Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law

Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law

Brain Reading Technologies and the Violation of Mental Privacy: A Comparative Study of Legal Protections in Iran and the European Convention on Human Rights

Articles in Press

Document Type : scientific research paper

Authors
Hosein Shahbazi 1
morteza fathi 2
1 PhD student in Criminal Law and Criminology at Qom University -Judge
2 Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran
10.22034/law.2025.2068807.1688
Abstract
One of the emerging issues at the intersection of neuroscience and criminal law is the use of brain-reading technologies to discover the truth, detect lies, assess criminal responsibility, or predict the risk of recidivism. These technologies, which have so far been used to a limited extent and primarily with individual consent in judicial proceedings in some European countries such as Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, raise a fundamental question: Does compulsory and non-consensual use of such tools conflict with fundamental human rights, including the right to mental privacy?
In Western legal systems, some ethicists and jurists, to counter these threats, have proposed recognizing a new right termed "mental privacy." However, more cautious viewpoints suggest that this domain can be interpreted and developed within the framework of existing rights, such as the right to privacy, human dignity, and the right to silence, negating the need for creating a separate and independent right.
This article, which adopts an analytical-descriptive method and focuses on the Iranian legal system while also studying the European Convention on Human Rights, seeks to determine whether the existing legal structure – particularly the principles of the Constitution, Criminal Procedure Laws, and legal foundations – possesses the necessary capacity to protect mental privacy and counter the improper applications of neuroimaging technologies. In case legal gaps are identified, it examines what legislative or interpretive approaches should be adopted.
The findings of the research indicate that although existing law in Iran can to some extent protect freedom of thought, the right to silence, and human dignity, these protections are insufficient to address the unique challenges posed by neural data. Therefore, the compulsory use of brain-reading technologies could be considered an instance of probing into thoughts and a violation of mental privacy. Consequently, the explicit recognition and legislation of the "right to mental privacy" in the Iranian legal system, inspired by the experience of countries such as Chile and France, is deemed necessary.
Keywords
اNeurolaw
Mental Privacy
Legal Ethics
Privacy
Freedom of Thought

Subjects

1.        Ghasem, A., Habibzadeh, M. J., & Mousavi Mojab, S. D. (2025). A strategy for resolving the conflict of the right to present evidence in criminal proceedings and the need to protect privacy (A comparative study in French and Iranian law). Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law, (), 1–16. Retrieved from doi: 10.22034/law.2025.2055756.1629 (in Persian)
2.        Khoobiyari, H. (2024). A comparative and critical study of the right to be forgotten in light of international instruments and Iranian law. Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law, 7(23), 127–152. doi: 10.22034/law.2024.2028152.1335 (in Persian)
 
3.        Andorno, R. (2013). Principles of international biolaw: Seeking common ground at the intersection of bioethics and human rights. Bruylant.
4.        Birks, D., & Douglas, T. (2018). Treatment for crime: Philosophical essays on neurointerventions in criminal justice. Oxford University Press.
5.        Catley, :, & Claydon, L. (2015). The use of neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom by those accused of criminal offenses in England and Wales. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 2(3), 510–549.
6.        de Kogel, C. H., & Westgeest, E. J. M. C. (2015). Neuroscientific and behavioral genetic information in criminal cases in the Netherlands. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 2(3), 580–605.
7.        Farah, M. J. (2015). The unknowns of cognitive enhancement. Science, 350(6259), 379–380.
8.        Farahany, N. A. (2012). Incriminating thoughts. Stanford Law Review, 64, 351–408.
9.        Farisco, M., & Petrini, C. (2014). The impact of neuroscience and genetics on the law: A recent Italian case. Neuroethics, 7(2), 195–203.
10.     Glenn, A. L., & Raine, A. (2014). Neurocriminology: Implications for the punishment, prediction and prevention of criminal behaviour. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(1), 54–63.
 
11.     Hafner, K. (2019). The use of neuroimaging in Dutch criminal cases. Dissertation, Maastricht University.
12.     Ienca, M., & Andorno, R. (2017). Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 13(1), 1-19.
 
13.     Ienca, M., et al. (2018). Rights for the age of neurotechnology. Neuron, 100(3), 1–4.
14.     Jackson, J. D. (2009). The effect of human rights on criminal evidentiary processes: Towards convergence, divergence or realignment? Modern Law Review, 68(5), 737–764.
15.     Jackson, J. D., & Summers, S. J. (2012). The internationalisation of criminal evidence. Cambridge University Press.
16.     Lavazza, A. (2018). Freedom of thought and mental integrity: The moral requirements for any neural prosthesis. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 12, 82.
17.     Ligthart, S., et al. (2021). Forensic brain-reading and mental privacy in European human rights law. European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance, 8(3), 195–222.
18.     Mecacci, G., & Haselager, : (2019). Identifying criteria for the evaluation of the implications of brain reading for mental privacy. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(2), 443–461.
19.     Meynen, G. (2017). Neurolaw: Neuroscience, ethics, and law. Springer.
20.     Nadelhoffer, T., & Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2012). Neurolaw and neuroprediction: Potential promises and perils. Philosophy Compass, 7(9), 631–642.
 
21.     Nugent, A. C. (2012). The application of neuroimaging to the understanding of depression. Biological Psychiatry, 71(1), 4–6.
22.     Pardo, M. S. (2006). Neuroscience evidence, legal culture, and criminal procedure. American Journal of Criminal Law, 33(3), 301–337.
23.     Richmond, S. (2012). Brain imaging and the transparency scenario. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 29(2), 150–164.
24.     Rosenfeld, J. : (2018). Detecting concealed knowledge using brain imaging techniques. In Detecting Concealed Information and Deception (p: 287–315). Academic Press.
25.     Ryberg, J. (2017). Neuroethics and criminal justice. In Handbook of Neuroethics (p: 229–242). Springer.
26.     Simpson, J. R. (2012). Neuroimaging in forensic psychiatry. Psychiatric Clinics, 35(4), 885–896
  
Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 22 November 2025