An Examination of the Crime Prevention Act in Light of the Principle of Synergy Among Communal Institutions of the United Nations with a Focus on the Guidelines for Interaction and Participation of Civil Institutions with the Judiciary

Abstract

One of the eight foundational principles of the United Nations' crime prevention policies, ratified in 2002, is the principle of synergy among communal institutions, or in other words, the principle of civil society participation in crime prevention, the origins of which lie in participatory criminal policy. Participatory criminal policy refers to a form of criminal policy that emphasizes the involvement of civil society alongside state and official institutions in responding to criminal phenomena and in preventing crime, advocating for the joint intervention of both sectors. Today, criminal policy is no longer limited to formal (governmental) actions; rather, it encompasses public participation in the prevention of crime. In line with this, the guidelines for the interaction and participation of civil institutions with the judiciary have been formulated and issued with the purpose of facilitating cooperation and coordination among relevant institutions in the area of prevention, enhancing synergy between civil society and non-governmental institutions in this field, and improving intersectoral cooperation between the executive and judicial branches on this subject. This article, using a descriptive–analytical method and based on library research and data collection through the study of books, articles, and an analysis of laws, regulations, guidelines, and related procedures, reviews the provisions of the Law on Crime Prevention, ratified on August 29, 2015, in light of the United Nations' principle of synergy among communal institutions. Through a detailed examination of the content of the Guidelines for the Interaction and Participation of Civil Institutions with the Judiciary, the study concludes that despite existing efforts, participatory criminal policy in Iran appears to have remained at the level of academic discourse and, at times, at the level of sporadic or superficial and low-impact actions. It has not yet reached the stage of being codified and enacted in the form of a legal document that clearly defines a transparent, coherent, and enforceable structure for the normative participation of the public at various levels of formal and informal criminal justice systems.