HANA Human Rights Organization regards the conviction of Nazanin Salari, Mahmoud Taravat-Roy, and Masoud Ahmadian, three lawyers and prominent advocates for women’s and children’s rights in Shiraz, as a deeply troubling sign of the deepening crisis surrounding the right to defense, the independence of the legal profession, and fair trial guarantees in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
According to published reports, Branch One of the Shiraz Revolutionary Court sentenced each of the three lawyers to two years in prison on charges of “assembly and collusion with intent to commit crimes against national security,” and one year in prison on charges of “propaganda activity against the state.” Under Article 134 of the Islamic Penal Code, only the harshest sentence, two years in ta’zir imprisonment, will be enforced for each of them. The court also imposed a two-year travel ban and passport revocation as supplementary punishments, while acquitting them of the charge of “cooperation with a hostile state.” In addition, they face charges in a parallel case before Branch 112 of Shiraz Criminal Court Two, including “inciting corruption and prostitution” and “appearing in public without a legal hijab.”
The significance of this case goes beyond the conviction of three lawyers. What makes it a matter of serious concern from a human rights and rule of law perspective is the continuation of a pattern in which the professional, civic, and human rights activities of independent lawyers are gradually reframed as security offenses. The consequence of this pattern is the erosion of independent legal representation and the restriction of citizens’ right to effective and unimpeded defense.
The right to defense is one of the most fundamental guarantees of fair trial under international human rights law. Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the Islamic Republic of Iran is a state party, guarantees the right to a fair trial and effective access to legal counsel. The UN Human Rights Committee, in General Comment No. 32, has emphasized that fair trial guarantees are essential components of the rule of law, and that states are obligated to ensure that individuals can genuinely exercise their right to defense.
The right to defense is not limited to the physical presence of a lawyer during proceedings. It requires lawyers who are independent, free, and protected from political and security pressures. When a lawyer faces criminal prosecution for taking on sensitive cases, defending clients, engaging in human rights work, or expressing legal opinions, it is not only that lawyer’s rights that are threatened, but the right to defense of every citizen who depends on independent legal services.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, adopted in 1990, also oblige states to ensure that lawyers are able to perform their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment, improper interference, or threat. Principle 16 states that lawyers shall not be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes as a result of discharging their functions. Principle 18 further provides that lawyers shall not be subjected to prosecution, sanctions, or pressure as a result of defending their clients or advancing their legal views.
In light of these standards, the conviction of Nazanin Salari, Mahmoud Taravat-Ruy, and Masoud Ahmadian raises serious questions about the Islamic Republic of Iran’s adherence to its international obligations regarding the independence of lawyers and the right to defense. The repeated use of charges such as “assembly and collusion against national security” and “propaganda against the state” against civil activists, journalists, academics, human rights defenders, and lawyers over the years has raised widespread concern about the use of vague security concepts to curtail citizens’ fundamental rights.
These concerns have taken on even greater urgency in Iran’s current circumstances. The intensification of the security climate and the spread of war rhetoric within the Islamic Republic’s political structure have heightened the risk of further restrictions on fundamental freedoms. The experience of various political systems shows that during periods of security crisis and external tension, the independence of lawyers and legal institutions is often among the first casualties of security-driven policies. Nevertheless, even in emergency situations, states are not exempt from their core obligations regarding fair trial, the independence of the legal profession, and the right to defense.
From a human rights perspective, the independence of lawyers is an inseparable part of the independence of the justice system as a whole. The more lawyers are subjected to threats, prosecution, or punishment, the more limited the capacity for legal oversight of state institutions and the protection of the rights of the accused will become. Under such conditions, the right to defense gradually ceases to be a genuine legal guarantee and becomes a purely formal, hollow right.
HANA Human Rights Organization, while expressing deep concern over the conviction of these three lawyers, calls on the authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran to annul the sentences handed down against them, to halt all forms of pressure and judicial prosecution arising from their legitimate professional and human rights activities, and to create the conditions necessary for lawyers to practice freely and independently.
HANA also calls on the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, and other relevant UN mechanisms to take note of this case as a troubling example of the erosion of lawyers’ independence and the undermining of the right to defense in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Protecting independent lawyers is not merely a matter of defending a professional group. It is a defense of one of the most fundamental guarantees of the rule of law and fair trial. In a system where a lawyer faces the risk of prosecution and punishment for defending the rights of citizens, the first victim is not the lawyer. It is justice.