The Principle of the Prohibition of Torture in Balancing Crime Detection and the Rights of the Accused: Perspectives from Imami Jurisprudence, Iranian Law, and International Instruments

Abstract

Clarifying the jurisprudential foundations and authorities underlying the criminalization of torture, together with emphasizing the principles of justice, inherent human dignity, and the prohibition of inflicting harm, plays a fundamental role in safeguarding the defense rights of the accused. Accordingly, adopting a critical-analytical approach and drawing on authoritative jurisprudential and legal sources, the present study examines the theoretical and practical challenges affecting the defense rights of accused persons through a comparative analysis of Imami jurisprudence, Iranian law, and international instruments. The findings demonstrated that although the Iranian legal system, particularly the Constitution, expressly recognizes the absolute prohibition of torture, ordinary legislation, including the Islamic Penal Code, contains deficiencies and ambiguities concerning a comprehensive definition of torture, its applicability to all forms of physical and psychological abuse, and the determination of criminal responsibility for those who order or perpetrate such acts. International human rights instruments and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court likewise recognize the prohibition of torture as a fundamental and peremptory norm of international law. An analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the Iranian legal system indicates the necessity of reviewing and reforming domestic legislation to ensure greater conformity with Islamic legal standards, constitutional principles, and international standards. Such reforms could strengthen effective safeguards against torture and protect the accused’s right to a defense at all stages of criminal proceedings, particularly during the preliminary investigation stage.