Lost in the chaos of Iranian news, a story with catastrophic depth was the story of an old man raping a boy in Tabriz, which led to personal revenge by the boy’s family, who sent the old man to the hospital and into surgery; revenge whose instrument was a wooden sofa leg. In this note, we aim to examine the various dimensions of this incident and answer whether this incident is simply a personal revenge, or is it rooted in distrust of judicial justice.

Before examining the Tabriz incident, a brief reference to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is necessary; not as an ideal text, but as a yardstick for measuring the gap between official obligations and the lived reality of children in Iran. The Convention, adopted in 1989 and entered into force in 1990, defines a child as a person under the age of 18 and is based on four fundamental principles: non-discrimination, the best interests of the child as a primary consideration, the right to survival and development, and respect for the views of the child. According to the Convention, in cases of sexual violence against children, states are obliged to ensure immediate protection, effective judicial proceedings, and psychological and social support for the child victim. The Convention’s main emphasis is not simply on punishing the perpetrator, but on preventing secondary harm to the child and his or her access to justice. Iran acceded to the Convention in 1994, but with the general condition of “not being in conflict with Islamic law.” This condition, along with the difficult structures for proving sexual crimes and the weakness of post-crime support, has meant that in practice, child victims are often caught between silence, distrust of judicial institutions, and cultural pressures. In such a context, families sometimes feel that the legal path not only does not protect the child, but may also expose them to further harm.

The Tabriz incident must be seen in this gap: where the lack of trust in judicial justice and the fear of the trial process remaining fruitless have led the family away from the path of the law and towards violence, which itself is a clear violation of the interests of the child and the fundamental principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In the rest of the note, we will address the issue of “personal justice”, its obvious conflict with judicial laws, as well as the public’s view of this phenomenon.

Incidents such as child rape and family attempts at personal revenge are not uncommon in Iran. For example, we can mention the recent incident in Tabriz in November of this year, where the victim’s family, after a middle-aged man raped their child, took revenge by raping the accused without going to the judicial authorities and using extreme violence (using a sofa leg). An examination of similar cases shows that although such incidents are less widely reported in official reports and domestic media, they do occur in the hidden layers of Iranian society. These incidents are usually rooted in factors such as distrust of the judicial system, honor pressures, and families’ feelings of insecurity in the judicial process. Other cases can also be identified in which families have resorted to “arbitrary justice.”

In a similar incident in Urmia, a person accused of raping a 10-year-old boy was identified by the victim’s family and attacked in retaliation. The accused died from the severity of his injuries (caused by the penetration of a hard wooden object into his body). (1) Like the Tabriz incident, this incident is rooted in cultural attitudes and at the same time perpetuates a cycle of violence. Many families resort to direct violence due to fear of the accused being acquitted in the judicial system (with difficult evidentiary requirements, such as the need for four witnesses or the confession of the accused). Scattered reports in recent years indicate that such acts of revenge, although rare, have occurred in more traditional regions such as Azerbaijan, Khuzestan, and Kurdistan. In another case, a serial killer and rapist known as “Bijeh” who had harmed 27 children was executed (2); The victims’ families complained about the slow pace of the proceedings, sometimes resorting to personal threats. According to reports, official statistics on child rape in Iran reflect only a small part of the reality, and it is estimated that the majority of these cases are never reported to the legal authorities due to considerations of dignity, fear of reputation and difficulties in proving the crime. (3)

The news of the Tabriz and Urmia incidents sparked a wave of reactions on social media, including X. Some users supported these actions with keywords such as “families of bravery” and blamed the ineffectiveness of the judicial system for such actions. However, the consequence of such revenge violence is that the child’s parents are transformed from the position of complainant to defendant (on charges of murder or assault), and the child victim remains without appropriate psychological support. These events also conflict with the principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which emphasizes the protection of children and access to judicial justice. In Iran, in some criminal cases, the conditions for proving a crime can make the process of obtaining justice difficult for victims—especially children.

