The first legal draft related to acid attacks was passed in February 1959. This law stipulates that “anyone who intentionally causes the death of someone by spraying acid or any other chemical compounds will be sentenced to death. If the victim suffers permanent disability or loss of one of their senses, the perpetrator will be sentenced to first degree criminal imprisonment (15 to 25 years). If the victim suffers amputation, impairment, or loss of function of any of their body parts, the perpetrator will be sentenced to second degree criminal imprisonment (2 to 10 years). If the victim suffers any other injury, the perpetrator will be sentenced to second degree criminal imprisonment (2 to 5 years). The punishment for attempting to spray acid on someone is second degree criminal imprisonment (2 to 5 years). In all cases mentioned in this article, if Article 44 of the General Penal Code is applied, no more than one degree of reduction will be granted.”

After the revolution, there was no specific law regarding the crime of acid throwing, and according to Consultative Opinion No. 3437/7 issued in August 2003 by the Legal Affairs Department of the Judiciary, the first part of the bill on punishment for acid throwing, approved in 1959, was declared null and void due to the abolishment of Islamic Punishment Law. However, the last part of the bill and the punishment itself remained in effect.

Article 289 of the Islamic Penal Code, passed in 2013, also states: “Crime against life, limb, and benefit is divided into three categories: intentional, semi-intentional, and pure negligence.” Article 381 of this law also states: “The punishment for intentional murder, if requested by the victim’s guardian and under the conditions specified in the law, is retribution, and otherwise, it is dealt with according to other articles of the law, in terms of blood money and retaliation.” Therefore, if acid throwing leads to the death of the victim, the perpetrator will be sentenced to retribution, but if it causes physical harm or disability, the perpetrator will be sentenced to retaliation against the limb. In this regard, Article 386 of the Penal Code states: “The punishment for intentional crime against a limb, if requested by the victim or their guardian and under the conditions specified in the law, is retaliation, and otherwise, it is dealt with according to the law

According to articles 560 and 388 of the Islamic Penal Code, in terms of compensation for bodily harm, a man and a woman are equal until the point where the woman’s compensation reaches one third of the full compensation, in which case the woman’s compensation will be reduced by half. Therefore, if the victim of an acid attack is a woman and she becomes blind, since the compensation for two eyes is equal to one full compensation, her compensation will be reduced by half and during retribution, the woman must pay half of the compensation to the man.

Article 393 of the Islamic Penal Code has considered six conditions for retribution of a member: “A- The place of the member subject to retribution must be the same as the location of the crime. B- The retribution must be equal to the severity of the crime. C- There should be no fear of causing death or injury to another member. D- The retribution of a healthy member should not be against an unhealthy member. E- The retribution of a primary member should not be against a secondary member. F- The retribution of a complete member should not be against an incomplete member.”

Naturally, such difficult conditions make it impossible to carry out retribution in the case of acid attacks; because retribution must be carried out through the act of throwing acid, and the liquid nature of acid makes it possible for it to spread to other body parts and cause more harm than the crime itself. Additionally, the concentration of acid used in the crime, the distance, method, and intensity of throwing it, and even the condition of the victim and perpetrator, create different effects that cannot be reciprocated in retribution for the victim.

With these explanations and considering that after the revolution, the punishment for acid attacks has been in the form of retribution and as mentioned, the execution of such punishment is practically impossible, and the punishment for this crime according to Article 614 of the Islamic Penal Code is 2 to 5 years of imprisonment and in case of the victim’s request, it will be converted to payment of blood money, victims can imagine a safe margin for themselves before committing the crime. However, it must be acknowledged that the severity of punishment does not necessarily lead to a decrease in crimes in society; just like in the case of drug crimes where the death penalty is considered, yet we still see drug trafficking happening. But the weakness in this matter is that the punishment considered for acid attackers is not a real punishment, it is a substitute; retribution is not carried out and the punishment currently being implemented is at a lower level in proportion to the crime. Therefore, not only will increasing the punishment not result in fewer

In addition, there is a difference between individual acid attacks that are based on personal disputes or revenge, and organized acid attacks. In the case of organized acid attacks, we cannot even argue that the matter will be resolved through retaliation or imprisonment, and the discussion of retribution, as stated in Article 279 of the Islamic Penal Code, or corruption on earth, as stated in Article 286 of the Islamic Penal Code, is brought up. The reason for this is that when this act is carried out in an organized and widespread manner, it endangers the security of society and causes intimidation among the people.

Article 279 of the Islamic Penal Code defines “combat” as carrying a weapon with the intention of endangering the lives, property, or honor of people or causing insecurity in the environment. If someone carries a weapon with personal motives towards one or more specific individuals and their actions do not have a general nature, or if someone carries a weapon in front of people but does not cause any harm due to their inability, they will not be considered a combatant. Article 286 of the same law also states that anyone who commits crimes against the physical integrity of individuals, crimes against the internal or external security of the country, spreading lies, disrupting the economic system of the country, arson and destruction, spreading toxic and microbial substances, or establishing and assisting in centers of corruption and immorality in a widespread manner that causes severe disruption to public order, insecurity, or major harm to the physical integrity of individuals or public and private property, or leads to the spread of corruption or immorality on a

On the other hand, the issue of acid attacks in Isfahan was also important for officials and we cannot say that they were indifferent towards it. After the incident, executive and judicial authorities took extensive measures to deal with it and were trying to identify and arrest the perpetrators. The President, three ministries of the country, intelligence and judiciary were tasked with following up on this issue. The head of the judiciary sent his deputy to Isfahan, and the prosecutor and judge of Isfahan received special orders from the judiciary to pursue this matter. Security forces from the Ministry of Intelligence, Revolutionary Guards, police and Basij forces were put on high alert and it was expected that with these special security measures and the arrest of perpetrators, the issue would be resolved.

Regarding the reasons for these events, there were two beliefs: the general belief was that it was related to a religious challenge. Public opinion, based on the gatherings and slogans that were raised in these gatherings, often believed that this issue was related to religious extremists and fanatics. However, officials always rejected the hypothesis of a religious and ideological challenge without any evidence, especially in dealing with immodesty. They could only prove this hypothesis by arresting the perpetrators within a limited time frame and handing them over to the law.

The question that arises, given the fact that the perpetrators were not arrested after several months, is whether the authorities were unable to arrest them. In my opinion, it is not the case that if this is true, it is a tragedy; considering that in similar crimes, the criminals were identified and arrested in a short period of time. If we accept that it is not possible for a country with such a large number of forces to arrest the perpetrators, and such a thing does not fit into our rational minds, another issue arises, which is that the possibility of arrest existed and they may have even been identified, but due to possibly being related to religious and ideological matters, it was deemed in the best interest not to introduce them to the public and not to proceed with a trial or to halt the investigation. This is the same issue that has strengthened speculations about public beliefs today.