Based on the evidence remaining from ancient times, what has always been a fundamental and eternal question and challenge for humanity is human rights, especially in the form of natural and fundamental rights, namely the “right to life”. The embodiment and tangible manifestation of this right has been the source of other human rights, which can be seen in the social and political movements of the 18th century in North America and Europe. Following these social movements, some social and political movements of the 20th century caused the term “rights” to take on a concrete and tangible meaning in addition to its literal and abstract meaning. After these movements, the concept of “human rights” became more of a personal expression in the form of tangible or existential rights (the right to life) and based on this, the correctness or incorrectness (right and wrong) was judged from a tangible or at least abstract perspective, and thus the identification of the correctness and incorrectness of actions and claims was delegated to the judgment of another

Most theorists and theorists of different schools of thought believe that resorting to the inherent dignity of humans and the principle of equality is necessary for the foundation of rights. Therefore, it is said that the element of inherent dignity is in fact a necessary and sufficient condition for the formation of rights. However, in regards to the position of human life, in various occasions and some human rights documents, this right is referred to as the “right to life”, and in describing and expanding this right, other human rights such as the right to protection against torture, execution, slavery, and imprisonment are also taken into account. Therefore, without a doubt, all fundamental human rights are based on the concept and principle of dignity and inherent value of human life. The Islamic legal-jurisprudential system also emphasizes the need to preserve human dignity and value human values in various ways while confirming this view.

Based on the same religious teachings, the legal-judicial system of Iran, in various regulations, emphasizes the preservation of human dignity and the protection of human life from any form of aggression – even in cases of capital punishment. The highest law governing the relationship between individuals and the government, namely the Constitution, explicitly states in Article 22: “The dignity, life, property, rights, residence, and occupation of individuals are inviolable, except in cases where the law permits.” The Constitution, as a general principle and rule, assumes the non-aggression towards human life, and this ruling is a clear indication that in the event that a person commits an act for which there is permission to harm their life, it is necessary for this matter to be dealt with within the framework of the law and the procedures defined for the implementation of such punishment. In order to emphasize this, specific regulations have been established, such as the Criminal Procedure Code, which outlines the methods for implementing capital punishment and other

In Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the right to human life is explicitly mentioned. In some international documents such as the second chapter of the American Convention on Human Rights of 1969 or the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950, in an effort to describe and expand human rights, the right to life has been considered as the source and foundation of legal rights, such as the right to immunity, which is mentioned in Articles 33, 36, 38, and 39 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This right includes the prohibition of torture, slavery, and other forms of inhumane treatment, so that rulers and law enforcement officials know that the implementation of any punishment or penalty is only justified and supported by the law if it does not violate the right to human life.

These duties and obligations are applicable even in cases of capital punishment, such that if a person commits an act that is punishable by death, no authority has the right to violate their citizenship rights. Citizenship rights are the fundamental and primary rights that are mentioned and agreed upon by most political systems as part of human dignity. In such circumstances, where according to legal statements, no one (even the highest judicial and executive authority of the country) has the right to violate the lives of individuals, and in a situation where the aforementioned memorandum is referred to as a document of judicial security, the clear violation of the defendant’s defense rights and attack on their citizenship rights is a matter for consideration and investigation. In the memorandum under Article 37, it is stated that “judicial security is achieved when the dignity, life, property, and all material and spiritual affairs of individuals are protected against any attack and ensuring such fair security is the responsibility of the judicial branch of power.” Or in Article 19, despite the

From the total of international treaties and domestic laws in the field of human rights, it can be concluded that since the right to life is the most prominent manifestation of natural human rights, the protection of this right and the preservation of its manifestations, including the preservation of human dignity, being free from physical harm (prohibition of torture), prohibition of execution, etc., are among the defined duties of rulers.