Supreme Court

Iran’s Supreme Court, the Divan-e Ali-ye Keshvar, has a constitutional mandate to supervise correct application of the law, ensure uniform judicial procedure, and perform additional duties assigned by legislation. The name should therefore be understood through these specified functions rather than assumptions drawn from another country’s highest court. s1

The constitution places appointment of its chief with the head of the judiciary, after consultation with Supreme Court judges, for a five-year term. The chief must be a mujtahid: a scholar qualified to exercise independent reasoning in Islamic jurisprudence. This qualification situates the office within the Islamic legal character of the constitutional system. s1

Cassation, called farjam in Persian legal usage, tests a judgment against governing legal standards. The Civil Procedure Code defines it in terms of conformity with statutory law and Islamic legal standards. It separately specifies which first-instance and appellate decisions qualify. A provincial appeal does not therefore create an unrestricted further entitlement to Supreme Court review. s2

The criminal code assigns specified serious cases to Supreme Court cassation, including judgments concerning offences carrying death or life imprisonment and political or press offences. Eligibility follows statutory categories rather than simply dissatisfaction with a lower judgment. s3

The court also works beyond individual cassation cases. Article 471 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides a general-assembly procedure where differing interpretations produce conflicting judgments in similar matters. The resulting majority interpretation is binding in comparable cases under the article’s terms. This is a mechanism for legal consistency across the judiciary. s4

Different routes serve different purposes

Individual cassation and general-assembly interpretation are distinct functions. The arrows describe legal review and interpretive authority, not appointment or administrative reporting.

Final judgments can also encounter exceptional reopening procedures. Articles 474–476 address specified grounds for reopening criminal convictions, while Article 477 creates a separate route involving the judiciary head’s finding of manifest incompatibility with Islamic law. These mechanisms should not be confused with ordinary appeal. s4

Institutional authority alone does not demonstrate effective protection of defendants. Human Rights Watch’s review of events in 2025 reported deeply unfair criminal proceedings, including reliance on torture-tainted confessions. Such reporting supplies a necessary practical context, although it is not a statistical assessment of every Supreme Court chamber or decision. s5