threatening due process and questioning the independence and neutrality of the Judiciary.19 As a
consequence, the right to legal assistance of one’s choosing in such cases is particularly limited.
Defendants in national security cases are often denied access to a lawyer in the investigative
stage of the judicial process. In the hundreds of cases of individuals arrested for political reasons
or suspected for ordinary crimes that the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center has investigated, all
detainees were interrogated without the presence of an attorney.20 Reports have shown a pattern
of reported cases where prisoners remain incarcerated without proper access to legal
representation at all stages of their trial process. 21 22
B. Right to a fair trial: the right to be brought promptly before a judge
The Iranian legal framework does not require the accused to be brought promptly before an
objective, independent and impartial judicial authority. Under Article 185 of the revised Code of
Criminal Procedure (2015), the first judicial authority engaging with a detainee is the
“investigator”, an official located within the Office of the Prosecutor who has to responsibility to
issue judicial orders, including the bail order and temporary detention order.23 Article 240 of the
Code stipulates that the investigator is obliged to immediately submit in writing the detention
order to the Prosecutor who shall approve/disprove the order within 25 hours. Only in the event
of a disagreement between the two parties or when the suspect appeals against the detention
order that a court will review the legality of a detention order or the necessity of its continuation.
Article 214 obliges the investigator to release the accused if the reasons for detention no longer
exist, with the approval of the Prosecutor.
Article 9(3) of the ICCPR stipulates that the detainee must be promptly brought before “a judge
or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power”. The purpose of this hearing is
primarily to address the lawfulness of detention. The Human Rights Committee has repeatedly
ruled against the qualification of investigators, prosecutors and investigating judges as judicial
officers for determining the legality of the detention as it considers that they lack the institutional
objectivity and impartiality necessary to act for this purpose.24 The Human Rights Committee
19
“Iranian Lawyers Criticize Proposal to Deprive Defendants of Right to Choose Counsel,” Human Rights Activists in Iran, June
6, 2018 (https://www.iranrights.org/library/document/3443)
20
Abdorrahman Boroumand Center, joint submission to the Human Rights Committee from the Abdorrahman Boroumand
Center, Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, Impact Iran, Human Rights Activists in Iran, 2020,
https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CCPR/Shared%20Documents/IRN/INT_CCPR_ICS_IRN_42313_E.pdf
21
HRANA <https://www.en-hrana.org/political-prisoner-denied-access-to-an-attorney>
22
HRANA <https://www.en-hrana.org/arash-sadegh-golrokh-iraeis-lawyers-access-cases
23
Article 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (2015)
24
HRC, Kulomin v Hungary, Communication no. 521/1992, CCPR/C/50/D/521/1992, para. 11.3; Reshetnikov v Russian
Federation, Communication no. 1278/2004, CCPR/C/95/D/1278/2004, para. 8.2; Zheludkova v Ukraine, Communication no.
726/1996, CCPR/C/75/D/726/1996, para. 8.3; HRC, Concluding observations on Tajikistan,. CCPR/CO/84/TJK (2005), para. 12;
3