‌‌Context & Objective: Judicial delay stands as one of the most significant initial threats to the philosophical foundation of the judiciary and, consequently, to citizens’ rights. This enduring challenge, which limits access to justice and impedes the full realization of the right to petition/litigation (Article 34 of the Iranian Constitution), has persisted despite efforts to resolve it since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Judicial delay directly impacts the stability and quality of the judiciary, inflicting substantial damage upon citizens' rights, including the foundational right to a fair trial. Furthermore, this phenomenon undermines the core duty of the judiciary, which is defined as handling grievances, resolving disputes, and issuing judgments (Article 156 of the Constitution). Recognizing the high volume of existing studies and data concerning judicial delay and its effect on citizens’ rights, the primary objective of this research is to comprehensively review these previous studies, classify their data, and analyze the causes and solutions from the perspective of citizens' rights. This process aims to achieve a deeper and more integrated understanding than prior research, facilitating the design of more efficient and functional legal remedies for both activists and researchers. The central research question guiding this investigation is: "How have the causes, the relationship between judicial delay and citizens' rights, and the relevant solutions been depicted in past research?".
 ‌Method & Approach: The core analytical technique utilized is Meta-synthesis, a qualitative study approach designed to generate new, deeper, and more comprehensive knowledge by systematically combining the findings and concepts from multiple existing qualitative studies. This method focuses on qualitative synthesis, rather than the quantitative data aggregation of meta-analysis. The researchers applied this method to a statistical population comprising 33 relevant studies (including articles, theses, and conference papers) selected from reputable databases. These sources cover a 20-year period, specifically the solar years 1384 to 1404 (2005–2025), a span chosen because it aligns with the initial emergence of judicial development discourse. The process involved extracting and categorizing the main causes and prescribed solutions from these 33 sources, organizing them systematically into two principal categories: Human Factors and Non-Human Factors.
 ‌Findings: The review of the 33 sources indicated that the largest proportion of studies (64.63%) focused explicitly on examining the causes and solutions for reducing judicial delay. A significant finding relates to the concentration of causes, with Human Factors accounting for over 70% of the identified sources. Within this category, issues related to Judges were the most frequently cited, appearing 68 times across 12 sub-factors. Key human causes of delay included judges' insufficient general experience and knowledge of procedures, inadequate opportunity for handling cases, lack of specialization, and insufficient financial and spiritual support/incentives. Among the Non-Human Factors, Laws and Regulations predominated, cited 26 times. Core non-human causes involved the complexity, multitude, and variety of criminal titles and laws, as well as a lack of attention to technical procedures and formalities during legislative drafting. The suggested solutions largely mirrored the causal analysis, focusing heavily on human resources and procedural reforms. Prominent solutions included extensive in-service training for judges (12 sources), simplifying and adapting procedural regulations (16 sources), and specialized judicial bodies (9 sources). Furthermore, a strong emphasis was placed on cultural and educational activities, especially expanding legal awareness and promoting alternative dispute resolution methods like mediation and arbitration (7 sources).
 ‌Conclusion: Judicial delay is not merely a sign of judicial system inefficiency but a fundamental mechanism that undermines various guaranteed citizens' rights. The analysis demonstrates that delay is the product of a complex network involving structural, legal, and individual factors. Specifically, deficiencies at the agent level (low knowledge, experience, or motivation among judicial staff) combine with structural weaknesses (complex laws, incomplete processes, lack of technology) to reinforce a vicious cycle of delay. To effectively mitigate this issue and reinforce citizens' rights, the findings mandate a comprehensive strategy built upon three intersecting axes: "Empowering Human Resources" (e.g., rigorous training, specialized recruitment, appropriate career advancement and reward structures for judges), "Reforming Laws and Procedures" (e.g., comprehensive legislative review, simplification of rules, and utilizing technological advancements), and "Raising Public and Legal Awareness". The simultaneous and integrated implementation of these reforms is necessary, as relying solely on structural or human efforts is deemed insufficient to solve this complex, multi-faceted problem. Ultimately, sustained action on these fronts is essential for protecting the fundamental rights of citizens—the main victims of judicial delay—and for restoring public trust in the judicial system.