In wartime conditions, the question of respect for human rights is always raised as one of the fundamental challenges. It is a challenge in which the boundary between security necessities and human rights obligations becomes extremely narrow and slippery. Historical experience has shown that in times of crisis, states are more inclined than ever to expand sovereign powers and restrict individual freedoms. Within this framework, principles such as proportionality, necessity, and legality of restrictions are recognized as essential criteria for evaluating state actions. One important and contested example in this regard is the arrest of individuals who record and publish images of strike locations, war damage, or the consequences of attacks. This issue is important not only from a security perspective, but also from the standpoint of freedom of expression, the right of access to information, and the public’s right to monitor government performance, and for that reason it requires legal analysis.

Before addressing the substance of the question of whether filming strike sites can serve as grounds for arrest, it is necessary to refer to the limits and legal foundations of pretrial detention in the Iranian legal system, especially under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Pretrial detention, as the most severe criminal precautionary measure, may be applied only in exceptional circumstances and with observance of specific rules. These include the existence of sufficient evidence supporting the accusation, the necessity of preventing flight or collusion, preservation of evidence, or prevention of repeated offense. In addition, the principle of proportionality requires the judicial authority to choose the least harmful measure among the available precautionary measures and to resort to pretrial detention only if other measures are insufficient. This order must also be documented, reasoned, and subject to appeal, and it must be issued under the supervision of an independent judicial authority. With this introduction, the main question is whether the mere filming of strike locations, without supplementary elements such as criminal intent or an effective connection to criminal conduct, can possess such a level of seriousness and danger as to justify resorting to pretrial detention. Within the framework of the fundamental principles of criminal law, including the principle of legality of crimes and punishments and the principle of narrow interpretation of criminal laws, the answer to this question is negative. The mere commission of an act such as filming, without establishing the other constituent elements of a crime and without explicit legal designation of that act as criminal, cannot serve as a legitimate basis for deprivation of liberty. On the other hand, the distinction between reporting and acting against national security must be made precisely and on the basis of clear standards, not on the basis of broad and opaque interpretations. Otherwise, there is a risk that the tool of pretrial detention, which by nature must remain exceptional and limited, will become an instrument for controlling and restricting the legitimate freedoms of citizens.

In the Iranian legal system, dealing with conduct such as filming strike locations is generally analyzed within the framework of broad and interpretable categories of crimes against national security. In recent years, and especially following developments arising from the 12-day war, the legislature, by passing regulations under the title of intensifying the punishment for espionage and related crimes, has noticeably expanded the scope of criminal intervention in this field. This law, which is now cited as one of the legal foundations for the actions of law enforcement agents and judicial authorities, has, by expanding concepts related to intelligence cooperation, data transfer, and communication with foreign media or institutions, created the ground for broader interpretations. From the perspective of criminal law, however, one of the fundamental challenges of this law is the generality and ambiguity of some of its key concepts. This conflicts with the principle of legality of crimes and punishments, as well as with the necessity of clarity and certainty in criminal laws. Moreover, expanding the range of prosecutable conduct and increasing the level of punishments without offering precise criteria for distinguishing between conduct that genuinely disrupts national security and acts that fall within fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and access to information has increased the risk of arbitrary and unpredictable responses. In such conditions, the role of judicial interpretation gains special importance, but when that interpretation takes place in a context of vague and expansive concepts, the possibility of guaranteeing justice in the implementation of the law is reduced. On the other hand, heavy reliance on these general frameworks, together with the active role of security institutions in the process of detection and prosecution, has led to the weakening of some fair trial guarantees, including the principle of impartiality and the right to an effective defense.

In the concrete analysis of this phenomenon, referring to examples reported in the media can clarify its practical dimensions and legal consequences. In cases recently reflected in the media sphere, including reports of the arrest of citizens in provinces such as Khuzestan, Qazvin, and Tehran for sending images to foreign media outlets, or the publication of videos of confessions by detained individuals in cities such as Shirvan and Ahvaz, a relatively similar pattern can be observed. First, the arrest is announced by reference to broad security-related titles, without providing precise details of the material and mental elements of the crime, and then confessions are broadcast in which the detained person admits to media cooperation or providing information, while the conditions under which these statements were obtained, access to counsel, and the legal status of the case remain shrouded in ambiguity. Even in another example, reports indicating the arrest of persons because of activities attributed to their relatives, including a case in which a minor’s membership in opposition groups led to the arrest of his mother, show an expansion of the scope of criminal responsibility in a way that conflicts with the principle of the personal nature of punishments. From a legal perspective, these practices contain several fundamental flaws. First, broadcasting confessions before a final judgment violates the presumption of innocence and is contrary to fair trial standards, because it pushes public opinion in advance toward presuming guilt. Second, the lack of transparency regarding the conditions under which these confessions were recorded, including the very strong possibility of psychological pressure or restricted access to counsel, severely undermines their credibility as evidentiary material. Third, in many of these cases, the line between reporting and criminal conduct is drawn so ambiguously that virtually any independent media activity may be exposed to a security-based interpretation. Finally, the use of these confessions in media programs goes beyond the judicial process and becomes a tool for shaping the official narrative and creating general deterrence. From the perspective of criminal law and human rights, especially in light of the principle of impartiality and the independence of the adjudicating authority, this is highly doubtful and subject to serious criticism.

Overall, it can be said that criminal treatment of conduct such as filming attack sites, points of impact, or sending such images, when carried out on the basis of broad and interpretable categories, is incompatible with recognized standards of criminal law. In conditions where the boundary between recording and transmitting field information and conduct bearing the criminal character of acting against security is not drawn precisely and clearly, the ground is created for differing and sometimes expansive interpretations, and this can challenge the principle of transparency and foreseeability of the law. In such a context, broadcasting media confessions of individuals detained in this field and presenting one-sided narratives before judicial examination is not compatible with the requirements of impartiality and independence in the judicial process and may affect public perception of judicial justice. The continuation of this situation, instead of helping to clarify the boundary between the fundamental rights of citizens and criminal intervention, in practice leads to the consolidation of a pattern of adjudication in which substantive conclusions are largely formed before the judicial process has been fully completed. In such a framework, judicial proceedings are interpreted and carried out less as an arena for the impartial evaluation of evidence and the guarantee of balance between prosecution and defense, and more in line with overarching state approaches in the field of security. This, especially in cases whose subject matter is in some way tied to security or political issues, causes the function of the court as an independent and impartial authority to face practical challenges. As a result, the issue is not limited merely to a few specific instances of filming, but rather returns to the way criminal policy in this field is organized and implemented; a sphere in which reliance on broad and interpretable categories, together with pre-formed orientations, creates the conditions for expanding the scope of criminal intervention and moving away from precise standards of fair trial.