In contemporary international law, the situation of prisoners in situations of armed conflict is one of the areas that is particularly sensitive in international legal systems. This sensitivity stems from the fact that prisoners, as individuals who are completely at the disposal and control of governmental institutions, practically lack the ability to effectively protect their lives, health, and human dignity. For this reason, the rules of international humanitarian law, in addition to the fundamental human rights instruments, have provided a set of binding obligations for states to prevent the situation of detention from becoming a platform for the violation of fundamental human rights. According to these rules, even in the most severe emergency situations, including war or other exceptional situations, states cannot shirk their responsibility to guarantee minimum human standards for prisoners. The principle of prohibiting inhuman or degrading treatment, guaranteeing the right to life, and protecting the physical and mental health of individuals are among the obligations that cannot be suspended under any circumstances. From this perspective, the way governments treat prisoners in wartime is not simply an administrative issue in the field of prison management, but also an important criterion for measuring the level of adherence of governments to fundamental human rights principles and obligations arising from international law.

Under international humanitarian law, in particular in light of the rules contained in the Geneva Conventions and the General Principles for the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty, States are obliged to treat prisoners humanely and with respect for human dignity at all stages of detention. This obligation is not limited to the prohibition of torture or ill-treatment, but also includes a set of positive measures aimed at preventing the life or health of prisoners from being put at risk. These responsibilities include ensuring effective access to health care, providing adequate sanitary conditions, preventing overcrowding in prisons, ensuring access to food and basic necessities of life, and taking protective measures against the risks arising from military operations. In situations of armed conflict, these obligations take on added importance, as the potential for damage to infrastructure, disruption of public services and increased security risks can directly threaten the health and safety of prisoners. Therefore, governments are obliged to take preventive measures to prevent prisons from being exposed to direct military risks and to allow prisoners to be transferred to safer places if the threat increases. Transparency in information provision, enabling prisoners to communicate with their families and access to independent monitoring are also essential elements in ensuring compliance with these standards.

Despite this relatively clear legal framework, a review of the Islamic Republic’s performance in recent years shows that there is a significant gap between the legal obligations stipulated in international instruments and the actual situation in prisons. Even before the outbreak of the recent military conflicts, numerous reports had been published by families of prisoners, lawyers, and human rights organizations about the inadequate conditions of detention in some prisons. Reports that indicated problems such as severe overcrowding, limited access to medical services, delays in medical treatment for serious illnesses, and unfavorable sanitary conditions. In such a context, the emergence of a state of war and increased security threats double the need to adopt special protective measures to protect prisoners. However, the available evidence and reports show that in many cases, there has been no clear and systematic planning to reduce the risks to prisoners. The continued detention of prisoners in prisons located near sensitive sites or areas potentially targeted by military operations, the lack of accurate information about the security situation in prisons, and the limited access of families to information regarding the health and safety of prisoners are among the issues that have raised serious concerns in this regard. This situation can be seen from the perspective of international law as a sign of a failure to implement the State’s positive obligations to protect persons in detention.

Another important factor that should be considered in analyzing the situation of prisoners in wartime is the role of civil society organizations and independent institutions in monitoring the situation of prisons. In many legal systems, civil society organizations, human rights associations, and aid organizations play an important role in monitoring conditions of detention, providing support services, and informing the public. The presence of such institutions can help increase transparency, strengthen the accountability of government institutions, and reduce the likelihood of violations of prisoners’ rights. However, in Iran, the space for activity for a significant part of these institutions has faced serious restrictions, and the possibility of independent and continuous monitoring of the situation of prisons has been severely limited. In a situation where the country is facing a wartime situation and the risks arising from it, the lack of such monitoring mechanisms can have significant consequences for the safety of prisoners. Particularly during the 12-day war and in the context of ongoing military conflicts, the lack of transparent reporting and the lack of access by independent institutions to information on prison conditions have raised concerns about the extent to which humane standards are being met for prisoners. In such circumstances, the restriction of civil society is not only an issue of public freedoms, but can also directly affect society’s ability to monitor the fundamental rights of those deprived of their liberty.

Finally, examining the situation of prisoners in armed conflict shows that protecting the lives and health of these individuals is not simply a moral or humanitarian obligation, but a clear legal obligation under international law. The experience of recent years in Iran shows that the practical realization of these obligations requires a set of complementary elements, including transparency in executive policies, effective oversight by independent institutions, free access to information, and political will to uphold human rights standards even in times of crisis. In the absence of such elements, there is a risk that prisoners will become one of the most vulnerable groups in times of armed conflict, a group that has neither played a role in shaping the conditions of war nor has the ability to effectively defend its rights.