Following the efforts of the eleventh parliament to review and approve the amendment bill on the use of weapons, passed in 1994, supporters and proponents of this bill claim that the main goal of drafting this new amendment is to address the inadequacy of the current law (the law on the use of weapons by armed forces in necessary situations) in providing security for the police forces. According to this group, the current law restricts the police from using weapons in serious danger, thus hindering their ability to ensure the safety of their lives. On the other hand, many opponents reject this claim and argue that the fundamental rights of citizens, including the main victims of the proposed bill, will be at risk if it is passed and implemented. They believe that several rights of citizens, which were protected by the current law, will be seriously endangered.

We sat down with Mohammad Moghimi, a lawyer and prosecutor, to discuss these topics. You can read the text of our conversation below.

Is it true that the current law on the use of weapons (passed in 1373) is insufficient for ensuring the safety of police officers and that the police are restricted in their use of weapons to protect their own lives according to the current law?

The law on the use of weapons, passed in 1373, is largely in accordance with legal principles and the authorities under this law can use weapons within the framework of their legal duties and in accordance with the provisions of this law. They can also use weapons in situations where their own lives or the lives of other citizens are in danger. However, according to this law, there must be reasons or justifications for the use of weapons. In fact, the burden of proof lies with the officer who uses the weapon. (This provision is based on legal principles, in that government forces have access to weapons and superior power compared to citizens, and precautions must be taken to prevent possible abuses and extremism.)

On the other hand, according to Article 12 of the mentioned law, the officers who use weapons in accordance with the regulations of this law will not have any criminal or civil liability; Articles 13 and 14 of the mentioned law also provide financial and moral support for the officers subject to this article; Therefore, the current law does not create any restrictions on the use of weapons to ensure the safety of the officers subject to this law.

However, in the additional clause to Article 1 of this law, the phrase “other individuals authorized to carry weapons according to the law” has been added to include members of the armed forces, considering the changes specified in Articles 5 and 10 of the amendment bill. This refers to security forces and institutions, which people commonly refer to as private military forces.

What is the current law’s capacity for protecting citizens’ rights against the unlawful use of weapons by law enforcement and military officers?

The law on the use of weapons, passed in 1994, is relatively good and has a significant capacity to protect the rights of citizens against unlawful use, extremism, and abuses by government forces. However, with the increase of criminal acts such as terrorist operations, some may argue that the current law does not cover these new criminal acts. This argument is not correct, as general and absolute phrases such as “self-defense or defense of others” address this issue. If necessary, simply adding these new criminal titles would have been sufficient, and there was no need for the changes that give authority to security officials and anyone with a weapon permit.

Supporters of the amendment bill claim that according to current law, the police must prove that they have followed legal conditions for using a weapon in case of shooting at an individual, and that is why there is a need for the amendment bill; does the amendment bill remove the burden of proof from the police?

As mentioned, due to the fact that government forces have a superior position compared to ordinary citizens, the use of weapons must be carried out within the framework of the law and in accordance with legal principles and regulations to prevent abuse, aggression, and disrespect. Additionally, there must be reasons or necessity to justify the use of weapons. In this case, the officer must provide a reason or evidence for the use of weapons, which is a logical argument based on legal principles. However, in the proposed amendment bill, the legislator supports armed officers (not just armed forces) to have more protection, which may change the circumstances of weapon use in favor of the officers. Therefore, it can be said that it makes the burden of proof easier for them.

What extent does granting permission to use weapons to all those who have a license to carry weapons comply with the teachings and principles of citizenship rights in the proposed amendment?

This topic is against the principles of criminal law and specifically criminal procedure law, in that individuals are not authorized unless the law designates them as such. On the other hand, there are two types of authorized individuals: general authorities (law enforcement officers) and specific authorities (such as forest rangers, traffic officers, guides, etc.). Specific authorities are only authorized within their designated duties, not in all cases. For example, traffic officers do not have the right to intervene in matters related to forest rangers; therefore, allowing all armed individuals, especially those referred to as plainclothes officers, to use weapons for suppressing public gatherings is not only against legal principles, but also against all human values, democratic principles, and human rights standards.

Article 12 of the amendment makes the responsible committee for determining the compliance of the use of weapons by an officer with the law, provided that the four members of the mentioned committee are not colleagues of the officer in question. Can this committee make impartial and fair decisions from a legal perspective?

It is clear that not only can this committee not be impartial, but what comes to mind is that the purpose of this committee is to support and take sides with officers who use weapons. According to legal principles, determining this issue is the responsibility of the judicial authority and within the framework of relevant laws and regulations. Therefore, the existence of such a committee has no precedent in any legal system and in any part of the world, and is one of the innovations of the Islamic Republic system.

What do you think is the main purpose of amending the law on the use of weapons in current conditions and why does this bill expand the permission to use weapons to all individuals who have a license to carry weapons?

The Islamic Republic is in its worst condition since its establishment, and after more than forty years, it has not been successful in any field. Instead, it has embraced the inefficiency and systematic corruption of all its individuals and institutions; corruption that is its own creation and needs it to survive. It has created a system of power and wealth mafia for its own survival, and the existence of these two is necessary for each other. On the other hand, a government must either have popular acceptance or rule through the use of force; therefore, the Islamic Republic seeks to release the hands of its repressive forces in order to suppress its critics, protesters, opponents, and people, and supports them in this regard.

What are the legal consequences of the proposed changes and amendments in this bill, and how can the rights of citizens be protected against armed security forces?

The first legal consequence of the potential approval of proposed reforms is that the hands of the suppressive forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran will be further strengthened in order to suppress popular protests, and the criminal and civil responsibility of officials in the use of weapons will be reduced to a minimum. This is truly dangerous, tragic, and shameful.

Currently, there is no specific support for citizens’ rights in this matter or other cases. Rights only hold true meaning when they are backed by enforcement guarantees, and the most important guarantee of enforcement is the government’s executive forces (police) and judiciary, which unfortunately have been corrupted and turned into tools of oppression. In reality, no matter what they say, they are just adding salt to the wound, and woe to the day when they actually try to enforce these rights!

Therefore, the suggestion that can be made to citizens is to use peaceful and non-violent methods to express their protests as much as possible, in order to prevent the government’s repressive forces from having any excuse; also, in case of any unfortunate incident or abuse by the repressive forces, they should bring the matter to the attention of the public through media as one of the guarantees of human rights enforcement.

Thank you for the opportunity you have given us to use the peace line.