The Position of the Presumption of Culpability over the Presumption of Innocence in Adjudicating Narcotic Crimes: An Approach in Imamiyyah Jurisprudence and Judicial Practice

Abstract

Drug trafficking and abuse, whether in traditional or synthetic forms, constitute one of the most complex and dangerous forms of contemporary organized crime, posing a serious threat to individual health, public security, and social order. The transformation in production and distribution patterns—from the cultivation of narcotic plants to the manufacture of synthetic psychotropic substances—has compelled legal systems to reconsider fundamental principles of criminal procedure. The presumption of innocence, as one of the cornerstones of fair trial, safeguards human dignity and ensures balance between the parties to a case. However, in narcotics-related crimes, due to their inherent characteristics, such as evidentiary complexity, the wide scope of trafficking networks, and their severe societal harm, legislators have, in certain instances, reversed the burden of proof, prioritizing the presumption of culpability over the presumption of innocence. This shift, manifested through statutory and judicial presumptions, encompasses examples such as the absolute criminalization of poppy and coca cultivation, the confiscation of vehicles carrying narcotics, and the seizure of assets derived from drug trafficking. While such measures are designed to protect public interests and facilitate the detection and suppression of crimes, they also raise persistent challenges in balancing public security with individual rights. Analyzing the jurisprudential and legal foundations of this precedence—particularly in the context of Imamiyyah jurisprudence and judicial practice—can clarify its scope and limitations, thereby providing guidance for a more balanced application of this rule in alignment with the requirements of a fair trial.