: Media Access in Criminal Proceedings in NSW, Journal Criminal Law, 34(6), 1-20.
Fazaeli, M. (2018). Fair Trial; International Criminal Courts, Tehran: Shahre Danesh. [In Persian]
Hashemi, S. M. (2019), Fundamental Rights of the Islamic Republic, Vol. 2, Tehran: Mizan. [In Persian]
Judicial Research and Investigation Office (2013). Set of Judicial Meetings; Issues of Criminal Procedure, Vol. 1, Tehran: Javadaneh. [In Persian]
Khaleghi, A. (2004). Publicity of Proceedings in the Light of International Documents and Domestic Law, Legal Research, 3(5), 29-49. [In Persian]
Khaleghi, A. (2021). Brief Commentaries on: Code of Criminal Procedure, Tehran: Shahre Danesh. [In Persian]
Lepofsky, D. (2009). “Cameras in the Courtroom — Not Without My Consent”, in Media Freedom and Contempt of Court, Eric Barendt, London: Routledge.
Marder, N. (2013). The Conundrum of Cameras in the Courtroom, Arizona State Law Journal, 44(6), 1490-1574.
National System of Judicial Judgments (2020). Disturbance in the Order of the Prosecutor's Office or Court, (View Date: 02/05/2023) In: https://ara.jri.ac.ir/Judge/Text/1593 [In Persian]
Nowak, M. & Schabas, W. (2019). UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary, Kehl: N.P. Engel Publisher.
OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) (2012). Legal Digest of International Fair Trial Rights, Warsaw: Agencja Karo.
Rasteh, M.; Tavajohi, A. & Nemati, M. (2023). Comparison of the Components of the Public Hearing in the International Human Rights System and Iranian Criminal Proceeding System, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 10(20), 209-241. [In Persian]
Rasteh, M.; Moazenzadegan, H.A. & Dolatkhah Pashaki, P. (2023). Comparative Study of Exceptions to the Attendance the People in Criminal Hearing; International Human Right System and Iranian Criminal System, Criminal Law and Criminology Studies, 52(2), 195-222. [In Persian]
Robinson, M. (2009). Trial Observation Manual for Criminal Proceedings: Practitioners Guide No.5, Geneva: International Commission of Jurists.
Shahidi, M. (2002). Judicial Standards (Legal, Criminal, Administrative, Lawyers' Affairs) of Justice; Judges High Disciplinary Court, Tehran: Raham. [In Persian]
Shamloo, B. (2022). Pathology of Advocacylaws in Realization of Fair Trial, Legal Research Quarterly, 25(Attorney Standards), 11-36. [In Persian]
Stepniak, D. (2014). The Therapeutic Value of Open Justice, Melbourne: The University of Western Australia.
Uka, M. (2019). The Right of the Defendant for Public Hearing and the Role of Media in this Publicity, Acta Universitatis Danubius, 15(1), 214-228.
Wayne, M. (2009). Improving Access to Justice, The Role of the Media, Curtin University, School of Media, Culture and Creative Arts.
Zera'at, A. & Ashrafi, M. (2018). The Principle of Adversary in Criminal Proceedings in Iranian Law, The Judiciary Law Journal, 82(101), 11-35. [In Persian]
Zera'at, A. & Mohajeri, A. (2006). Criminal Procedure Code, Vol. 2, Tehran: Fekrsazan. [In Persian]
 

- Judicial Cases

Case of Antonov v. Russia (Application No. 72900/11). ECtHR: Judgement of 24 February 2022.
Case of Chaushev and Others v. Russia (Application Nos. 37037/03, 39053/03 and 2469/04). ECtHR: Judgement of 25 October 2016.
Case of Idalov v. Russia (Application No. 5826/03). ECtHR: Judgement of 22 May 2012.
Case of Kartoyev and Others v. Russia (Application No. 9418/13, 9421/13 and 49007/13). ECtHR: Judgement of 19 October 2021.
Case of Riepan v. Austria (Application No. 35115/97). ECtHR: Judgement of 14 November 2000.
Case of Stanford v. United Kingdom, (Application No. 16757/90). ECtHR: Judgment of 23 February 1994.
Case of Vasilyev v. Russia (Application No. 28

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics