The last time was in April of this year (1401) when dozens of political prisoners and their families, along with a number of lawyers and human rights activists, for the umpteenth time, wrote a letter to the head of the judiciary and the president in Iran, demanding the independence of the judiciary and “the cessation of control by security institutions”.

The lack of independence of the judicial system and its absolute dependence on the government (specifically its intelligence and security agencies such as the Revolutionary Guards Intelligence Organization and the Ministry of Intelligence) is not a new issue. In fact, the philosophy behind the establishment and continuation of revolutionary courts is based on this dependence. In these courts, the judicial officer is both the prosecutor and the judge who issues the verdict.

The objection of the letter writers to the recent letter is limited to the true rights of citizens against the judicial system and the necessity and obligation of the law. They explicitly criticize the unlimited power and authority of security institutions as judicial authorities in making decisions about the furlough of prisoners in their protest letter, and consider it a clear example of the complete and absolute dependence of the judicial system on these institutions; an authority that has been in place for seventeen years and is still based on the requirement of declaring the opinion and consent of security institutions for granting furlough to a group of prisoners that the Islamic Republic refers to as “security” prisoners.

This authority, however, is not derived from enacted laws, but rather based on an order issued by the Supreme National Security Council in 2006. According to the authors of the April 1982 protest letter, this order was referenced by the Deputy Minister of Justice, the Prosecutor of Tehran, in September of that year, regarding political prisoners. Based on this reference, the Prosecutor of Tehran stated that “according to the resolution 1331/100/D/85/M dated 18/5/1385 by the Supreme National Security Council and the circulars of the General Prosecutor’s Office, obtaining the opinion of the expert in charge of the case (Ministry of Intelligence or Revolutionary Guards Intelligence Organization) is necessary for granting leave to security (political) convicts.”

However, the main question here is that despite the clarity of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic regarding the independence of the judiciary and the necessity of using established laws to deal with convicts of legitimate courts, what is the current position of the relevant laws in general and the involvement of the Supreme National Security Council in the furlough of “security” prisoners?

Prisoner leave; What do the laws in Iran say?

Although until now, the laws in Iran explicitly referred to prisoners’ furlough as a “privilege” rather than a “right”, this clarity has changed in the reform laws (Criminal Procedure Code and the Executive Regulations of the Prison and Correctional Organization). This change in clarity does not necessarily mean recognizing furlough as a “right” for prisoners, but rather the legislator has changed the language and tone of their laws in order to reduce internal and international pressures on human rights.

In this regard, Article 520 of the Criminal Procedure Code considers parole for prisoners only possible if they have followed the rules and regulations of the prison and especially participated in rehabilitation and educational programs and earned the necessary “privileges”. According to this article, only by earning the necessary privileges can a prisoner be granted parole; therefore, according to the legal system and law in Iran, parole is still considered a privilege, not a right. The Executive Regulations of the Prisons and Correctional Measures Organization, approved in 2021, also refer to parole for prisoners as a “legal agreement” and make it conditional upon earning privileges.

In the current laws of Iran, the lack of recognition of furlough for prisoners as a right for them (despite the implemented reforms) is while in many judicial systems, human rights principles have forced legislators to recognize fundamental rights of prisoners, including furlough, as non-negotiable and non-waivable rights and distance themselves from the system of privileges.

In this system, since the right to furlough is recognized as a fundamental right, it can only be restricted and prohibited if it conflicts with other fundamental human rights; meaning that the right to furlough of a prisoner can only be limited if it directly threatens their right to life or the rights of others, the right to security (with a narrow interpretation in favor of the accused), or the administration of justice and puts it at risk.

On the other hand, since according to the teachings and principles of criminal law, the main reason for separating criminals from society is to preserve the security of the community, in cases where this security is not endangered by temporary freedom (parole) of the prisoner, it is the right of the prisoner to benefit from parole and spend a short time renewing their social relationships, especially with their family, outside of the prison environment.

In this regard, the set of minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners, adopted by the United Nations Economic and Social Council, with reference to the harsh conditions in prisons for all prisoners, calls on all judicial systems to refrain from inflicting additional suffering on prisoners, especially through unnecessary separation and deprivation. These standards explicitly address the issue of classification and scoring mechanisms in prisons, limiting their use to only two issues: classification based on the type of crime and age of prisoners, and scoring for services separate from the fundamental rights of prisoners.

On the other hand, the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly on the fundamental principles for the treatment of prisoners clearly prohibits any discrimination in access to and participation in cultural and educational programs (including furlough) that help with the rehabilitation of prisoners. It is evident that the legal restrictions imposed on prisoners in the relevant laws of Iran to access furlough (especially for those considered security prisoners) are in direct conflict with this fundamental principle.

The recent efforts of the judiciary in Iran to remove a provision from the previous regulations of the Prisons and Security Measures Organization, in which the right to furlough for prisoners was explicitly recognized as a “privilege” rather than a right, could also be seen as a superficial attempt to escape criticism of human rights violations and international pressure resulting from the denial of furlough for prisoners.

At the same time, according to Article 184 of the Executive Regulations of the Prisons and Correctional Measures Organization of the country, approved in Ordibehesht 1400, prisoners convicted of espionage and actions against internal and external security (known as the crime of acting against national security) are still not allowed to use their furlough rights, except with the explicit consent of the prosecutor. This means that prisoners accused of these crimes are not considered in the usual scoring and classification process for furlough, and in practice are deprived of this right.

Apart from the discriminatory nature of this law, the main problem here is that the scope of crimes against national security (covered in Articles 498 to 512 of the fifth book of the Islamic Penal Code) is so broad, general, and subjective that it can encompass any action; especially since they are legally handled in courts (revolutionary courts) where the rights of the accused, particularly the right to access a lawyer and the right to a fair trial and the right to present a defense, are easily and extensively violated. Therefore, proving the charge itself is problematic, let alone using it as a means for further discrimination.

However, apart from the right or privilege of knowing about furlough for prisoners, the notable point is that even in current laws in Iran where furlough is still considered a privilege, security institutions do not have a role or duty as judicial authorities.

According to Article 489 of the Criminal Procedure Code, passed in 2013, the decision to grant furlough to prisoners is solely the responsibility of the judicial authority (the judge of criminal enforcement). This law does not recognize any role for security institutions as judicial authorities in the decision-making process for granting furlough to prisoners. Even in the latest version of the Executive Regulations of the Prisons and Correctional Measures Organization, passed in April 2021, security institutions (intelligence and security agencies) do not have the authority to participate in the decision-making process for granting furlough to prisoners. The only security entity present in the Classification Council (the decision-making body for determining the eligibility of prisoners for furlough, chaired by the judge of criminal enforcement) is the prison protection unit, which operates under the supervision of the Judiciary’s Information Protection Agency.

On the other hand, the only authority to make decisions about judicial convicts is the judicial system, and the independence of this system (emphasized in the constitution) legally dictates that no other institution, such as the Supreme National Security Council, be allowed to interfere in it; let alone determine the process of utilizing their rights.

Another important point that should be noted is that the Supreme National Security Council has delegated the decision-making process regarding the furlough rights of “Aminis prisoners” (prisoners accused of crimes against national security) to security institutions in the role of judicial authorities, who themselves have played a key role in the conviction of these prisoners. Revolutionary courts are fully under the control of these institutions and only issue verdicts for convicts based on their requests.

Therefore, it is clear that granting decision-making authority regarding the right to leave for these prisoners to security institutions is completely against the principles of judicial impartiality and justice, and is merely a way to exert more pressure on journalists, civil activists, political, labor, human rights activists, and any citizen who is considered a critic of the Islamic Republic system.