A comparative study of the legal mechanisms for monitoring the guarantee of civil rights in criminal penalties in Iraqi and Iranian law

Abstract

This study comparatively analyzes legal mechanisms for overseeing citizenship rights protection in criminal punishments in Iran and Iraq. The core issue is assessing the effectiveness of laws and supervisory institutions in safeguarding citizens’ rights against unjust punishments, focusing on proportionality of crime and punishment, fair trial, and prohibition of inhuman punishments. Using a descriptive-analytical-comparative method, it examines Iran’s Islamic Penal Code (2013), Iraq’s Penal Code No. 111 (1969), and international documents to identify similarities and differences. Findings show both countries emphasize proportionality, but Iraq faces criticism for executions in non-violent crimes, while Iran views sharia-based punishments as integral to its legal system. Judicial oversight operates through supreme courts in both, yet political interference in Iraq and high judicial costs with prolonged trials in Iran pose challenges. Fair trial is ensured in Iran with adequate access to lawyers, but torture in Iraq’s interrogations violates this principle. Both constitutions prohibit inhuman punishments, yet Iraq’s harsh discretionary penalties create barriers, while Iran upholds sharia punishments. Review mechanisms exist in both systems, but security issues in Iraq and costly judicial processes in Iran limit access. The study recommends reducing judicial costs in Iran and enhancing independent oversight in Iraq to improve citizenship rights protection.