Introduction and Objective:

Domestic violence cases present a distinctive evidentiary and procedural difficulty because the victim is frequently also the principal, and sometimes the only, witness to the offence. Unlike many ordinary crimes, domestic violence often occurs in private, within an ongoing intimate or familial relationship, and in circumstances marked by emotional, economic, or social dependence. Requiring the victim-witness to testify in the direct physical presence of the accused may therefore intensify fear, psychological pressure, secondary victimization, and the risk of retaliation. At the same time, restricting direct confrontation may affect the defendant’s right to know, examine, and challenge incriminating evidence. The central question is thus whether the defendant’s confrontation right necessarily requires face-to-face physical encounter or whether its manner of exercise may be modified while its essential defensive function is preserved.

The comparison between Iran and Saudi Arabia is particularly relevant because both legal systems have adopted general frameworks for protecting witnesses and other persons exposed to danger during criminal proceedings. In Iran, Note 1 to Article 214 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the 2015 Executive Regulation on the Protection of Witnesses and Informants provide measures such as preventing direct confrontation, concealing identity, remote testimony, and security protection. Saudi Arabia enacted the Law on the Protection of Whistleblowers, Witnesses, Experts, and Victims in 2024 and issued its Executive Regulation in 2026. Although the two frameworks differ in legislative status and personal scope, they perform comparable functions and can therefore be assessed against international standards concerning victim protection, fair trial guarantees, necessity, proportionality, and individualized risk assessment.

Methodology:

This study employs a descriptive-analytical and comparative method. It first examines the conceptual content of the right of confrontation and distinguishes direct physical confrontation from the broader right to obtain sufficient knowledge of testimonial evidence and to challenge its credibility and reliability. It then analyzes relevant international instruments, including the United Nations Updated Model Strategies and Practical Measures, the Istanbul Convention, and CEDAW General Recommendation No. 35. Finally, the study compares Iranian and Saudi legislation regarding the persons entitled to protection, alternatives to direct confrontation, confidentiality of identity, remote testimony, risk assessment, continuity of protection, and compensatory safeguards for the defence.

Findings and Analysis:

International standards do not treat physical confrontation as an absolute requirement in every case. They permit protective arrangements where direct encounter creates a serious risk of intimidation, retaliation, psychological harm, or secondary victimization. Measures such as separate testimony rooms, audiovisual communication, intermediated questioning, restricted contact with the accused, confidentiality, and protection orders may therefore be justified. Nevertheless, such restrictions must be based on necessity and proportionality, tailored to the circumstances of the individual case, and accompanied by safeguards enabling the defendant to understand the substance of the evidence and challenge it effectively. The decisive distinction is therefore between the physical form of confrontation and its procedural function.

Iranian law recognizes several alternatives to face-to-face testimony. The Executive Regulation permits remote testimony, separate hearing arrangements, concealment of identity and personal information, and physical or residential protection. These mechanisms can be useful in domestic violence cases, especially where the victim-witness fears the accused or remains connected to him through residence, children, or financial dependence. However, the Iranian framework is primarily witness-oriented. A woman subjected to domestic violence is not independently protected merely because she is a victim with a particular vulnerability; she generally benefits from the Regulation only when she qualifies as a witness or informant and when the judicial authority identifies a relevant danger. This is a significant limitation because, in domestic violence cases, the witness is often the victim herself. The law does not expressly treat the continuing intimate relationship, prior patterns of abuse, dependence, child-related concerns, or the likelihood of post-trial retaliation as independent criteria of risk. Moreover, the evidentiary weight of anonymous testimony and the compensatory safeguards required where the defence cannot examine the witness directly remain insufficiently clarified.

Saudi law provides a broader personal and institutional framework. Article 1 of the 2024 Law expressly includes the “victim” alongside whistleblowers, witnesses, and experts and extends protection to spouses, relatives, and other closely connected persons exposed to danger. Article 2 requires competent authorities, where appropriate, to conceal identifying information. Article 3 authorizes remote testimony, alteration of voice and image, prevention of visual contact, and hearing testimony separately from the accused and counsel. It also provides a limited mechanism for disclosure where identity is necessary for the exercise of the right of defence and the testimony constitutes the sole evidence. Articles 7 to 10 regulate admission to the protection programme, while Article 9 requires consideration of the nature of the danger, gravity of the offence, psychological condition, adaptability, and available alternatives. Article 14 provides security, legal, psychological, social, residential, occupational, and financial protection. The 2026 Executive Regulation further emphasizes continuous risk assessment, modification or continuation of protective measures, and extension of protection to closely connected persons where necessary.

Despite these advantages, the Saudi framework was not designed specifically for domestic violence and is limited to serious arrestable offences. Consequently, some recurrent but legally less severe forms of domestic abuse may remain outside its scope. In addition, merely informing the accused or counsel of the substance of testimony does not invariably satisfy the right of defence unless a practical opportunity exists to submit questions and contest credibility.

Conclusion:

The study concludes that modifying direct confrontation in domestic violence cases is not inherently inconsistent with a fair trial. The essential content of confrontation lies in effective knowledge, questioning, and challenge rather than compulsory physical encounter. Saudi law offers a more victim-oriented framework than Iranian law because it expressly recognizes victims and provides broader, continuing, and multidimensional protection. Iranian law nevertheless contains important procedural tools but should expressly include domestic violence victims, adopt individualized and continuing risk assessment, clarify the evidentiary status of protected testimony, and require effective compensatory safeguards. In both systems, the preferable model is one that prevents harmful face-to-face confrontation while preserving the defendant’s genuine ability to test the evidence.