Confession in criminal law represents a highly important means of proof; however, it raises fundamental problems relating to the protection of the accused's rights and the guarantee of fairness in criminal proceedings. This study addresses the challenges facing confession in Iraqi and Iranian criminal law, as two systems belonging to the Romano-Germanic legal tradition, with a clear influence of Islamic jurisprudence in the formulation of their procedural rules. The research problem stems from the paradox between the great evidentiary value that the legislator grants to confession and the practical risks that threaten its freedom and integrity, such as coercion, torture, promises, and entrapment, in addition to emerging challenges associated with confession in cybercrimes and confessions obtained through technical means. The study adopted the comparative analytical method, by analyzing the legal texts in force in both countries, studying doctrinal and judicial trends, and comparing them with international human rights standards. The study concluded that the Iraqi legislator, despite surrounding confession with considerable procedural guarantees in the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 23 of 1971, practical application has revealed gaps in judicial oversight over the preliminary investigation stage, particularly in light of the persistence of cases of torture and coercion. By contrast, the Iranian legislator, in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 2013, established an explicit prohibition of confessions obtained under coercion, while affirming the principle of freedom of will; however, the challenge remains regarding extra-judicial confessions and the broad authority of the public prosecution. Accordingly, the study recommends strengthening the principle of the voluntary freedom of confession, activating prior judicial oversight, prohibiting reliance on confessions extracted under coercion, and benefiting from international standards in this regard.