The right to access a lawyer is one of the requirements of a fair trial. This right is emphasized in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Constitution, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Law on Respect for Legitimate Freedoms and the Protection of Citizenship Rights, as well as the relevant article on the selection of a lawyer by the parties involved, approved by the Assembly for Determining the Expediency of the System on October 3, 1991. This right is now entrusted to the decision and judgment of the judiciary judges.

“In the new Criminal Procedure Law, there was no mention of a provision that is now included under Article 48. This unexpected provision states that “in crimes against the internal and external security of the country, as well as organized crimes that fall under Article 302 of this law, in the preliminary investigation stage, the parties to the case choose their own lawyer or lawyers from among the official lawyers of the judiciary who have been approved by the head of the judicial power, and the names of these lawyers are announced by the head of the judicial power.”

It is interesting that “Gholamhossein Esmaeili”, the head of the Tehran Province Judiciary, has not acknowledged the shortcomings of the clause 48 of the new Criminal Procedure Code and has stated that this clause only oversees the preliminary stages and discovery of the crime, and after the end of this stage, the accused can choose another lawyer. Contrary to the claims of the head of the Tehran Province Judiciary, including such a clause is completely detrimental to the accused and may even lead to the entire case being derailed. The importance of this issue becomes apparent when we believe that the preliminary investigations and discovery of the crime are actually the basis of the alleged crime by the accused. This theory is also problematic in practice because an accused who has paid the appropriate amount to a qualified lawyer will not be able to change their lawyer during the course of the trial and choose another one. On the other hand, the head of Branch 32 of the Supreme Court has stated that cases related to

On the other hand, the inclusion of this provision, regardless of the fact that it leads to the direct interference of the judge in the defense of the accused, violates the principle of impartiality of the judicial power and undermines the credibility of the judicial system. The notable point in such crimes is that the other party in reality is the prosecutor and the judicial system. This is where the need for a fair trial and the presence of impartial lawyers is felt more than in other cases. Lawyers who are completely independent from the judicial system and can defend the accused properly due to their courage and bravery. On the other hand, aren’t all lawyers sworn to uphold the rights of their clients? The inclusion of such a provision is actually a clear discrimination among lawyers. Because the determination of competent and incompetent lawyers not only undermines the credibility of competent lawyers, but also puts the most sound opinions under the microscope of pessimism. On the other hand, since internationally, the criminal procedure laws of countries are one of the main