In the last week of Shahrivar 1401 (September 2022), Mahsa (Jina) Amini, a young woman who was arrested by the Guidance Patrol in Tehran under the pretext of improper hijab, was transferred to the hospital and a few days later news of her death was announced. Following this incident, which many have called a state-sanctioned murder, attention has once again been drawn to the performance of the police in Iran, particularly in the area of hijab and the activities of the Guidance Patrol. In this regard, the monthly magazine Khat-e-Solh spoke with Babak Paknia, a lawyer, member of the Bar Association, and a member of the Central Bar Association, to get his opinion on the observance of citizens’ rights by the police in Iran, as well as the legality of the Guidance Patrol. Paknia also mentioned the need for oversight of law enforcement officers in Iran and the problem of training these forces, stating that in

You can read the explanation of the interview with Babak Paknia, a lawyer and member of the Central Bar Association, in the monthly magazine of Khat-e-Solh below.

It seems that one of the main challenges of the police in Iran is the issue of respecting citizens’ rights. In your opinion, to what extent and in what ways are citizens’ rights violated by the police in Iran? What is the role of this institution as a regulator?

Regarding the discussion about officers, it should be noted that the police force is a public officer. Some organizations, such as the Ministry of Intelligence and the Revolutionary Guards, have special officers. It is not the case that anyone who is employed in the police force and is part of this official organization is considered an officer. Rather, according to the Criminal Procedure Code, these individuals must receive the necessary training and have a special card. The quality of their training is very important. After training and receiving the card, it should be noted that officers must act under the orders of the prosecutor, the judicial authority. Naturally, if officers are not well trained, we will face problems in terms of protecting citizens’ rights. The issues mentioned in the Citizenship Rights Law and the Criminal Procedure Code must be taught to officers in detail and precisely. Good supervision is also necessary; there must be close supervision over officers. If supervision and inspection of officers are not done properly, we will certainly see the negative effects in the relationship

These issues and confrontations have been in the past, they are present now and will also be in the future. However, mistakes always exist; but since we are now facing the expansion of virtual space, these issues are seen more. Therefore, from one angle, the problem goes back to the training of forces and their supervision, which must be corrected.

Sometimes, under various projects of Faraja, including projects known as social security, images of violent clashes between law enforcement forces and suspects on the streets are published. What is your opinion about these confrontations? What do you know about the purpose of these confrontations by law enforcement?

Our officers come from the same society. Unfortunately, we have also been affected by the corruption. You can see how they bring a suspect to the streets and markets and parade them around, even if they have committed a crime and behaved criminally. Because we have not seen proper teachings and we live in a corrupt and ignorant society, we believe that everything will be fixed with these kinds of actions.

The problem here is that different institutions are not fulfilling their duties and there is an increase in violent crimes in society. In this situation, some people think that by executing and punishing individuals in society, everything will be fixed; but that is not the case. We need to address the root of the problem. Firstly, government and public institutions must do their job properly. We cannot say that because the economy is struggling and security forces are not fulfilling their duties, we should scare everyone and try to solve the problem by giving death sentences and punishing thieves. This is a reactionary move that will not only fail to solve the problem, but will also only have temporary results and will not address the root causes of these events. We need to understand the philosophy of punishment and the concept of individual responsibility. These are very important, but sometimes we see obvious flaws in the statements of high-ranking law enforcement officials. For example, they have arrested a suspect and a law enforcement commander says that he must be punished to the

The issue that has engulfed a large part of Iranian society today, including women, and has become more prominent than ever with the tragic death of Mahsa Amini, is the discussion of guidance. What is your perspective as a legal expert on this matter?

In the discussion of the Guidance Patrol, there are several fundamental issues; it is also important to consider from what perspective we approach this issue. If we want to discuss the issue from a legal point of view and talk about enjoining good and forbidding evil, many scholars, such as Mr. Mostafa Mohaqeq Damad, have spoken and said that the philosophy behind the existence of the Guidance Patrol is against Sharia. If we examine the rational and customary foundations of the issue, we see that the existence of the Guidance Patrol and the behavior seen in the discussion of the hijab do not align with customary, rational, and historical rules, but there are several different directions for examining its existence from a legal perspective. First, it is possible to argue that not wearing hijab is a crime according to the law. In response, it can be said that if not wearing hijab is a crime, it is considered a level eight crime. Level eight crimes must be directly brought up in court

The point here is that the authorities themselves are the determining factor in who wears a hijab and who does not, and they treat people accordingly; also, according to the law, should there not be a separate and relevant order for the arrest of each individual?

The interpretation of what is considered immodesty and what is not has been left to the discretion of the authorities. This is a mistake. The authorities, meaning the law enforcement, cannot come and determine what type of clothing is considered immodest and order someone to be arrested on that charge; we also sometimes see judges giving orders based on their own opinions. This in itself is flawed; it goes against the philosophy that this act is a level eight crime and also contradicts the philosophy that the legislator has stated regarding the judge’s orders to the authorities, and these flaws are always present in the structure of this guidance patrol.

Basically, is the existence of legal and logical guidance justified, and can unveiling be logically considered a crime?

The law must consider something a crime when the majority of individuals in a society view it as bad and undesirable. Sometimes we view a current action, the abandonment of an action, or the resulting action of abandoning an action as criminal, and the legislator must criminalize behavior that, in addition to being determined punishable by the legislator, is also considered condemned and undesirable by individuals in that society; of course, there are specialized discussions about whether we can consider the resulting action of abandoning an action as criminal behavior or not, which I do not want to get into at this time; but it must be said that if society does not view a behavior as undesirable and that behavior is criminalized, we are constantly faced with committing that behavior in society and essentially producing crime and criminals, which is a tragedy. This type of legal system is going in the wrong direction. A good legislator is one who, when wanting to criminalize a behavior, takes into account customary, ethical, social, and cultural

Let me give an example: The legislator has considered having a satellite a crime; while the same representative who voted for this and declared it a crime, has a satellite in his own home and uses it. People with a satellite do not feel like they are behaving against custom, against the law, or against public order; so when I legislate, it’s as if I have closed my eyes as a legislator and only seen the political aspects of criminalizing this issue, as if I am not making a law for these people, but for another country and land. This is while something should only be considered a crime if the society itself would condemn the behavior and action if it were committed by someone. This is while no one would condemn someone else for having a satellite; so the legislator has criminalized and condemned something that is not considered bad by anyone. This means that the legislator who has done this is not a good legislator. The same goes for the issue of hij

If these aspects and issues regarding the philosophy of criminalization are considered, the time for criminalization in the discussion of hijab and the subsequent launch of the guidance patrol will not lead to many other mistakes and will not incur any costs for the country and society.

Thank you for the time you have given to the peace line.