Comparative Study of Exceptions to the Attendance the ‎People in Criminal Hearing; International Human Right ‎System and Iranian Criminal System

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Faculty of Law and Political Science, Islamic Azad University, Chalus, Iran.‎

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

3 Criminal Law & Criminology, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabatabai ‎University, Tehran, Iran. ‎

Abstract

Although the right of the attendance the people in court according to publicity of the hearing is thought of as a fundamental principles of proceedings and plays a pivotal role in the accomplishment of a fair trial, sometimes publicity does not secure good administration of justice so that a hearing held in camera fits in with the interests of justice in proceedings. Accordingly, there are a few exceptions to the principle of public trial in the international human right system and Iranian criminal system whenever preserving individual or collective interests requires. Aim of this research is to answer the question that how many similarities exist between international human right system and Iranian criminal system in the context of exceptions to the attendance the people in criminal hearing, and also scope, and formalities of their.
The present study was carried out using a descriptive-analytical method and library resources.
      The findings of the research indicate that mention of some exceptions (including interests of justice; religious or ethnic feelings; forgivable offenses) in Iranian criminal system and the international human rights system are not very consistent, but most of the legal examples This issue (including national security, public order, morals, juvenile proceedings, family lawsuits) is coordinated to a large extent in these two systems. Therefore, In general, It has been concluded that despite the unreasonable scope and ambiguity in the meaning and meaning of some of these exceptions, as well as the difference in the scope of some examples and the way they are applied in both systems -which could be attributed to the nature of the governing system in Iran and the international community and their different criteria-; it can be acknowledged that regarding the exceptions of the presence of people in the hearing, the Iranian criminal system and the international human rights system are largely aligned and consistent with each other.

Keywords

References

  1. الف) فارسی

    1. اسمیت، آنتونی (1377). منابع قومی ناسیونالیسم. واحد ترجمه. فصلنامۀ مطالعات راهبردی، 1(1)، 183-206.
    2. چلبی، فائقه؛ قاسم‌آبادی، مرتضی و آقاپور، کمال (1396). تحلیلی بر جایگاه نظم عمومی در نظام حقوقی ایران. فصلنامۀ قضاوت، 17(91)، 89-120.
    3. حاجی‌پور کندرود، علی؛ هاشمی، سید محمد؛ یاوری، اسدالله و جلالی، محمد (1398). تأملی در موانع تحقق اصل علنی بودن دادرسی‌ها در حقوق ایران. فصلنامۀ مطالعات حقوق عمومی، 49(4)، 1171-1190.
    4. خالقی، علی (1383). علنی بودن دادرسی در پرتو اسناد بین‌المللی و حقوق داخلی. مجلۀ پژوهش‌های حقوقی، 3(5)، 29-49.
    5. خالقی، علی (1400). نکته‌ها در قانون آیین دادرسی کیفری. چ هفدهم، تهران: شهر دانش.
    6. رستمی، هادی (1400). گذشت‌پذیری جرائم در پرتو مبانی حقوق کیفری. مجلۀ مطالعات حقوق کیفری و جرم‌شناسی، 51(2)، 323-343.
    7. زراعت، عباس (1383). اخلال در نظم دادگاه. مجلۀ کانون وکلا، 36(184 و 185)، 181-195.
    8. زراعت، عباس (1391). قانون آیین دادرسی کیفری در نظم حقوقی کنونی. چ هفتم، تهران: خط سوم.
    9. صورت‌مشروح مذاکرات مجلس بررسی نهایی قانون اساسی جمهوری اسلامی ایران (1364). ج 3، چ اول، تهران: ادارۀ کل امور فرهنگی و روابط عمومی مجلس شورای اسلامی.
    10. فضائلی، مصطفی (1397). دادرسی عادلانه؛ محاکمات کیفری بین‌المللی. چ چهارم، تهران: شهر دانش.
    11. گلدوست جویباری، رجب (1400). آیین دادرسی کیفری. چ پانزدهم، تهران: جنگل.
    12. موسی‌زاده، رضا (1400). حقوق اداری 1 و 2. چ بیستم، تهران: میزان.
    13. مهرپور، حسین (1401). مختصر حقوق اساسی جمهوری اسلامی ایران. چ یازدهم، تهران: دادگستر.
    14. هاشمی، سید محمد (1400). حقوق اساسی جمهوری اسلامی. ج 2، چ سی‌ودوم، تهران: میزان.

