enforced in practice, complaints of disappearances cannot be properly investigated, and culprits cannot be punished accordingly. Additionally, a number of restrictive provisions under Iranian law prevent relatives of detainees from being informed of the detainees’ arrests when deemed “necessary”.32 Further, relatives cannot inquire about the detainees’ whereabouts if it “infringe[s] on the social and familial status of the detainees”,33 these conditions are not further defined and therefore seemingly arbitrary. The right of detainees to communicate with and receive visits of family members is restricted under Article 180 of the Prisons Regulations when judicial officials determine that correspondence is not in the interest of a “good trial proceeding”, without clarifying what could contravene “good proceedings” and without setting limitation as to the period of restriction.34 Competent judicial authorities can allow correspondence and/or visit during the prohibition period, however such decision does not appear to be subject to review by another official or body. Ultimately this means that judges can, in practice, deprive detainees of their right to communication with the outside world for an unlimited period of time. Such provisions facilitate the perpetration of incommunicado detentions and enforced disappearances by Iranian authorities.35 Reports of enforced disappearances in the Islamic Republic of Iran are regular. The Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances issued communications on alleged cases of enforced disappearances as recently as 2019, mentioning the lack of investigation and follow-up on unconfirmed reports of death.36 The Working Group also noted that the Government had not given information concerning alleged lack of investigation into the disappearance and extrajudicial execution of 5,000 political prisoners in the Islamic Republic of Iran in the 1980s.37 Amnesty International reported wide-scale patterns of enforced disappearances in the aftermath of the November 2019 and the lack -if not absence- of accountability for perpetrators.38 The UN 32 Article 50 of the revised Code of Criminal Procedure (2015) entitles individuals in custody to inform their relatives of their arrest but permits “judicial officers” to impose restrictions on such right when deemed “necessary”, without clarifying when and for how long such restrictions are allowed or specifying a competent official responsible for the approval of such decision. Relatives then must refer to judicial officials. 33 Article 49 of the revised Code of Criminal Procedure (2015) entitles relatives of detainees to inquire about them to the local Office of the Prosecutor, the Provincial Prosecutor, and the Head of the Justice Department in each province but only “to the extent that it does not infringe on the social and familial status of the detainees” without specifying what constitute such infringement. 34 Article 180 Executive Regulations of the Prisons Organization. 35 See more: Amnesty International, https://www.amnestyusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Trampling-humanity-Massarrests-disappearances-and-torture-since-Irans-November-2019-protests.pdf 36 Communications transmitted, cases examined, observations made and other activities conducted by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, July 2019, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Disappearances/A_HRC_WGEID_118_1_Advance.pdf 37 Communications, cases examined, observations and other activities conducted by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, May 2019, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Disappearances/A_HRC_WGEID_117_1_ADVANCE.pdf 38 Amnesty International, https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/MDE1328912020ENGLISH.PDF 5