Domestic news agencies have reported the announcement of the “Repentance Verification” guidelines by the head of the judiciary. Although the reason for this announcement is stated as the legitimate and legal establishment of repentance in judicial institutions and its significant role in reforming and educating criminals and preventing the repetition of crimes, it can potentially become a tool for religious authoritarianism to impose further restrictions on freedom of belief, religion, and expression in the country.

The impact of proclamations such as religious freedom in Iran can be summarized in the following cases:

First: Repentance from others’ thoughts.

A look at the materials and contents of this so-called “guideline” reflects the security policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran in dealing with political opponents, which seems to be intended to be implemented this time regarding ideological prisoners and reproduce the same tragic relationships.

The fifth article of this declaration is about how to verify repentance, and includes cases that if used to ensure the repentance of ideological prisoners in the prisons of the Islamic Republic, the outcome may be even more disastrous than the situation of political prisoners in the 1990s for all ideological prisoners and even their fellow inmates outside of prison. As mentioned in sections “T” and “S” of this protocol: “Effective cooperation of the perpetrator in discovering the crime or introducing accomplices or assistants of the crime and commitment to refrain from communication and association with evil individuals, accomplices, and assistants of the crime” are among the cases of verifying repentance. It is obvious that the use of these two sections to verify the repentance of suspects in ideological cases can reproduce the atmosphere of repentance of the 1990s, this time for other ideological thinkers. Introducing accomplices, assistants, refraining from communication and association with an ideological prisoner only means one thing: revealing the names of

Second: Setting the groundwork for apostasy prosecution.

Although Islamic penal law does not explicitly prescribe a punishment for changing one’s religion from Islam to other religions, the constitution allows judges to issue a ruling based on “credible Islamic sources or fatwas” in case of silence in the law. Unfortunately, many of these sources and fatwas consider “execution” as a punishment for apostasy. Although some religious intellectuals have argued in recent years that Islam does not prescribe a punishment for apostasy, there is a possibility that if the judicial system becomes aware of an individual’s change of religion, they may sentence them to a severe punishment, including execution.

The jurists have divided apostates into two types: national apostates and innate apostates, each of which has its own specific religious laws. According to the popular view of the jurists, the punishment for an innate apostate man is death, but a national apostate man is given the opportunity to repent and return to the religion, and if he does not repent, he is killed. A woman, whether national or innate apostate, is not killed, but is imprisoned until she repents. Some jurists believe that even an innate apostate man will not be killed if he repents. In fact, while this method can be used as a tool to force others and those who have left Islam to return and change their beliefs in exchange for avoiding the death penalty, it is also a secondary means of punishing the crime of changing religion and apostasy.

Third: Pressure on minority non-official religious groups to change their beliefs and convictions.

The Constitution of the Islamic Republic, in its twelfth and thirteenth principles, recognizes only Zoroastrians, Jews, and Christians as religious minorities in the country, while withdrawing recognition of Islam and Shia as the official religion. It allows them to hold religious ceremonies within the limits of the law. The Constitution remains silent on the status of other religious minorities, such as Baha’is, Babis, Yazidis, and non-believers – from atheists to other non-believers. This silence has been used as a pretext for persecuting these beliefs and ideologies over the past decades, particularly targeting Baha’is with political and security measures. However, these actions have not come without consequences for the Islamic Republic on the international stage, often leading to criticism and condemnation from human rights organizations and international bodies. It seems that proclamations such as repentance guidelines can be used as a tool to force believers of these religious minorities to renounce their beliefs and express regret and

Fourth: The psychological and spiritual intimidation of society is ongoing.

What should not be overlooked in this matter is the perception of society towards this process. The history of the Islamic Republic in suppressing critics and the methods of the ruling system in dealing with security cases, including forcing confessions and coercing them into forced interviews, has created the perception in the public mind that these expressions of remorse, seeking forgiveness, and ultimately repentance in front of television cameras are not the result of pressure and torture. These are issues that have been confirmed and even emphasized by many of these defendants. The repentance of ideological defendants, especially for societies like Iran where there is a deep intellectual transformation, reflects the troubled, stressed, worried, and even damaged faces of security defendants in show trials. Getting caught up in repentance and expressing regret in this security process will practically make it costly to express one’s beliefs, convictions, and religion freely, and the public will be forced to hide their beliefs and convictions.

Fifth: Opening the door of inspection of belief and faith.

Although this code of conduct attempts to provide tangible criteria and regulations regarding methods of repentance for other crimes, its implementation in cases with criminal potential such as apostasy from Islam or belief in non-Islamic religions will essentially mean inspecting beliefs and intruding on the private sphere and the realm of individuals’ beliefs and thoughts. This issue is evident in the first article of this repentance code: “Repentance is a psychological state that involves attention and the return of a person towards God after committing a criminal act, in such a way that the perpetrator becomes aware of their wrongful behavior, feels remorse, and is determined to correct and make amends for it in the future.” It is clear that in matters related to beliefs and individual beliefs, reviewing beliefs and beliefs that a judge may consider apostasy or belief in illegal religions will involve questioning and monitoring the “criminal of belief” in order to ensure their commitment to performing religious duties. This issue is emphasized in section “a” of the fifth article

Sixth: Harmonizing the ideology of society with the lever of regretful coercion.

Forcing believers to adhere to a belief and conviction under the name of repentance is a practice belonging to the pre-modern era, specifically the Middle Ages and times when the idea of unifying people’s beliefs was possible. It is not far-fetched to imagine that the authoritarian religious government of the Islamic Republic of Iran would use such methods and precedents to homogenize the diverse and diverse beliefs of the Iranian society and diminish its religious and belief diversity, using the methods of confession and repentance from the Middle Ages as a tool to advance their own ideological policies in society.

Clause “P” of the fifth article of this protocol is not similar to the famous trial of Galileo in the Middle Ages in terms of the judge’s understanding of the criminal’s repentance. This clause recognizes “expressing remorse and written commitment to not committing a crime, especially if one declares their remorse in some way” as one of the indications of the validity of the claim of repentance.

Seventh: Tabooing beliefs.

Since repentance, both in terms of wording and meaning, is intertwined with concepts such as error and awakening from the sleep of negligence, remorse and regret, its practicality in regards to changing religion and belief, specifically returning from Islam or, in other words, apostasy, will be considered taboo and a subject of reconsideration in beliefs and convictions. Repentance is essentially a return from past actions, a source of shame and embarrassment in order to be freed from guilt. This taboo of remorse can be used as a mechanism to create psychological pressure on individuals to discourage them from thinking about forbidden issues; a practice that, although indirectly, will hinder freedom of thought and belief in a country like Iran.

***

At the end, it must be said that the implementation of the repentance procedure for defendants in ideological cases, considering the political-security nature of such cases and the oppressive measures taken against the defendants, will not have any meaning other than legalizing forced and coercive repentance and legitimizing the suppression of freedom of belief, religion, and conviction. The resistance of civil society, especially human rights organizations and associations, in raising awareness and preventing forced repentance of defendants and prisoners of conscience, protesting and demanding the fundamental abolition of criminalization of changing religion and belief through international campaigns in this regard, can to some extent reduce or neutralize the mentioned negative consequences.