“In the scene of conflict, if he had a spear in his hand, his hand must be broken. If he had a spear in his hand, it would have caused fear and terror, and he would have wielded it, at that moment you must break his leg with a pen.”

This is an oral order issued by Ghasem Rezaei, the deputy commander of the Islamic Republic’s Law Enforcement Force, to the security police of Tehran in December 2020. He, who inspects the results of the Tehran Security Police’s operations in arresting individuals referred to as “thugs and hooligans”, explicitly asks the present commanders at the scene in front of the cameras of reporters to physically confront these individuals and beat them so that their hands and feet are broken and “half of their body is paralyzed”. He then warns the commanders that if they deviate from this order, they will be the ones responsible for explaining why the arrested person was detained without any injuries or broken limbs.

This explicit statement from the replacement of the commander-in-chief of the Islamic Republic’s law enforcement forces is enough to show that concerns about the illegal actions of police officers towards detainees and suspects are not only unfounded, but also completely justified and logical. Because when senior police commanders openly speak about the necessity of physically harming suspects in front of television cameras, one can guess what crimes are taking place in secret and in police detention centers.

The rights of the accused are only for those who abide by the law!

The rights of the accused are only for citizens who abide by the law and the rights of other citizens.

This is the most common response given by senior commanders of the Islamic Republic’s law enforcement forces in most cases when responding to questions from reporters or requests from human rights activists and lawyers about the need to respect the rights of suspects and detainees by police officers. A prominent example of this claim is the statement made by Ghasem Rezaei, deputy commander of the Basij in December 2020. In response to a reporter’s reaction to his unlawful verbal orders and his emphasis on the need to protect the rights of suspects, he had said: “A suspect has rights as long as they respect the rights of others.”

Other senior commanders of the law enforcement forces have repeatedly emphasized the need for police to respect the rights of suspects in response to requests from the police to respect the law and the rights of others. They have especially highlighted the importance of respecting the rights of women and girls in cases of aggressive behavior by members of the morality police towards them due to mandatory hijab laws, and have made it a condition for police to respect the rights of these women and girls.

The inaccuracy of this statement is undeniable both from a legal and logical perspective. The rights of the accused, as the name suggests, belong to the accused; meaning individuals who, for any reason, are accused of committing a crime from the perspective of the social order (police and judicial system) and at the same time, there is a possibility of their innocence. In simpler terms, individuals who may have been involved in a criminal act, but there is also a possibility of their innocence. It is clear that not all citizens are accused and only those who have possibly violated the law or the rights of other citizens are placed in this group; meaning exactly those individuals who police commanders, based on their alleged lawbreaking, seek to protect and defend their rights.

In this regard, as an example, Article 7 of the Criminal Procedure Law, approved in 2013, has obligated all judicial officers, including law enforcement officers, to respect the citizenship rights of individuals in carrying out their legal duties, particularly in regards to the law on respecting legitimate freedoms and preserving citizenship rights, approved in 2004, which has identified the rights that this law recognizes for suspects and specifies the manner in which the police should deal with them. According to this law, any acts of violence against suspects, including insults, humiliation, physical abuse, and the use of force in non-essential situations, are prohibited.

Of course, it cannot be accepted that senior law enforcement commanders in Iran are unaware of the legal statements in this regard or are not aware of the logical flaw in the claim. They explicitly state that the recognized rights in the law for citizens in Iran are only accepted for the police force when citizens are obedient and law-abiding.

This statement can be interpreted as part of a policy to create fear and terror among citizens. It is a combination of threats, warnings, and instilling fear in society to encourage citizens to obey the law. This is because in such a situation, citizens are well aware, based on the explicit language of police commanders and their past actions, that if they deviate from what is recognized as the law (many laws in Iran are neither customary nor just), they will face a law enforcement agency that does not feel obligated to abide by the law and instead interprets it in their own way. In such a state of lawlessness, it is clear that the lives and property of citizens are at great risk from the police, and citizens are constantly under the threat of danger.

The use of phrases such as “the police have no tolerance for lawbreakers”, “the role of the police is to defend the rights of law-abiding citizens”, or “the police do not give lawbreakers a chance” is also in line with this, to show that at least for senior police commanders in Iran, the legal rights of citizens in the position of suspects are not only not valued, but their disregard is explicitly declared as a threat to society by the police.

The punishment of the criminal at the scene of the crime.

One of the most dangerous and completely illegal practices of the police in Iran is the promotion and implementation of the belief that since criminals deserve punishment for their crimes, it is the duty (and even kindness) of the police to punish and discipline them for their criminal activities. Qasem Rezaei, the deputy commander of the police, recently (September 1401) in this regard, simultaneously with the launch of special police patrols in Tehran to combat violent crimes, especially mugging, said: “Special police patrols can discipline norm-breakers on the scene based on legal authorities.”

The practical approach of the police in dealing with individuals who are referred to as “thugs and hooligans,” especially with the arrival of Ahmad Reza Radan as the commander of Tehran’s law enforcement in 2006, is an example of this police approach; completely disguised officers who, at night, would attack the homes of “thugs and hooligans” under the pretext of being police and, after arresting them while their hands were tied, would brutally beat them. The images released by the police themselves, with the aim of instilling fear and terror, show the disguised officers throwing themselves on top of one person and, while their hands are tied, beating them with fists, kicks, or batons.

At the same time, police commanders, especially Ahmadreza Radan, in response to criticisms of the brutal and unlawful actions of these individuals, referred to them as criminals who deserve punishment, and the police, in accordance with their duty and for the defense of society, deals with them. It seems that enforcing punishment is the duty of the police and the legal punishment for “villains and thugs” is to be physically punished.

Qasem Rezaei, the deputy commander of the police, also in response to a journalist’s warning about the obligation to respect the rights of the accused by the police in response to the order to beat violent criminals by Qasem Rezaei, referred to these individuals as “combatants” and emphasized the necessity of punishing them.

This police approach is based on two completely wrong assumptions: that the police are responsible for enforcing punishments and that the punishment for a criminal is the same thing that the police carry out. However, according to the law, police officers are judicial officers who are only authorized to act under the supervision of a judicial authority against the rights of citizens (violation of freedom due to detention or invasion of privacy due to surveillance). The legislator has not considered a judicial position or even close to it for officers in any of the relevant laws in Iran. The police, as judicial officers, are obedient to the orders of the judicial authority and even in carrying out their duties to combat visible crimes, they are subject to a legal framework clearly defined in the relevant laws. This means that the police not only do not have the authority to enforce punishments, but their intervention as judicial officers is conditional and subject to the permission of the judicial authority in non-visible crimes and performance based on laws in visible crimes.

On the other hand, it must be known that the police, in addition to not having the authority to impose punishment, also do not have the permission to judge. Imposing punishment without proving the commission of a crime in a valid court and based on a fair judicial process (judgment) is explicitly against the laws (Article 36 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic) as well as the fundamental principles of legal science and basic principles of human rights. Therefore, even if the accusation against a detained individual is deemed correct by the police in visible crimes, proving the commission of the accusation must be done in court and by the judicial authority after the judicial process.

Transparency of internal laws in Iran (the Constitution of the Islamic Republic and the Criminal Procedure Code, approved in 2013) in terms of the necessity of police compliance with laws and respect for the rights of citizens, especially suspects and individuals detained by the police, leaves no doubt that the performance of the law enforcement command in the Islamic Republic of Iran is deliberately and knowingly violating the laws, and if we do not say with the consent of the judicial system, it is at least carried out with the knowledge of the judicial power and authority.

The main concern still remains; because if this police behavior is in public view, what crimes are happening in hidden detention centers?