A fair hearing in the courts requires the principles of procedure. Because the arbitration is considered as private judgment, thus in arbitration hearing regarding to non-ceremonial proceedings, arbitrator or arbitration panel are bound to respect the principles of civil procedure in arbitration hearing. Equal treatment with parties of arbitration and Adversarial procedure are principles that arbitrator or arbitration panel obliged to satisfy them in proceeding whit action arbitration parties. Independence and impartiality are elements of Equal treatment and proper notice and give a full opportunity to presentation case are elements of adversarial procedure in Arbitration hearing that arbitrator or arbitration panel are bound to respect them in proceeding between action arbitration parties. Disclosure Obligation, Challenge to arbitrators competence, application for setting aside and refuse to recognition and enforcement of award are tools to satisfy compliance of principles of procedural civil in Arbitration hearing. In this paper, ways of satisfying principles of procedure and its sanctions has been considered.

Pre-trial investigation is the most important phase in the criminal process. Because this is the first confrontation of accused with criminal justice system and facts of criminal cases are gathered in this phase. Hence, fair trial principles are very important in this process, since there is innocence presumption in this phase and the criminality has not been proven yet.In Iranian Criminal Justice System, there are some of fair trial standards and guarantees, such as innocence presumption. But there is less attention to other fair trial standards such as the right to be silent, the right to council and that arrest must be finished in reasonable time. This article discusses fair trial principles and guarantees in pre-trial investigation stage with regard to the international documents and requirements. Then it describes the Iranian Criminal System and finally recommends some solutions.

Abstract The right to fair trial is one of the fundamental human rights of humankind. Hence, this right has been now among constitutional norms and in the constitution of some countries it has been subject to constitutionalization. From a historical viewpoint, What important is the Mashruteh Constitution approach to fair trial, as a first constitution of Iran. The main question is that the drafters of this Act, what approach have to fair trial? This paper shows that drafters of Mashruteh Constitution and its complement (Motammem) dealt with “judicial security” and therefore recognized and constitutionalized a set of principles of fair trial such as legality, judiciality, privacy, judicial independence, access to justice, prohibition of unlawful arrest, etc. However, some other important principles such as presumption of innocence, access to a lawyer, prohibition of torture and etc were neglected. As a result, it can be concluded that the Mashruteh Constitution constitutionalized an incomplete version of fair trial.

Analyzing the Principles of Fair Trial in Iranian LawAbstractThe principles of fair Trial are the principles which ensure justice and the ultimate goal of any Trial is the administration of justice, It is one of the main indicators of measuring the extent of social and judicial development of any society. These principles can be evaluated for their fairness by defining the minimum standards of justice in society. These include independence and impartiality of the reviewing authority, proportionality, openness and presence of the hearing, equality of defence, reasoned and documented opinion, fair and reasonable hearing, and so forth. Each procedure is examined and analyzed from the point of view of fairness. In this descriptive-analytical study using library research methodology, the principles of fair trial have been examined to provide researchers with a criterion for assessing the fairness of judicial, civil, criminal, and administrative systems.KeywordsFair trial, principles of procedure, rules of procedure, Positive law

The rapid advancement of technology, particularly in the field of artificial intelligence, has introduced unprecedented challenges and opportunities for judicial systems worldwide. The central question of this research is whether the application of AI in judicial decision-making promotes fair trial standards or, conversely, poses a threat to judicial justice and the fundamental rights of litigants. The importance of this issue stems from the judiciary's role as a cornerstone of social justice, where any deviation can significantly affect public trust in the legal system. This article aims to examine the legal, ethical, and structural dimensions of integrating artificial intelligence into judicial processes, focusing on its compatibility with the principles of fair trial, judicial independence, the right to defense, and transparency in adjudication. The research method is descriptive-analytical and based on documentary studies, including international instruments, comparative legal practices, and critical analysis of relevant legal theories. The findings indicate that while AI has the potential to reduce human error, accelerate proceedings, and enhance access to justice, the lack of a clear legal framework may endanger core principles of fair trial. The opacity of algorithms, the risk of algorithmic bias, and uncertainty regarding legal responsibility are among the most critical challenges. The novelty of this article lies in its interdisciplinary and critical analysis of the intersection between artificial intelligence and judicial functions, along with legal solutions to harness the potential of AI while safeguarding fundamental principles of judicial fairness.

