Pari Samani and Roya Samani, two sisters from Mahabad, have been charged with “propaganda against the system” after being summoned to Branch One of the Investigation Office of that county’s Revolutionary Court, a charge that, according to available information, rests on the allegation that they were members of a Telegram group.
According to information received by the Hana Organization for Human Rights, on Saturday, September 5, 2026, Pari Samani and Roya Samani, after appearing before Branch One of the Investigation Office of the Mahabad Revolutionary Court, were formally charged with “propaganda against the system.”
The basis stated for this charge is an allegation by the Mahabad IRGC Intelligence Organization concerning these two sisters’ membership in a Telegram group the previous year. According to available information, however, no document establishing the attribution of any specific criminal conduct to them was presented in the course of the charges being brought.
The case against these two citizens arose following action taken by forces of the IRGC Intelligence Organization on Wednesday, August 26, 2026. On that day, forces of this security agency went to the family home of Pari and Roya Samani, searched the home, and confiscated a number of their electronic devices.
According to information received, Roya Samani’s mobile phone and laptop and Pari Samani’s mobile phone were confiscated without presentation of a judicial warrant. Following this action, the two sisters were also summoned to the IRGC Intelligence Department in Mahabad and interrogated.
From a legal standpoint, the manner in which the residence was searched and personal and electronic belongings were confiscated is of independent significance in a case of this kind, since the legitimacy of obtaining and using information contained on a mobile phone or computer requires compliance with the legal formalities governing search, seizure, and the collection of evidence. Likewise, the mere alleged membership in a Telegram group, absent proof of specific conduct attributable to the accused and the presentation of evidence capable of evaluation, does not, on its own, clarify the basis for the charge of “propaganda against the system.”