intelligence bodies can, with the approval15 and under the supervision of the Prisons
Organization,16 set up “security detention facilities”. Prosecution authorities are obliged to
inspect security detention facilities regularly and submit a report to the judiciary.17 Under the
Law on Respect for Legitimate Freedoms and Protection of Citizens’ Rights, the head of the
judiciary is obliged to set a committee to ensure that prisons and detention centers regulations are
respected and that those responsible for committing abuses are held to account.18 Reportedly,
these legal safeguards are not applied in practice, enabling intelligence and security bodies to
operate outside the Iranian legal framework and without accountability.19 Unofficial secret
detention centers are not regulated under Iranian law and are not registered under the Prisons
Organization, which prevents the detainees from knowing the exact location of where they are
being held. This is in contradiction of the Law on Respect for Legitimate Freedoms and
Protection of Citizen’s Rights which provides that law enforcement officials and interrogators
must refrain from transferring detainees to unidentified locations.20 There is no readily available
information that might indicate that committee established by the head of the judiciary is
effectively ensuring that cases of enforced disappearances are properly investigated and
adjudicated and that those responsible are held into account.
Unofficial and secret detention facilities facilitate the perpetration of enforced disappearances.
The lack of proper oversight of secret and unofficial detention facilities in the Islamic Republic
of Iran hinders, if not prevents, accountability for perpetrators. Without proper legal safeguards
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”.21 Further, relatives
cannot inquire about the detainees’ whereabouts if it “infringe[s] on the social and familial status
of the detainees”,22 conditions that are not further defined and seemingly therefore arbitrary. The
15
Prohibition of Forming Special Detention Facilities and Allocation of One Detention Facility for Security Crimes in Each
Province, www.rc.majlis.ir/fa/law/show/131562 ; Executive Regulations for Management of Security Detention Facilities, 21
November 2006, Note to Article 3, https://bit.ly/3loEKSf
16
Executive Regulations for Management of Security Detention Facilities, 21 November 2006, Articles 2 and 4-6,
https://bit.ly/3o9sqak
17
Executive Regulations for Management of Security Detention Facilities, 21 November 2006, Article 2, www.bit.ly/2Fu8rlx;
See also the Law on Respect for Legitimate Freedoms and Protection of Citizens’ Rights, 5 May 2004, Article 1(13),
www.rc.majlis.ir/fa/law/show/94150
18
The Law on Respect for Legitimate Freedoms and Protection of Citizens’ Rights, 5 May 2004, Article 1(15),
www.rc.majlis.ir/fa/law/show/94150
19
See more: Amnesty International, https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/MDE1328912020ENGLISH.PDF
20
The Law on Respect for Legitimate Freedoms and Protection of Citizens’ Rights, 5 May 2004, Article 1(7),
www.rc.majlis.ir/fa/law/show/94150
21
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.
22
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
3