Violation of Maximum Citizenship Rights

Violation of citizens’ maximum rights

Violation of citizens’ maximum rights

Issuing orders such as blocking national ID issuance, issuing a ban on leaving the country, creating restrictions on citizens’ interactions, and other restrictive orders that violate the legitimate freedoms of citizens are illegal. Those who issue and enforce such orders are considered to have committed a crime or an administrative offense and are subject to punishment.

Article 22 of the Constitution, as the establishment of a general rule, emphasizes the dignity of human beings, stating that the life, property, rights, and identity of individuals are inviolable except in cases prescribed by law.

The fact that the highest law of the country, as the establishment of a general rule, prohibits infringement on the fundamental rights of the people signifies that assuming a person commits an act that warrants restrictions or penalties, such action must be carried out within the framework of the law, with the procedures for enforcement explicitly provided for in the law and even in specific regulations such as the Criminal Procedure Code and the methods of enforcement of penalties.

In addition to this legal obligation, as stipulated by the Criminal Procedure Code, summoning citizens to court requires sufficient evidence to be presented.

Based on Article 168 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the investigator is not allowed to summon someone as a suspect without sufficient reason, and violating this legal obligation will result in administrative punishment, reprimand, and deduction from judicial rights.

The Iranian Constitution, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights 1969, or the European Convention on Human Rights 1950, enumerates instances of these rights in principles 23, 25, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, and 39 to ensure that authorities and law enforcement officials understand that the application and enforcement of any criminal action or punishment is only justified and supported by the law if it does not violate human dignity.

The right to citizenship immunity is the same fundamental and primary rights that are referred to today in the form of human dignity and are generally agreed upon by political systems. According to legal statements, no person, even the highest judicial or executive authority in the country, has the right to violate citizenship rights. Therefore, in such a scenario, imposing restrictions under the titles of prohibition of work, prohibition of services, and blatant violation of citizenship rights is equivalent to violating the fundamental rights of the person, and if the individual is accused, limiting their basic rights is equivalent to violating the defendant’s rights.

The Citizen Rights Charter also stipulates in a section entitled the right to freedom and security of citizenship that the individual and public freedoms of citizens are inviolable, and no citizen can be deprived of these freedoms.

Restricting these freedoms is only done to the extent necessary and in accordance with the law.

Every citizen has the right to enjoy security of life, property, dignity, legal rights, occupation, social status, and the like. No authority should endanger or threaten the legitimate rights and freedoms, dignity, and honor of citizens in the name of ensuring security.

Illegal actions in the name of ensuring public security, especially invading people’s privacy, are prohibited. In addition to the Citizen Rights Charter, the Judicial Security Document also establishes regulations in defining the instances of people’s fundamental rights, and all branches of the judicial and law enforcement systems are obligated to comply with these regulations.

Article 19 of this regulation, titled the presumption of innocence, states the principle of innocence, 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 the umbrella of judicial security.

No one shall be subjected to arrest or detention or forced exile or compulsory residence except by the order and in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. Article 20 prohibits absolute prohibition of torture and degrading behaviors towards suspects, accused persons, witnesses, and informants and stipulates that the accused and informed persons should not be subjected in any way to inhuman or degrading treatment. Any physical or mental torture, coercion to confess or give testimony, or provide information accompanied by verbal insults or acts of verbal or physical violence, sexual harassment, or violation of the dignity and honor of the mentioned individuals in any form, as well as any threats, pressure, and restrictions on the individual or their family and relatives are strictly prohibited under any circumstances, and the results thereof are not admissible in judicial proceedings. The mentioned behaviors towards individuals convicted, imprisoned, or exiled are beyond the judicial order and are prohibited and punishable.

In addition, the head of the judiciary has prohibited all judges from blocking national identification numbers and, in other words, from denying services to convicts and suspects. Now, according to the mentioned regulations, it is clear and evident that firstly, imposing any punishment or restriction on the human rights of citizens is subject to the procedures stipulated in the criminal procedure law. Secondly, assuming the consideration of charges and the sufficiency of evidence in attributing the accusation, no judicial authority has the right to deprive such a citizen of the fundamental rights stated in the aforementioned regulations.

Therefore, issuing orders such as blocking national identification numbers, issuing orders prohibiting exit, creating restrictions on the interaction of citizens, and other restricting orders that limit the legitimate freedoms of citizens are illegal. The issuer and executor of such orders commit a crime or an administrative offense and are deemed deserving of punishment.