inspect security detention facilities regularly and submit a report to the judiciary.7 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 centres’ regulations are
respected and that those responsible for committing abuses are held accountable.8 These legal
safeguards are reportedly not applied in practice, enabling intelligence and security bodies to
operate outside the Iranian legal framework without accountability.9 Unofficial secret detention
centres are not regulated under Iranian law and are not registered under the Prisons’
Organisation, which prevents the detainees from knowing the exact location of where they are
being held. This contravenes 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.10 There is no readily available information
that might indicate that the committee, established by the head of the judiciary, is effectively
ensuring that cases of enforced disappearances are being properly investigated and adjudicated
and that those responsible are held accountable.
Unofficial and secret detention centres facilitate forced disappearances. The lack of proper
oversight of secret and unofficial detention facilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran hinders, if
not prevents, perpetrators from being held accountable. Without proper legal safeguards being
enforced in practice, complaints of disappearances cannot properly be 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”,11 further, relatives
cannot inquire about the detainees’ whereabouts if it “infringe[s] on the social and familial status
of the detainees”,12 conditions that are not further defined and seemingly therefore arbitrary. The
right of detainees to communicate with and receive visits from 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”. The article does not clarify
what could contravene “good proceedings” and does not set limitation as to the period of
7
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
8
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
9
See more: Amnesty International, https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/MDE1328912020ENGLISH.PDF
10
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
11
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.
12
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.
2