Guarantees of terrorism crimes accused’s citizenship rights in investigation process: a comparative study on Iranian, English and Egyptian legal system

Terrorist crimes are not a new concept in the legal literature. However, due to the tragedies that took place, especially the events of September 11, 2001, it has received special attention in the field of international law. One of the important effects of combating these crimes is the dominance of securitism over fair judgment, which in the light of this approach, governments prefer to prosecute perpetrators of terrorist acts outside the rules of international law. Therefore, in this regard, the citizenship rights of the accused are endangered.  Therefore, the solution is contrary to the security-oriented approach. However, the violation of the citizenship rights of those accused of terrorist crimes and the discriminatory trial based on the violation of principles do not lead to the guarantee the security. As terrorist incidents spread in today's world. A review of the principles of criminal law, the constitutions of various countries and numerous international human rights conventions shows the need to respect the citizenship rights of all defendants. Our aim in this article is to consider and study these rights and their guarantees - by the method of description and analysis - in the stage of investigation with a comparative study of Iranian, British and Egyptian law and the result is that the rights of the accused in international conventions and the Constitutions has been explicitly guaranteed and the inalienable principles of criminal law also confirm this, so the violation of citizenship rights under the pretext of combating terrorism is not acceptable.