A Comparative Study of the Right of Access to Case Files in Criminal Proceedings concerning Offenses against National Security under Iranian Law and International Instruments

Abstract

The conflict between safeguarding national security and guaranteeing an accused person’s right of access to case files has consistently constituted one of the fundamental challenges of criminal proceedings. In the Iranian judicial system, provisions such as the “order denying access” under Article 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure restrict the right of defense, weaken the adversarial nature of criminal proceedings, and jeopardize the principle of “equality of arms.” This study aims to analyze and examine such restrictions in national security offenses and seeks to answer the following question: To what extent are the limitations imposed by Iran’s legislative framework on access to evidence compatible with international standards of fair trial? To investigate this issue, a descriptive-analytical method with a comparative approach was adopted, and international instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the fundamental principles adopted by the United Nations, and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, were examined in comparison with Iran’s domestic legislation. The findings indicate that the expansive interpretation of Article 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, coupled with the absence of effective judicial oversight, creates an “information deficit” for the accused and disrupts the balance of power to the detriment of the defense and in favor of security authorities. To remedy this deficiency and bring the Iranian criminal justice system into greater conformity with fair trial standards, the judicial approach must shift from an “absolute security-oriented approach” toward “active and adversarial judicial oversight.” Achieving this objective requires three fundamental legislative reforms: first, a precise distinction between top-secret documents and ordinary investigative evidence in order to prevent excessive restrictions; second, the establishment of a specific time limit for the continuation of “orders denying access”; and third, the mandatory adoption of “compensatory measures,” such as providing non-confidential summaries of evidence, so that even in national security cases the accused can be informed of the nature of the charges and be afforded a genuine opportunity to prepare an effective defense.