Explanation and Critique the Arguments of the Opponents of Public Holding Criminal Trials

Despite the fact that, in terms of basics, holding public trials as an important tool for monitoring and realizing a fair trial can guarantee a transparent trial and visible justice, but the fact is that this issue has opponents for various reasons that cause The objective establishment and realization of this principle is still one of the preoccupation and obsession in the legal systems. According to the opponents of holding public trials, the objective and real realization of this principle, first of all, requires the creation of theoretical discussions and the resolution of its possible ambiguities and conflicts with some legal principles and possibly some other principles known in the Collection of human rights. according to this, The importance of examining the legal bases and principles of proceedings that are considered contrary to the principle of public trials, is that by identifying and evaluating them, in addition to solving the mental concerns of those involved in the matter, which undoubtedly affects their performance as well, The truth and legitimacy of this principle is becoming more visible. In this regard, This article is written with the purpose of explaining and criticizing the opinions of the opponents of public trial and with descriptive-analytical method. The findings indicate that the reference of these some people to the contradiction of holding public trials with some legal basics and some procedural principles does not seem justified. Although perhaps regarding some issues, this adverse effect cannot be completely removed from the principle of public trials, but on the other hand, It can never be done by resorting to it create an obstacle in the way of public criminal trials.