The Quarterly Journal of Judicial Law Views

The Quarterly Journal of Judicial Law Views

Balancing the Principle of Public Criminal Proceedings with National Security Protection (A Study of the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights and International Instruments)

Document Type : p

Authors
Hassan ali Moazen zadegan 1
Morteza Rasteh 2
1 Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran
2 Graduate of Master of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Chalus Branch, Islamic Azad University, Chalus, Iran
10.22034/jlvi.2025.2026433.1158
Abstract
The principle of public criminal proceedings, as a fundamental component of fair trial—particularly in promoting transparency in the judicial process—is often in tension with sensitive issues such as the protection of national security. In such cases, national security considerations may necessitate restrictions on this principle. Therefore, achieving a reasonable balance between the requirements of public criminal proceedings and the imperatives of safeguarding national security is essential to protect both the broader interests of society against crimes threatening security and the defendant’s right to a defense. This article, employing a descriptive-analytical approach and utilizing library-based resources, seeks to elucidate the foundations, scope, and limits of this tension while proposing solutions to establish an effective balance between these two values. The findings indicate that deviations from the principle of public proceedings for the sake of national security are permissible only to the extent necessary, with explicit legal provisions and adherence to the principle of proportionality. However, to mitigate the effects of non-public proceedings, measures must be implemented to ensure the defendant’s rights during such processes. Accordingly, it is concluded that achieving this balance requires that restrictions be clearly stipulated in domestic law, alongside and guarantees such as compliance with the principle of appellate review, the identity of judges being known, and the publicity of issued rulings should be taken into account. Furthermore, when minimal restrictive measures suffice to achieve balance, only those measures should be applied. In Iranian law, although Article 352(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits non-public proceedings in cases threatening public security, certain necessary safeguards to counterbalance this restriction have not been adequately provided—an issue that should be addressed in future legislative reforms.
Keywords
Public Hearing
National Security
Principle of Necessity and Proportionality
Adversarial Proceedings
Publicity of the Judgment

  • ب) منابع انگلیسی

    • Alemanno, A., & S. Oana (2014), “Openness at the Court of Justice of the European Union: Toppling a Taboo”, Common Market Law Review, Vol.51, No.1.
    • Burgorgue-Larsen, L., & d. -T. Amaya (2021), The Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Case-Law and Commentary, New York: Oxford University Press.
    • Clooney, A., & W. Philippa (2022), The Right to a Fair Trial under Article 14 of the ICCPR, New York: Oxford University Press.
    • Dadwal, L. (2019), “Open Justice and Rule of Law: Indian Scenario”, International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews, Vol.6, No.1.
    • Garner, B. (2019), BLACK's Law Dictionary, Deluxe 11th Ed, Toronto: Thomson Reuters.
    • Jaconelli, J. (2023), Open Justice: A Critique of the Public Trial, New York: Oxford University Press.
    • Marder, N. (2013), “The Conundrum of Cameras in the Courtroom”, Arizona State Law Journal, Vol.44, No.176.
    • OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (2012), Legal Digest of International Fair Trial Rights, Warsaw: Agencja Karo.
    • Paciocco, D. (2005), “When Open Courts Meet Closed Government”, Journal of Law and Social Policy, 29, No.1.
    • Van Dijk, P., van Hoof, , van Rijn, A., & Zwaak, L. (2018), Theory and Practice of European Convention on Human Rights, Cambridge: Intersentia.
    • Vitkauskas, D., & D. Grigory (2017), Protecting the Right to a Fair Trial under the European Convention on Human Rights, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
    • Wani, M. Y., & N. Naveed (2021), Law and Justice in a Globalised World, Chennai: Notion Press.

