Individual Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution from the Perspective of the Constitutionalization of Criminal Law

Abstract

Individual rights and freedoms within the framework of criminal law constitute a critical issue that requires extensive discussion and analysis. From a theoretical perspective, this issue holds significance due to the intersection of public law and criminal law, while from a practical standpoint, it is influenced by the increasing importance of human rights. Accordingly, the present article seeks to examine the question of how the constitutionalization of individual rights and freedoms has been realized in criminal law and what position it holds in Iranian law. This study adopts a descriptive-analytical approach and employs a library research method to investigate the aforementioned question. The findings indicate that the significance of individual rights and freedoms is such that their observance within the context of criminal law has been emphasized and upheld in constitutional law, which serves as the fundamental and supreme legal framework in every country. In the Iranian legal system, certain fundamental principles related to individual rights and freedoms, such as the presumption of innocence, the principle of prompt adjudication, and the prohibition of torture in evidence collection, have been explicitly enshrined in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, some of these principles, explicitly stated in the Constitution, such as the principle of public trials, have been subject to restrictions in ordinary laws and, under certain conditions, have faced exceptions that necessitate broad judicial interpretation. At the same time, principles such as the legality of crime and punishment have been subjected to a degree of ambiguity under Articles 36 and 169 of the Constitution, despite their explicit acceptance in ordinary criminal laws.