A Comparative Study of Detention under Supervision in the Islamic Penal Code of Iran and the Netherlands

Abstract

Custody under supervision, as one of the most significant instruments of deprivation of liberty in criminal procedure, has long been contested for balancing public security with the protection of individual freedoms. This study adopts a comparative perspective to examine custody under supervision in Iranian and Dutch legal systems. Findings indicate that in Iran, Islamic jurisprudence and principles such as the presumption of innocence and the rule of no harm constitute the theoretical foundation, while the Code of Criminal Procedure has sought to guarantee rights such as access to counsel, the right to silence, and family notification in order to reconcile security imperatives with defendants’ rights. In contrast, the Dutch legal system, rooted in liberal principles and bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, allows detention only under exceptional circumstances and ensures judicial supervision from the outset, short statutory limits, and alternatives such as bail or electronic monitoring to maximize individual liberty. Moreover, the innovative TBS measure in the Netherlands links detention with psychiatric treatment, offering a distinctive approach toward dangerous offenders. Ultimately, the comparison shows that while both jurisdictions emphasize restricting detention and preventing arbitrariness, Iran still faces challenges of enforcement and gaps between law and practice, whereas the Netherlands struggles with financial and ethical concerns related to long-term measures. The study’s results provide insights for domestic reforms and greater alignment with human rights standards.