The purpose of this article is to give a comprehensive and clear presentation of the international human rights ftamework relevant to the right to a fair trial. This article also has focused on the right to a defence and the rights of the defence in international human rights law.The legal sources referred to in this article are the major international legal instruments dealing with the right to a fair trial. In order to find examples and more detailed explanations, it also refers to the case-law developed by some of the international bodies in charge of looking at complaints from individuals, i.e. mostly the United Nations' Human Rights Committee, in charge of applying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) from 1966 and the European Court of Human Rights, which is the most relevant international human rights mechanism for more than forty European countries.Some of the international standards that the article refers to are actually legally binding for the countries which are parties to them; that is the case of the ICCPR Others are belonging to the category of soft law, as for example the basic principles on the role of lawyers established by the United Nations, which are not as such legally binding, but participate in creating a larger legal ftamework.It is this fiamework which is presented in this article in order to understand the coherence of the safeguards that have been put in place concerning criminal proceedings. It is important to point out at the fact that the right to a fair trial has both overall implications and very concrete and detailed implications. As to the overall implications, the right to a fair trial hangs over all other human rights and it can be advocated that all human rights comprise procedural rights as an inherent part of their effective protection. The very concrete, detailed implications concern among others more technical arrangements of proceedings before domestic courts.The article begins with some short introductory remarks on the right to a fair trial (I), then it envisages the right to a defence (II) and the rights of the defence or defence rights (III). It shall be underlined that this article only deals with criminal proceedings. As a matter of fact the relevant provision of the ICCPR focuses on criminal charges and proceedings; in an European context, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) relates in the first place to proceedings concerning the determination of "civil rights and obligations". However, most of its provision concerns, as in Article 14 of the ICCPR, criminal charges.

One of the most significant legal and social challenges is the monthly statistical monitoring of judges in the judiciary. According to this practice, the number of cases referred to a judicial branch within a month must either be disposed of in equal or greater number, or be closed through conclusive legal measures such as the issuance of a final order by the prosecutor’s office or a judgment by the court. For instance, if two hundred cases are assigned to a branch in a given month, at least two hundred cases must be finalized; otherwise, the branch’s performance is recorded as negative. This study examines the impact of such statistical monitoring on the adjudication of criminal cases. Based on a survey conducted with forty judges, the influence of this practice is analyzed. The findings indicate that statistical monitoring of judges leads to violations of the rights of litigants, diminishes public trust in the judiciary, and contributes to an increase in crime.

Until the enactment of the Public Procurement Law, disputes over tenders were heard in public courts. Nevertheless, the law placed litigation between the tenderer and the contracting authorities within the jurisdiction of the procurement complaints’,committee of trial. Indubitably, the establishment of this committee is a positive step due to the simple, free and specialized proceedings of this committee towards public courts. Nonetheless, the committee’, s procedural rules suffer from some defects in terms of the principles of a fair trial, which could impugn its performance. If the trial's purpose is to realize the right, then the way to reach the right shall be just. Otherwise, the trial is rendered futile, whether it is held in a court or in a tribunal-like entity. The findings of the present study indicate that principles such as the right to litigation, impartiality, access to verdicts and having a lawyer are not observed in such committees. Litigation is subject to the opinion of the chairman of the contracting authority, most of the members of the committee are officials of the executive branch, the board's verdicts are not published and the right to have a lawyer is not stipulated in the committee’, s charter. Ergo, the pertinent laws and regulations as well as the procedure of the aforementioned committees should be amended.

According to article 12 of the administrative offenses trial law, administrative authorities can apply some of the punishments mentioned in Article 9 of this law directly and without referring to the Administrative offenses trial boards in the case of offender employees. However, there are ambiguities regarding the observance of the provisions of the administrative offenses trial law and its executive regulations and the adherence to the principles of fair trial in the application of punishment by administrative authorities. Therefore, the main question of this research is dedicated to the defects and shortcomings of this article. The findings of the present study, using library and documentary sources and descriptive and analytical methods, indicate that the provisions of the legal article in question, due to violation of employee defense rights, violation of the principle of neutrality of administrative authority, violation of the principle of reasoning and documented decisions Restriction of the right to appeal, inappropriate punishment, does not comply with the principles of fair trial and can lead to the violation of the rights of employees in the application of punishment by administrative authorities. Therefore, it seems necessary for the legislature to intervene to eliminate the legal gap or to extend the requirements and principles applicable to the Administrative offenses trial Boards to impose administrative penalties by administrative authorities in the relevant regulations.

Adverse economic, social and cultural effects of smuggling along with specialized and complex discovery and proof of its realization, prevention of smuggling and deal effectively with perpetrators of acts with fast and sure punishment, quickly replacing the lost rights of the state treasury and at the same time, protection of investors and contributing economic prosperity in the country are the most important requirements for special rules for dealing with cases of smuggling. In this regard one-way vision and overcoming the repressive approach; prevents the realization of the principles and guarantees of fair trial, including the presumption of innocence, the principle of access to justice, the principle of equality of arms, the principle of independence and impartiality of courts and exercising the rights of defense such as the right to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defense and the right to object to the vote in the accepted cases of retrial.