Criminal procedure must be coherent and integrated; in the sense that all stages of the criminal process from the crime detection stage to the post-criminal stage must deal with criminal claims in accordance with a single law and rule. Nevertheless, today, under the influence of the achievements of other branches of criminal science, especially criminal policy, a discourse of divisive criminal policy has been proposed, which has caused the overall coherence of criminal procedure to be adjusted and move towards relativity. Thus, all countries in the world, regardless of their ideology and prevailing political system, accept that in the face of some crimes, such as juvenile delinquency or terrorist and security crimes, one must distance oneself from the public justice system and chart a different path; However, this different path in the context of differentiated criminal procedure should not be applied in a way that distorts human rights standards on the one hand and the rights of the three parties to the criminal process on the other. Accordingly, this article examines how theIranian criminal justice system, in the name of responding to crimes and implementing differentiated criminalpolicy, has taken a path that sometimes ignores human rights principles and standards and even violates themin some cases. This is while the criminal procedure discourse in all countries uses differentiation in a positive and conventional direction, making minimal use of it, and placing the principle onpublic justice;Anissuethat Iran's criminal policymakers have moved against, and which has consequencessuch asthecollapse of a fairandjustjudicialsystemandgrossviolation of humanrights.