The Duties and Limits of the Prosecutor in Pursuing and Protecting Public Rights

Abstract

Public rights constitute a central component of the legal order and encompass collective interests whose protection cannot always depend on individual complaints or private litigation. In the Iranian legal system, the prosecutor occupies an important position in safeguarding such rights because prosecutorial responsibilities extend beyond the conventional function of pursuing criminal offenses and include preventive, protective, supervisory, coordinative, and restorative dimensions. This study examines the duties and limits of the prosecutor in pursuing and protecting public rights, with particular attention to the legal boundaries governing prosecutorial intervention. The analysis shows that legitimate prosecutorial functions may include preventive action against imminent threats to collective interests, initiation and conduct of criminal proceedings when violations constitute offenses, cooperation with specialized administrative and regulatory bodies, and pursuit of remedial measures aimed at stopping continuing harm and restoring affected public interests. At the same time, prosecutorial intervention must remain subject to the principles of legality, proportionality, fair trial, institutional competence, separation of powers, and differentiation between prosecution, investigation, and adjudication. The prosecutor should not replace executive or regulatory authorities, create criminal liability where the law has not provided it, or rely on the broad concept of public rights to justify unrestricted interference with individual freedoms or institutional autonomy. The study further identifies major challenges, including ambiguity in the concept of public rights, fragmented legislation, overlapping institutional jurisdictions, insufficient specialization, resource limitations, inconsistent prosecutorial practices, and possible political or economic pressures. It concludes that effective protection of public rights requires an active but legally constrained prosecutorial model supported by clearer statutory rules, stronger interinstitutional coordination, specialized expertise, transparent prioritization criteria, and effective mechanisms for reviewing significant prosecutorial measures.