In Iranian law, sexual abuse and exploitation of children is criminalized and carries severe penalties in the form of hudud or ta’zirat. However, the main issue is often not the “existence of the law” but rather “effective access to justice”: the difficulty of proof in some religious matters, the fear of social stigma, and the lack of immediate support (medical, psychological, and social) can lead families to conclude that the official path does not provide the child with timely and adequate support. In such circumstances, the risk of slipping into violent reactions and personal justice increases, a reaction that ultimately ends up to the detriment of the child.

From a criminal law perspective, “personal justice” is not an exception, but a violation of the judicial order, and depending on the outcome of the act, it can be prosecuted under titles such as intentional assault or murder. Even if the family motive is understandable, the law generally requires a judicial process, and a vindictive act can turn the child’s parents from the position of plaintiff into the position of defendant. The practical consequence of this shift is clear: the case is diverted from focusing on protecting the child and addressing the main crime, and the child victim may be left without adequate psychological and social support. In such a situation, the child is not only a victim of the original crime, but also a victim of the breakdown of the justice system.

In the Tabriz incident, if the family had trusted the justice system, the rapist would likely have been tried and legal justice would have been served. But the failure to resort to the law created a double disaster. One was the initial rape, and the other was violent revenge through rape, which is itself a crime and can become a cycle of further revenge. In Iran, such incidents are often rooted in a combination of structural and cultural factors that exacerbate skepticism about the justice system. These factors are seen not only in this case, but in many similar crimes. Many families do not trust the courts due to slow processes, possible corruption, or failure to enforce sentences. For example, in some rape cases, proving guilt is seriously hindered by strict evidentiary requirements and fear of social consequences, leading to the acquittal of the accused. Media reports indicate that the conviction rate for sexual crimes in Iran is low, which makes families feel that justice is not being served. In the Tabriz incident, the family is probably afraid that the accused will be released or will not receive adequate punishment, so they took action themselves.

To better understand the situation of this family, let us take a brief look at the protective culture. In Iranian culture, especially in traditional areas such as Azerbaijan, families play the role of the absolute “protector”. The concept of “honor” (honor) is very strong; child abuse is not only physically and psychologically harmful, but also considered a stain on the family’s reputation. Families often fear that public disclosure in court will further harm the child and family; for example, through social gossip or cultural pressures. As a result, they prefer to resolve the issue “internally”, even if it leads to violence. This protective culture, rooted in history and tribal traditions, sometimes turns into “vigilante justice”, which is also seen in other societies but is more prevalent in Iran due to weak institutions.

Socioeconomic issues, poverty, lack of access to psychological services, and social pressures can push families to make hasty decisions. In Tabriz, an industrial city with a large immigrant population, marginalized families may feel that the justice system is not for “them” and is biased in favor of the powerful. In addition, fear of retaliation from the defendant or his/her entourage (if released) may be another factor. Reports indicate that in this incident, the family immediately found the defendant upon learning of the incident and responded with violence, indicating explosive anger and a lack of control.

In a society where sexual violence against children is taboo but difficult to report, families often feel isolated. The media and social networks (such as Instagram and Telegram) play a dual role: on the one hand, they raise awareness, on the other hand, they provoke public outrage by publishing gruesome details and may encourage families to seek revenge. This gruesome revenge, while it may seem like “justice” to some, is actually a greater tragedy. The accused may die and the family may be tried for murder or assault, the child remains without professional support, and society faces more fear and violence. This cycle does not deter, but normalizes violence. To solve this, reform of the justice system requires faster processes, witness protection, and training of judges for child abuse cases, as well as encouraging reporting without fear of reprisal. Expanding free counseling centers, awareness campaigns to combat taboos and strengthen the role of NGOs, education in schools and the media to emphasize legal justice instead of personal justice and reduce honor pressure are other effective solutions. Ultimately, this incident shows the deep gap between society and institutions. Real justice is not achieved with a sofa base, but with law and support.

Footnotes:

1- Father of 10-year-old who took revenge with a 40-centimeter stick; the attacker died in the hospital. Asia News Iran , 29 December 2025.

2- “Bijeh”, the man who murdered 27 children, Khabar Online , 12 December 1402.

3- Fear of reputation; the reason for concealing “child abuse”/ Warning about child abuse in urban streets, ISNA , June 29, 2018.