Challenges of Criminal Procedure in Emergency Conditions: A Critical Reflection on the Gap Between Norms and Reality in the Experience of the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic confronted Iran’s criminal justice system with the question of whether the existing legal frameworks and judicial structures were capable of responding effectively to a widespread emergency. Adopting an analytical-critical approach, this article examines the challenges of criminal procedure under emergency conditions, with particular emphasis on the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic, across four dimensions: normative, human rights, structural, and practical-operational. The findings indicate that these challenges constitute an interconnected network of deficiencies that mutually reinforce one another. At the normative level, the absence of a legal definition of a state of emergency and the lack of a specific emergency criminal procedure law led the judiciary toward extra-statutory decision-making through administrative directives and circulars. At the human rights level, the failure to formally declare a state of emergency, the exclusion of emergency measures from judicial review, and the systematic weakening of the right to defense in electronic proceedings raised serious concerns regarding the compatibility of Iran’s measures with international standards. At the structural level, the gap between administrative directives and practical realities, resulting from inadequate electronic infrastructure and deficiencies in training and interinstitutional coordination, undermined the effective implementation of emergency measures. At the practical level, the accumulation of pending cases, disruptions in communication between defense counsel and defendants, and inconsistencies in the management of the prison population further complicated the realization of a fair trial. This article concludes that the principal challenge lies not in the absence of a willingness to manage crises, but rather in the lack of a systemic and anticipatory approach to structuring the relationship between a “state of emergency” and “criminal procedure.” Accordingly, the solution should be sought in moving from ad hoc responses toward ex ante framework-building through the enactment of a comprehensive emergency law, the balanced development of technological infrastructure, and the establishment of automatic mechanisms for judicial resilience.