General Courts

The expression “general courts” needs care in English: it does not describe every Iranian tribunal or a single institution with one address. The Civil Procedure Code makes first-instance jurisdiction subject to exceptions established by other legislation. Its starting rule therefore has to be read alongside laws assigning particular disputes elsewhere. s1

Civil jurisdiction also has a geographic dimension. The defendant’s domicile is a general starting point, while disputes over immovable property ordinarily belong where the property is located. Contractual disputes have additional venue rules. These distinctions explain why identifying the subject of a dispute and identifying the appropriate locality are separate questions. s1

The Criminal Procedure Code gives Criminal Court Two residual criminal jurisdiction: it hears offences unless legislation assigns them to another forum. Criminal Court One handles specified serious offences. Revolutionary courts have a separate statutory remit that includes national-security and drug offences. A general court at district level can exercise Criminal Court Two jurisdiction under the conditions specified in the code. The ordinary criminal structure is therefore more differentiated than the broad label “general courts” suggests. s2

The Dispute Resolution Councils Law adopted in Solar Hijri year 1402 created an important distinction between adjudication and conciliation. It assigns specified civil disputes and criminal matters to peace courts, while councils undertake settlement work. The listed jurisdiction includes certain possession and tenancy disputes and specified less serious offences. s3

A peace court can refer a matter for consensual settlement and proceed to judgment if settlement fails. Consequently, a council’s attempt to reconcile the parties and a court’s binding determination should not be treated as interchangeable activities. Nor should an older description of general-court jurisdiction be assumed to incorporate this reform. s3

The constitution requires reasoned judgments and provides for public trials with stated exceptions. These are formal standards against which proceedings can be assessed. s4 Human Rights Watch’s review of events in 2024 reported serious fair-trial failures, particularly in revolutionary courts, including reliance on potentially coerced confessions. That evidence should not be converted into an unsupported claim that every ordinary civil dispute follows the same pattern. s5

The useful institutional distinction is between the court legally assigned a matter, the procedure it must follow, and evidence about how proceedings actually operate.