With deep and grave concern, Hana Human Rights Organization has noted the published reports regarding the mass arrest of government employees in the city of Khorramabad, assessing it as an indication of the continuation of alarming trends in the violation of citizens’ fundamental rights. According to available information, a number of public sector employees, including those from universities, executive agencies, and the education sector, have been arrested on vague and non-transparent charges such as “cooperation with hostile networks” and handed over to judicial authorities. This has occurred without providing the public with precise, documented, and verifiable details regarding these charges or the legal proceedings of their cases.
What is most concerning in this regard is the lack of transparency in the arrest process and the ambiguity surrounding the legal status of the detainees. Thus far, no clear information has been published regarding the whereabouts of these individuals, their access to an independent lawyer, or the conditions of their interrogation and case processing. From a legal perspective, such a situation is a clear manifestation of the violation of the fundamental principles of a fair trial.
Based on international obligations, including the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, drafted under the auspices of the United Nations, any individual facing security charges possesses inalienable rights. The right to be informed promptly and transparently of the charges, access to a lawyer of one’s choosing, immunity from arbitrary arrest, and the right to a fair trial in an independent and impartial court are among these fundamental rights, the violation of which has no legal justification.
Meanwhile, references by some officials to processing these cases under “wartime conditions” have heightened concerns. The use of such terminology, in circumstances where no state of armed conflict has been officially recognized, indicates an attempt to justify the imposition of extensive restrictions on the rights of the accused. According to the principles enshrined in the Geneva Conventions, rules of international humanitarian law are only applicable in the context of armed conflicts, and extending them to domestic situations without the existence of such conditions lacks a legal basis. Even in the event of a conflict, fundamental principles such as the prohibition of inhumane treatment, the right to defense, and the right to a fair trial remain strictly binding.
Furthermore, the public call for citizens to report “suspicious activities,” in the absence of transparent mechanisms and independent judicial oversight, can become a tool for expanding security controls and violating citizens’ privacy. In many cases, such actions have led to an increase in arbitrary arrests, the creation of an atmosphere of intimidation, and the erosion of public trust in official institutions.
Under circumstances where existing evidence points to the violation of the fundamental rights of detainees, these actions cannot be justified merely by citing security considerations. Documented experiences show that the use of security concepts, in the absence of transparency and accountability, often becomes a cover for systematic human rights violations. Accordingly, Hana Human Rights Organization emphasizes that the continuation of such practices is not only considered a violation of the government’s international obligations but can also be pursued as serious human rights violations within the framework of United Nations monitoring mechanisms.
While continuously monitoring this case, Hana Human Rights Organization holds the relevant institutions directly responsible for any violation of the detainees’ rights and demands the immediate provision of transparent information regarding the status of these individuals, guaranteed access to independent legal counsel, and full compliance with the principles of a fair trial. The organization stresses that disregarding these requirements will carry legal consequences at the international level and cannot remain unanswered.