There is precedent in modern military history for air assaults on prisons. In some cases, such incidents result from operational errors or misfires during broader military campaigns. One of the most tragic examples occurred in May 1999, when NATO launched strikes in response to the Serbian army’s ethnic repression of Kosovar Albanians. Among the multiple targets, the Dubrava prison was hit by missiles. As a direct result, 19 inmates were killed. Surviving prisoners later reported that, following the attack, Serbian guards entered the facility and executed at least 70 more inmates. While NATO claimed the intended targets were military installations near the prison—specifically, the Serbian Republican Guard base—Human Rights Watch emphasized that a full investigation was necessary. In any case, the outcome of NATO’s imprecision and Serbian forces’ brutality was a mass killing of prisoners.

In many instances, missiles have missed their intended targets and struck prisons instead, causing significant casualties. In other cases, military operations have been aimed at freeing prisoners of war or political detainees in occupied countries. For instance, in February 1944, nearly a year before the end of World War II, Allied forces attempted to liberate detainees from the Amiens prison in Nazi-occupied France. Out of 832 prisoners, 102 were killed, 74 injured, and 258 escaped—79 of whom were French resistance members and political prisoners. However, most of the escapees were recaptured, and the only outcome was heavier casualties and stricter prison security for the French Resistance.

Initially, it was claimed that the operation had been requested by the French Resistance. But after that claim was refuted, the motives for the operation came under scrutiny. A 2011 BBC documentary suggested the real aim was to divert Nazi intelligence attention from Normandy, where the Allies were planning their main invasion. Notably, Jewish communities had repeatedly asked the Allies to bomb rail lines to Nazi forced-labor camps—a request that was never honored. In retrospect, it seems clear the Allied powers had little genuine concern for the prisoners and were more focused on weakening the enemy. The prisoners’ lives were treated as expendable assets in the broader balance of power.

By contrast, the bombing of Evin Prison was not an operational error, nor, like the Amiens case, did it result in the liberation of a single prisoner. No ground forces were deployed to support the inmates. The operation directly caused the highest civilian death toll since World War II, and as predicted, made the situation for inmates—especially political prisoners—even more dire. Given these outcomes, the motives behind this tragic event remain unclear.

Based on these historical examples and the recent experience in Iran, it seems that military action targeting prisons only increases the cost borne by prisoners. Today, in addition to those killed directly, political prisoners have lost many of the hard-won gains they had secured over decades in Evin Prison, as they were forcibly transferred to other facilities. However, the tragedy has also shed more light on prison conditions across the country, drawing public attention in Iran to the dangerously overcrowded and inhumane state of most detention centers.

The other side of the conflict has also performed poorly. Almost a month into the sustained wartime conditions, and despite the ceasefire, the threat of renewed conflict remains. This situation has led to widespread public demands for the release—or at least temporary furlough—of prisoners, especially political detainees, in order to protect their lives. Yet the security and judicial apparatuses have not only failed to act, they have violated prisoners’ basic rights during the process of transferring them from Evin to other prisons. This comes at a time when the state, under the pressure of war, should be working to build greater internal social cohesion.

The release of prisoners during wartime is not just a public demand; it is firmly rooted in the legal principles of the Islamic Republic itself. In January 1987 (Dey 1365), the High Council of the Judiciary issued a directive emphasizing the need to protect the lives of prisoners in wartime zones. This directive, which remains in effect, outlines various methods for ensuring inmates’ safety, including transferring them to safer facilities or releasing them on bail. Unlike the eight-year Iran–Iraq War, the recent twelve-day war was not confined to specific regions—rather, the military threat extended to the skies over the entire country. Therefore, transferring prisoners to another facility was effectively unfeasible, making release through bail not only justified but necessary.

These concerns also apply to other categories of prisoners serving sentences through alternative arrangements. Some inmates are in open prison programs—known locally as band-e baz—in which they serve their time under specific conditions. In some parts of the country, these inmates are required to spend their nights in designated dormitories that function as de facto prisons and leave them exposed to similar threats. Additionally, prisoners wearing electronic ankle monitors often endure harsh conditions. Even as Tehran emptied rapidly during the twelve-day war, these individuals were required to remain within tightly restricted zones. While in some provinces the judiciary responded to the crisis by granting temporary leave to such individuals, this policy unfortunately did not become standard practice across the country, despite the standing directive from the High Council of the Judiciary.

Given the ongoing wartime environment, the failure of government security protocols to return to normal, and the very real threat of future atrocities, the judicial and security institutions must act without delay. In response to public demands and using the existing legal framework, they should immediately release prisoners—particularly political prisoners—before further tragedy strikes.