Despite the apparent conflict between the republic and Islam, constitutional experts sought to balance these two concepts. Ultimately, however, the disproportionate imbalance between the two concepts and political conservatism in constitutional reform prevented some essentials of democracy, including responding to state crimes, from being enshrined in the constitution and, consequently, legislative and sub-legislative laws. The conceptual realm of state crime is all the harmful behaviors and those violating human rights by the state and its agents. In democracy-based government models, the need to respond to the behaviors is represented with components, such as a good governance model and structural-management reform of the government. In this regard, the system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, by adopting a minimalist approach, recognizes the responsibility only of governmental agents as the responsible private persons and not as an element or legal person of government and, as a result, uses the same common responses to private persons. While it is desirable that responding to state crimes should extend to governmental bodies and agents, as in public acts for legal people. Also, the lack of a competent authority, such as the supreme constitutional court, to respond to state crimes is one of the most important limitations of responding to such crimes. However, to compensate for the shortcomings and limitations of the Iranian legal system in this regard, there are various capacities in the constitution, such as the possibility of revision and modification according to Article 177 of the constitution.