Introduction
Judicial security is a fundamental right of every citizen and a key foundation for the sustainable development of societies. It involves protecting individuals from any form of rights violations, ensuring laws are applied fairly and correctly, and building public trust in the judicial system. Achieving judicial security depends on mechanisms like judicial independence, transparency in legal processes, easy access to justice, and the enforcement of fair and effective laws. While the role of civil institutions and public opinion in promoting judicial security is undeniable, these organizations face significant challenges in cooperating with judicial bodies, which limits their full potential. Currently, civil institutions’ capabilities are underused. Therefore, it is crucial to identify the main obstacles they encounter and outline what is needed to overcome them. This study not only explores key concepts but also analyzes the role of various civil institutions—namely NGOs, the legal profession, and the jury system —in advancing judicial security. It then discusses the challenges these institutions face and proposes necessary measures to address them.
Methodology
This study uses an analytical-descriptive approach based on library research. Relevant legal sources including laws, academic articles, and specialized books were reviewed to gather information and analyze both theoretical foundations and practical challenges of the interaction between civil institutions and the judiciary. Additionally, a comparative study of other legal systems, particularly regarding juries, was used to deepen understanding.
Discussion and Results
This study examines the role and impact of civil institutions on enhancing judicial security within Iran’s legal system. The three main civil institutions reviewed are Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), the legal profession, and the jury system.
NGOs can act as an extension of civil society by improving access to justice for vulnerable groups, supporting them throughout legal proceedings, and fostering confidence in the fairness of the judicial process. This helps smooth the path to justice and builds public trust. However, NGOs face significant challenges. Firstly, their legal role in judicial proceedings is limited, often confined to filing complaints and attending hearings. Secondly, Article 66 of the Criminal Procedure Code restricts participation by limiting it to NGOs with specific charters, excluding many other civil groups. Thirdly, there is ambiguity about whether NGOs act as plaintiffs or simply as complainants in court, which leaves room for subjective interpretation. As a result, these challenges have limited NGO involvement, reducing their impact on justice delivery and public trust, and preventing the judiciary from fully utilizing their potential.
The legal profession also plays a crucial role in safeguarding the right to defense, ensuring access to justice, and ultimately upholding judicial security. This study highlights the importance of having independent and skilled lawyers at every stage of legal proceedings. Nonetheless, lawyers face several challenges, both internal and related to the broader legal governance system. The main challenge is public reluctance to seek legal representation, due to distrust in lawyers’ effectiveness, high costs relative to the services provided, and a lack of transparency regarding lawyers’ qualifications, experience, and fees. Another challenge lies in the relations between lawyers and the judiciary. The quality of this relationship affects public perception of justice and is hindered by practical obstacles, such as limited immediate access to case files and inadequate legal protections to ensure lawyers’ safety—especially in sensitive political or economic cases. These barriers undermine lawyers’ ability to provide an effective defense.
Finally, the jury system is examined, particularly in political and press-related cases, where it aims to involve representatives of public opinion in judicial decision-making and enhance the legitimacy and acceptance of court verdicts. The jury system aims to protect fundamental freedoms and prevent arbitrary decisions. However, challenges such as selecting jurors who genuinely and impartially represent public opinion, jurors’ level of legal expertise, and the influence of their opinions on judges’ final decisions impact the effectiveness of this institution.
Conclusion
Overall, this study finds that although the three civil institutions discussed have significant potential to strengthen judicial security in Iran’s legal system, they face operational, structural, and legal challenges that need careful attention and reform. The recommendations are as follows:

For NGOs: Clarify their legal status and broaden their authority to submit evidence, participate in preliminary investigations, and support defendants and their families throughout the judicial process.
For the legal profession: Establish a transparent ranking system for lawyers that reflects their records, expertise, and client satisfaction, and strengthen laws that protect lawyers’ job and personal security, especially in sensitive cases.
For the jury system: Reform the juror selection process, for example by using random selection from diverse social groups. Remove restrictive conditions such as marital status and minimum age limits, and make jury verdicts binding on courts—or at least significantly increase their influence on final decisions—to improve the system’s effectiveness.

Implementing these recommendations is expected to pave the way for more effective involvement of civil institutions in developing and strengthening judicial security.