A fundamental pillar of the criminal justice process—from the detection of crime to adjudication, sentencing, and enforcement—is the necessity of sufficient evidence, whether circumstantial indicators or concrete proof, to attribute criminal responsibility to the accused. This requirement is grounded in the fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of Islamic law, international human rights instruments, and constitutional frameworks, including the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, despite this imperative, the latter part of Article 65 of Iran’s Code of Criminal Procedure explicitly authorizes prosecutors to initiate proceedings against individuals accused of crimes against internal or external security without requiring any supporting evidence, thereby violating the presumption of innocence. Given that various provisions of the Code necessitate sufficient evidence for post-indictment measures—especially those concerning deprivation of liberty and intrusions into the privacy of the accused—prosecutors and judicial authorities, despite possessing legal authorization to initiate prosecution, lack discretion in implementing such restrictive measures without evidence. Through a qualitative descriptive-analytical examination of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this article confirms the hypothesis that the prosecutor’s discretionary power in such cases is unfounded. The imperative to safeguard individual rights and liberties necessitates prompt legislative revision—a matter that must be duly addressed by lawmakers.