Maximum Violation of Citizen Rights
Maximum Violation of Citizen Rights
Issuing orders such as blocking national ID codes, issuing exit bans, restricting citizens’ interactions, and other orders that limit the legitimate freedoms of citizens is against the law. Those who order and execute such rulings commit a crime or disciplinary offense and are deemed deserving of punishment.
Article 22 of the Constitution, in establishing a general rule, stipulates that human dignity must be respected, stating that the life, property, rights, and honor of individuals are inviolable, except in cases permitted by law.
The fact that the highest law of the country establishes the principle of non-infringement of the fundamental rights of the nation as a general rule indicates that even if a person commits an act that justifies imposing restrictions or penalties on them, this must be done according to the law. The procedures for implementing and executing such matters are explicitly outlined in the law and even detailed in specific regulations such as the law on the execution of criminal sentences and methods for imposing penalties.
In parallel with this legal obligation, based on the Code of Criminal Procedure, summoning citizens to the prosecutor’s office requires sufficient evidence.
According to Article 168 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an investigator does not have the right to summon someone as a suspect without sufficient evidence, and violating this legal obligation will result in a fourth-degree disciplinary conviction, reprimand, and deduction from the judicial official’s salary.
The Iranian Constitution, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights of 1969, or the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950, in explaining and expanding on human rights, enumerates these rights in Articles 23, 25, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, and 39, so that rulers and law enforcers know that any imposition and execution of punishment is justifiable and supported by law only when human dignity is not violated.
The right to citizen immunity is the same basic and fundamental rights that today are referred to as human dignity, a consensus among most political systems. According to legal provisions, no person, even the highest judicial or executive authority in the country, has the right to infringe on citizen rights. Therefore, in such a scenario, imposing restrictions under the titles of work prohibition, service prohibition, and clear violation of citizen rights, and if the person in question is under suspicion of accusation, limiting their fundamental rights is equivalent to violating the defendant’s defense rights.
The Charter of Citizen Rights also stipulates in a section titled the right to freedom and citizen security that individual and public freedoms of citizens are inviolable, and no citizen can be deprived of these freedoms.
Limiting these freedoms only occurs as necessary and according to the law.
Every citizen has the right to enjoy personal, financial, reputational, legal, judicial, occupational, social security, and similar rights. No authority should infringe upon or threaten the rights and freedoms of citizens under the pretext of ensuring security and dignity.
Illegal actions in the name of ensuring public security, especially infringing on the private sphere of the people, are prohibited. In addition to the Charter of Citizen Rights, the Judicial Security Document also defines the examples of fundamental rights of the people and mandates that all branches of the judiciary and law enforcement adhere to these regulations.
In Article 19 of this regulation, titled the presumption of non-criminal responsibility, it is stated that the presumption of innocence is fundamental, and no one is considered guilty unless their crime is proven in competent courts. Article 24 regarding the prohibition of illegal detention states that everyone has the right to life, freedom, and security under judicial security.
No one can be detained or forced into exile or compulsory residence except by the order and procedure specified by law. Article 20 refers to the absolute prohibition of torture and degrading treatment against suspects, defendants, witnesses, and informants, stating that under no circumstances should suspects, informants, or witnesses be subjected to inhumane or degrading treatment. Any physical or mental torture, coercion to confess or testify, or provide information, behavior involving verbal or physical insult or humiliation, verbal or physical violence, sexual harassment, or violation of the dignity and honor of the aforementioned individuals, and any form of threat, pressure, and restriction on the individual or their family and close relatives is absolutely prohibited, and the results obtained from such actions are not admissible in judicial references. Such behavior towards individuals sentenced to imprisonment or exiled beyond the issued judicial ruling is prohibited and punishable.
In addition to these matters, the head of the judiciary has issued a directive prohibiting all judges from blocking national ID codes and, in other words, prohibiting services to convicts and suspects. Based on the aforementioned regulations, it is clear and evident that firstly, imposing any punishment and restriction on the human rights of citizens is subject to the legal procedures specified in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Secondly, assuming the accusation is considered and the evidence for the accusation is sufficient, no judicial authority has the right to deprive such a citizen of the fundamental rights specified in the aforementioned regulations.
Therefore, issuing orders such as blocking national ID codes, issuing exit bans, restricting citizens’ interactions, and other orders that limit the legitimate freedoms of citizens is against the law. Those who order and execute such rulings commit a crime or disciplinary offense and are deemed deserving of punishment.
