In contemporary international law, the situation of prisoners in conditions of armed conflict is among the areas that has received particular attention within international legal systems. This sensitivity arises from the fact that prisoners, as individuals who are entirely under the authority and control of state institutions, are in practice deprived of any effective means to protect their own lives, health, and human dignity. For this reason, the rules of international humanitarian law, alongside fundamental human rights instruments, establish a set of binding obligations for states to prevent detention from becoming a context for the violation of fundamental human rights. According to these rules, even under the most severe emergency conditions—including war or other exceptional situations—states cannot evade their responsibility to guarantee minimum humanitarian standards for prisoners. The prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment, the guarantee of the right to life, and the protection of individuals’ physical and mental health are among the obligations that are non-derogable under any circumstances. From this perspective, the manner in which states treat prisoners in wartime is not merely an administrative issue related to prison management, but an important معیار for assessing governments’ adherence to fundamental human rights principles and their obligations under international law.

Within the framework of international humanitarian law, particularly in light of the rules set out in the Geneva Conventions and general principles regarding the protection of persons deprived of liberty, states are obligated to treat prisoners humanely and with respect for human dignity at all stages of detention. This obligation is not limited to the prohibition of torture or ill-treatment, but also includes a range of positive measures aimed at preventing threats to prisoners’ lives or health. Ensuring effective access to medical services, providing appropriate sanitary conditions, preventing severe overcrowding in prisons, guaranteeing access to adequate food and basic living necessities, and adopting protective measures against risks arising from military operations are among these responsibilities. In conditions of armed conflict, these obligations acquire heightened importance, as damage to infrastructure, disruption of public services, and increased security risks may directly threaten the health and safety of prisoners. For this reason, states are required to take preventive measures to ensure that prisons are not exposed to direct military خطرات and, where threats intensify, to provide for the transfer of prisoners to safer locations. Transparency in information-sharing, enabling prisoners to maintain contact with their families, and allowing access to independent monitoring are also essential elements in ensuring compliance with these standards.

Despite this relatively clear legal framework, an examination of the performance of the Islamic Republic in recent years shows that there has been a significant gap between the legal obligations set out in international instruments and the actual conditions in prisons. Even prior to the onset of recent military conflicts, numerous reports from prisoners’ families, lawyers, and human rights organizations had documented inadequate conditions in certain prisons. These reports pointed to issues such as severe overcrowding, restricted access to medical services, delays in addressing serious illnesses, and poor sanitary conditions. In such a context, the emergence of wartime conditions and heightened security threats makes the adoption of special protective measures for prisoners even more urgent. However, available evidence and reports indicate that in many cases no transparent or systematic planning has been undertaken to reduce the risks facing prisoners. The continued detention of prisoners in facilities located near sensitive centers or areas that may potentially be targeted by military operations, the lack of clear information regarding the safety status of prisons, and restrictions on families’ access to information about the health and security of detainees are among the issues that have generated serious concern. From the perspective of international law, this situation may be interpreted as a failure to fulfill the state’s positive obligations to protect persons in detention.

Another important factor that must be considered in analyzing the situation of prisoners in wartime is the role of civil society organizations and independent institutions in monitoring prison conditions. In many legal systems, civil society organizations, human rights associations, and relief institutions play a crucial role in monitoring detention conditions, providing support services, and informing the public. The presence of such institutions can contribute to increased transparency, strengthened accountability of state institutions, and a reduction in the likelihood of rights violations against prisoners. However, in Iran, the space for the activity of a significant portion of these institutions has been subject to serious restrictions, and the possibility of independent and continuous monitoring of prison conditions has been severely limited. In a context where the country is facing wartime conditions and the risks associated with them, the absence of such oversight mechanisms can have significant consequences for the safety of prisoners. Particularly during the twelve-day war and within the context of ongoing military conflicts, the lack of transparent reporting and the absence of access for independent institutions to information regarding prison conditions have heightened concerns about the extent to which humanitarian standards are being observed. Under such circumstances, restricting civil society is not merely an issue related to public freedoms, but can directly affect society’s ability to monitor the protection of the fundamental rights of persons deprived of liberty.

Ultimately, an examination of the situation of prisoners in conditions of armed conflict shows that protecting their lives and health is not merely a moral or humanitarian commitment, but a clear legal obligation within the framework of international law. The experience of recent years in Iran indicates that the effective realization of these obligations requires a set of complementary elements, including transparency in policy implementation, effective oversight by independent institutions, free access to information, and the political will to uphold human rights standards even in times of crisis. In the absence of such components, there is a risk that prisoners will become one of the most vulnerable groups during armed conflict—a group that has played no role in the emergence of war and has no effective means of defending its own rights.