Scope and Challenges Arising from Electronic Litigation in Iranian Law

Abstract

With the expansion of information technology and the necessity of transforming the judicial system, electronic litigation has emerged in the Iranian legal system as a mechanism for increasing the speed and accuracy of proceedings while reducing litigation costs. The present study aims to explain the operational scope of electronic litigation in the fields of civil and criminal law and to identify the legal and technical challenges arising from the full implementation of this system within judicial authorities. Using a descriptive-analytical method and relying on library-based resources, this research examines statutory laws, including the Code of Criminal Procedure (electronic litigation section), the Electronic Commerce Law, and the related executive regulations. The findings indicate that although the scope of electronic litigation in Iran has expanded from the stage of filing claims and electronic service of process to the stages of enforcement of judgments and electronic monitoring (electronic ankle bracelets), it still faces serious challenges. In civil disputes, the “authentication of digital evidence” and the “security of data exchange” are among the most significant challenges, while in criminal proceedings, the conflict between the acceleration of proceedings and the “defense rights of the accused” (such as the right to physical presence and in-person confrontation with witnesses) constitutes one of the principal identified concerns. Furthermore, unequal technical infrastructure across different regions of the country has hindered the realization of uniform procedural justice. Electronic litigation in Iran has moved beyond the transitional stage and become an unavoidable necessity; nevertheless, its effectiveness in both civil and criminal domains requires reconsideration of traditional evidentiary laws and the strengthening of security infrastructures to safeguard the privacy of litigants. The full acceptance of this system requires establishing a balance between “technological efficiency” and the “guarantees of fair trial” so that expedited proceedings do not result in the violation of individuals’ fundamental rights.