Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran
A/HRC/40/67 para 75(i)
Full recommendation:
Pending implementation of the aforementioned recommendations, and without prejudice to the
binding obligation enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to not sentence children to death and to not execute child
offenders, the Special Rapporteur recommends that the judiciary: Ensure that detention pending
trial is only used as a measure of last resort and for the shortest possible period of time for
children accused of any crime, including qisas and hudud crimes
Assessment using Impact Iran human rights indicators1
A. The Judiciary should ensure that pre-trial detention is used as a measure of last resort
The 2015 Code of Criminal Procedures (CCP) makes pretrial detention dependent on two
preconditions: 1) sufficient reason and evidence to charge someone with one of the specific
crimes listed in Article 237 of the CCP; 2) the judge’s belief that the person’s liberty would
result in the destruction of evidence or collusion with co-accused individuals, witnesses or others
who have information about the case or it would cause witnesses to refrain from testifying,
where the person’s liberty would pose a risk of public disorder, a risk to their own life or to the
lives of others, or would be likely to lead to the suspect hiding or absconding.
The new CCP provides a number of alternatives, or flight risk measures, to provisional pretrial
detention under its Article 217, such as recognizance with an oath by the accused person to
present themselves before the judicial authorities when needed, prohibition on leaving the place
of residence monitored through electronic devices, and bail. The issuance of flight risk measure
orders shall take into account, among other circumstances, the type and severity of the offence in
question, the risk of the accused absconding, the accused’s gender, age, character, and physical
and psychological condition, and the accused’s previous criminal record.2 The investigator is
granted the responsibility to determine the type of flight risk measure that shall be issued rather
than an independent court.

CCPR.37.2.S.1; CCPR.37.2.S.2
Code of Criminal Procedure, 2015, Article 250


Select target paragraph3