A Comparative Study of the Principle of Equal Equipment in Iranian Civil Procedure and US Federal Rules

Today, the right to a fair trial is recognized as a fundamental right. Hence, procedural systems try to design their own rules and structures so that they can conduct proceedings fairly. But since justice is qualitative and non-objective, so measuring the fairness of the proceedings is not easy. In recent years, a theory has been developed to measure the fairness of the proceedings, which believes that the level of fairness can be measured by assessing the equality of the parties in accessing the equipment necessary for procedure and equality in the law they apply and equal in the outcome of similar caeses. The hearing was evaluated quantitatively. Equal equipment In the sense of equality of arms between the parties involved in access to the equipment necessary for a fair hearing, it is inevitable and fair to observe it as a principle. In securing equal equipment litigants are the most appropriate person to defend their right to reject the claim of the other party and to conduct a fair hearing. The concept and position of the principle of equal equipment have been accepted the American and Iranian judicial systems and have been envisaged to enforce a number of institutions in the laws of justice. The study of the effect of this principle on the fairness of the proceedings and the efficiency of the institutions envisaged along with the identification of the institutions in other legal systems necessitated the present comparative study.