    ج) اسناد و پرونده‌ها

    • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (1981).
    • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, “Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa” (2003).
    • American Convention on Human Rights (1969).
    • Amnesty International, Report on Peru: Government Persists in Retaining Unfair Trial Procedures (No.46/025/96), 1996.
    • Case of Antonov Russia, ECtHR (No.72900/11), 2022.
    • Case of Becerra Barney Colombia, HRC (No.1298/2004), 2006.
    • Case of Belashev Russia, ECtHR (No.28617/03), 2008.
    • Case of Buckland The United Kingdom, ECtHR (No.40060/08), 2012.
    • Case of Cantos Argentina, IACtHR (No.97), 2002.
    • Case of Connors the United Kingdom, ECtHR (No.66746/01), 2004.
    • Case of Dadashbeyli Azerbaijan, ECtHR (No.11297/09), 2020.
    • Case of De Polay Peru, HRC (No.577/1994), 1997.
    • Case of Diennet France, ECtHR (No.18160/91), 1995.
    • Case of Ferreira Portugal, ECtHR (No.19867/12), 2017.
    • Case of Funke France, ECtHR (No.10828/84), 1993.
    • Case of Garcia Hernandez Spain, ECtHR (No.15256/07), 2010.
    • Case of Gomez Peru, HRC (No.981/2001), 2003
    • Case of Handyside The United Kingdom, ECtHR (No.5493/72), 1976.
    • Case of Hayrapetyan Armenia, ECtHR (No.69931/10),2021.
    • Case of Hummatov Azerbaijan, ECtHR (No.9852/03), 2007.
    • Case of Jussila Finland, ECtHR (No.73053/01), 2006.
    • Case of Kay and Others the United Kingdom, ECtHR(No.37341/06), 2010.
    • Case of Krestovskiy Russia, ECtHR (No.14040/03), 2010.
    • Case of Kruslin France, ECtHR (No.11801/85), 1990.
    • Case of Monguya Mbenge Zaire, HRC (No.16/1977), 1983.
    • Case of NIT S.R.L. The Republic of Moldova, ECtHR (No.28470/12), 2022.
    • Case of Ocalan Turkey, ECtHR (No.46221/99),2005.
    • Case of Open Door and Dublin Well Woman Ireland, ECtHR (Nos.14234/88), 1992.
    • Case of Robinson Jamaica, HRC (No. 223/1987), 1989.
    • Case of Rostomashvili Georgia, ECtHR (No.13185/07), 2018.
    • Case of Smith and Grady The United Kingdom, ECtHR (Nos.33985/96 and 33986/96), 1999.
    • Case of Stanford The United Kingdom, ECtHR (No.16757/90), 1994.
    • Case of Sultanova et. al. Uzbekistan, HRC (No.915/2000), 2006.
    • Case of the Sunday Times United Kingdom, ECtHR (No.6538/74), 1979.
    • Case of the United Macedonian Organization Ilinden – Pirin and Others Bulgaria, ECtHR (No.59489/00), 2005.
    • Case of Vasilyev Russia, ECtHR (No.28370/05), 2012.
    • Case of Vivanco Peru, HRC (No.678/1996), 2002.
    • Case of Welke and Bialek Poland, ECtHR (No.15924/05), 2011.
    • Comments on Peru, HRC (UN.Doc.CCPR/C/79/Add.67), 1996.
    • European Convention on Human Rights (1950).
    • HRC General Comment No.32: “Article 14: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial”, 2007.
    • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).
    • Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism - Addendum - Mission to Peru, Martin Scheinin, HRC (A/HRC/16/51/Add.3), 2010.
    • Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, IACmHR (OEA/Ser.L/V /II.116), 2002.
    • Report on the Situation of Human Rights of a Segment of the Nicaraguan Population of Mikito Origin, IACtHR (OEA/Ser.L./V.II.62, Doc.10, Rev.3), 1983.
    • Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ECOSOC (UN Doc. E/CN.4/1985/4, Annex), 1985.
    • The Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (1996).

     

     

  • Receive Date 20 April 2024
  • Revise Date 19 April 2025
  • Accept Date 26 February 2025