Concluding observations Committee on the Rights of the Child CRC/C/IRN/CO/3-4 para
92(e)
Full recommendation:
Alternative measures to pretrial detention should be strengthened and applied as much as
possible in order to ensure that this deprivation of liberty is really a measure of last resort and is
for the shortest time possible.
Assessment using Impact Iran human rights indicators1
In the Islamic Republic of Iran, juvenile defendants are generally subjected to the same legal
framework as adult offenders. Although the Law on the Protection of Children and Adolescents
(adopted in June 2020) sets out a number of penalties as well as alternative punishments
applying specifically to child offenders, it excludes from this regime crimes under qisas
(retribution in kind) and hudud (a crime with a fixed punishment derived from the Qur’an of the
Hadith), where the Islamic Penal Code’s sentences prevail.
The 2015 Code of Criminal Procedures (CCP) makes pretrial detention dependent on two
preconditions: 1) where there is sufficient reason and evidence to charge someone with one of
the specific crimes listed in Article 237 of the CCP; 2) where the person’s liberty would pose a
risk either to the accused, persons involved with the trial or the trial itself. This includes cases
where the person’s liberty would: 1) result in the destruction of evidence; 2) result in collusion
with co-accused individuals, witnesses or others who have information about the case; 3) cause
witnesses to refrain from testifying; 4) pose a risk of public disorder, a risk to their own life or to
the lives of others, or; 5) be likely to lead to the suspect hiding or absconding.
The 2015 CCP provides a number of alternative, 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.
1
CCPR.37.2.S.1; CCPR.37.2.S.2
CCPR.37.2.P.1
CCPR.37.2.O.1
2
Code of Criminal Procedure, 2015, Article 250
Commented [RM1]: The newly adopted Law on the
Protection of Children and Adolescents sets out penalties for
various crimes for children under the age of 18, varying in
severity from those for adults, and proposes alternative
punishments. However, Article 25 of this law excludes
punishments related to the provisions of Qisas, Hudud and
diyat from this law. In other words, despite some positive
points, this law still treats people under the age of 18 in the
same way as adults in the matter of sharia punishments, even
if they wait until the age of 18 to carry out the sentence.
Commented [HS2]: This precondition is slightly difficult to
follow, is it all based on instances where the person's liberty
would result in the destruction of evidence or collusion with
co-accused individuals and the rest is associated with that
first section?
Commented [MR3R2]: Does it sound clearer this way?
Forma&ed: Normal, Posi,on: Horizontal: Right, Rela,ve to:
Margin, Ver,cal: 0", Rela,ve to: Paragraph, No wrapping
1