Revisiting the Model of Criminal Prosecution in the Context of Social Crises: A Comparative Study of International and Regional Human Rights Instruments and Practices

Abstract

Social crises are defined as exceptional and unstable situations in which public order is seriously disrupted and the normal functioning of governance institutions is challenged. These situations are typically identifiable through indicators such as widespread unrest, threats to public security, disruption of essential services, and increased governmental intervention. Under such circumstances, the criminal justice system faces a fundamental tension between the necessity of preserving public order and security on the one hand and safeguarding the fundamental rights of individuals—particularly the rights of suspects and defendants—on the other. Using a descriptive-analytical approach and a comparative research method, the present article revisits the model of criminal prosecution during crisis situations in light of international and regional human rights instruments and jurisprudence (European, Inter-American, and African systems). The findings demonstrate that despite structural differences among legal systems, a “common normative core” governs criminal prosecution during crises. This core can be conceptualized through indicators such as the clear legislative regulation of exceptional situations, temporal and substantive limitations on prosecutorial powers, guarantees of fair trial rights, effective judicial oversight, and the establishment of accountability and remedial mechanisms. Accordingly, principles such as legality, necessity, proportionality, non-discrimination, and effective judicial supervision emerge as the foundational pillars of this model. Within the Iranian criminal justice system, the absence of a statutory definition of crisis, the predominance of a security-oriented approach over a judicial one, and the weakness of ex post oversight mechanisms constitute the principal obstacles to conformity with this model. The article’s contribution lies in proposing a three-tiered reform framework—legislative, interpretive, and implementation-oriented—for redefining Iran’s criminal prosecution model through the incorporation of comparative experiences. Such an approach can simultaneously strengthen the legitimacy of the criminal justice system and enhance the protection of fundamental rights.