In a classification, rights can be categorized into existing rights and desirable rights. What comes later and is compatible with its time, is desirable rights, and existing rights may not necessarily be compatible with current circumstances. However, what is recognized in society as legal norms and is referenced in courts, is existing rights. We may disagree with the inheritance share that is imposed on women according to civil law. But we cannot deny that what is currently divided as inheritance is the same. I brought this introduction to express that regardless of my personal opinion, there are rules that are currently enforced in Iran in Ordibehesht 1403 (April/May 2024) and I or many others may disagree with all or part of them. Ultimately, the conclusion I want to draw is that even existing rights, meaning constitutional and ordinary laws, are not being observed in regards to the hijab in Ordibehesht 1403, and this repeated and intentional violation of the law has taken the issue

According to Article 32 of the Constitution, “No one can be arrested except by the order and procedure prescribed by law. In case of arrest, the accused must be immediately informed of the charges in writing, with reasons, and within a maximum of twenty-four hours, the preliminary case must be sent to the competent judicial authorities and the necessary preparations for the trial must be made as soon as possible. Violators of this principle will be punished according to the law.”

What is the law regarding hijab?

Earlier in issue 148, I had mentioned an article that disregarded the current law. However, let’s assume that wearing hijab is necessary according to paragraph 638 of the Islamic Penal Code and it must be followed. The punishment for not wearing hijab is 10 days to 2 months imprisonment or a fine of 2 to 10 million rials, which is considered a grade 8 crime according to article 19 of the Islamic Penal Code approved in 2013. Grade 8 includes the lowest level of crimes.

A judicial officer can arrest a suspect if a crime is committed. Are those who are currently arresting people without a police uniform and outside the legal framework considered judicial officers? Based on what criteria? The Criminal Procedure Code of 2013 defines judicial officers (Article 29) and considers the referral of judicial matters to non-judicial officers as a violation of the issuing judicial authority (Article 32). Who has authorized non-judicial officers to arrest unveiled individuals? Also, why are they being transported in various vehicles such as emergency vans or unmarked cars?

Apart from that, according to Article 46 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the officers must immediately inform the prosecutor of the situation. It is reported that the suspects are transferred to non-judicial locations and are released after signing a commitment letter. What is a commitment letter and why should the judicial officers obtain it at the police station? Article 41 of the aforementioned law prohibits any form of security from being obtained from the suspect by the officers.

The writer of these lines received a text message about the confiscation of their car approximately two years ago, when they and their child were returning from the kindergarten. After going to the well-known building of the ministers, it was clearly announced to me that there was no way to file a complaint about the mistake made by the person who reported me for not wearing a hijab in the street, and I had to attend a training session! It was natural that in response, based on the Criminal Procedure Code, the laughter of the respected authorities rose to the air. The training session consisted of gathering me and twenty to thirty other people in a hall next to the ministers’ building, writing down names and taking a few photos, which took about fifteen minutes.

Let’s pass; if I and thousands of others who have been active in the Nor Plan, the Guidance Patrol, and other initiatives were arrested for being accused/criminals over the years, why were we not referred to the judicial authorities? Were we not considered accused and entitled to the rights of the accused? If we were not accused, why were we detained or even arrested? Besides the judicial officer who can act according to their personal discretion, what judicial authority, familiar with the law, judges on the implementation of this important law that introduces a crime that is below level 8, the lowest level of crime and punishment? Does this mean that we have entrusted the judgment to the officer and because we have few officers, we fall into the hands of a group of ordinary people?

What has become clear to me in these years is that they do not consider hijab as a crime and punishable by law. One of the main defenses of mandatory hijab defenders is that it is the law and must be enforced; however, other laws that protect the rights of the accused remain unenforced. In light of the lack of rule of law in the country, my suggestion is that we see the issue of hijab as empty from a legal perspective and understand it not within the framework of law, but within the context of the overall oppression of society and government: a government that has suspended fundamental principles of the constitution and does not enforce many ordinary laws, and devotes a significant portion of its efforts to combating a petty crime, and a society that uses civil disobedience as a weakness of the government, namely hijab.