    ب) انگلیسی

    1. Anite, C. (2019). Open Justice; A Closed or Open Reality For Uganda's Media?. First Ed, Kampala: Freedom of Expression Hub.
    2. Burfeind, J., Jeglum, D., & Hollist, D. (2018). Juvenile Justice: An Introduction to Process. Practice, and Research, First Ed, London: Routledge.
    3. Clooney, A., & Webb, P. (2022). The Right to a Fair Trial under Article 14 of the ICCPR. 2nd Ed, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    4. Cosenza, I. (2004). Open Justice and National Security Cases: The ALRC Inquiry into Protecting of Classified and Security Sensitive Information. Australian Law Reform Commission Reform Journal, 12(85), 53-58.
    5. Cunliffe, E. (2012). “Open Justice: Concepts and Judicial Approaches.Publications Faculty of Law at the University of British Columbia, 40(3), 385-411.
    6. Dadwal, L. (2019). Open Justice and Rule of Law: Indian Scenario. International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews, 6(1), 901-926.
    7. Dick, T. (2010). Open Justice and Closed Courts: Media Access in Criminal Proceedings in NSW. Journal Criminal Law, 34(6), 1-20.
    8. Jaconelli, J. (2002). Open Justice: A Critique of the Public Trial. First Ed, New York: Oxford University Press.
    9. McLachlin, B. (2014). Openness And The Rule Of Law. London: At the Annual International Rule of Law Lecture.
    10. Nettheim, G. (1985). Open Justice Versus Justice. Adelaide Law Review Association, 9(1-4), 487-518.
    11. OSCE office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (2012). Legal Digest of International Fair Trial Rights, First Ed, Warsaw: Agencja Karo.
    12. Paciocco, D. (2005). When Open Courts Meet Closed Government. The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference, 29(1), 385-418.
    13. Pejic, J., & Lesnie, V. (2000). What Is a Fair Trial (A Basic Guide to Legal Standards and Practice). 2nd Ed, New York: Lawyers Committee for Human Rights.
    14. Uka, M. (2019). he Right of the Defendant for Public Hearing and the Role of Media in this Publicity. Acta Universitatis Danubius, 15(1), 214-228.

    ج) احکام و گزارش­ها

    1. Advisory Opinion IACHR (OC-17/2002), Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child, 28 August 2002.
    2. Belashev v. Russia (No. 28617/03), 4 December 2008.
    3. Chaushev and Others v. Russia (Nos. 37037/03; 39053/03; 2469/04), 25 October 2016.
    4. Diennet v. France (No. 18160/9), 20 March 1995.
    5. Ferreira v. Portugal (No. 19867/12), 11 July 2017.
    6. Friend and Others v. The United Kingdom (Nos. 16072/06; 27809/08), 17 December 2009.
    7. Handyside v. The United Kingdom (No. 5493/72), 4 November 1976.
    8. Hayrapetyan v. Armenia (No. 69931/10), 21 December 2021.
    9. Comments on Peru (U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.67), 25 July 1996.
    10. General Comment, No. 32, HRC (U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32), 23 August 2007.
    11. Kartoyev and Others v. Russia (No. 9418/13; 9421/13; 49007/13), 19 October 2021.
    12. Krestovskiy v. Russia (No. 14040/03), 28 October 2010.
    13. Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland (No. 931/13), 27 June 2017.
    14. Sultanova et. al. v. Uzbekistan (No. 915/2000), 31 March 2006.
    15. The Juvenile Re-education Institute v. Paraguay (Series c, No. 112), 2 September 2004.
    16. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Access to Juvenile Courts, A Reporters Guide to Proceedings & Documents, 1999.
    17. T v. The United Kingdom (No. 24724/94), 16 December 1999.
    18. V v. The United Kingdom (No. 24888/94), 16 December 1999.
    19. Yam v. The United Kingdom (No. 31295/11), 16 January 2020.

    د) اسناد حقوق بشری

    1. American Convention on Human Rights (1969).
    2. Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).
    3. European Convention on Human Rights (1950).
    4. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).
    5. Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa (2003).
    6. United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules) (1985).

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics