During the crackdown of January 2026 nationwide protest in Iran, what unfolded on the streets was not merely a “security response,” but a coordinated campaign of lethal violence against civilians. Direct gunfire aimed at protesters’ heads and other vital parts of the body makes clear that the intent of security and law-enforcement forces was not crowd control, but killing. Under Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, this pattern may amount to mass killing and crimes against humanity.
At the same time, tens of thousands of people across the country were arrested in sweeping, violent operations carried out without respect for even the most basic legal safeguards. The systematic denial of access to lawyers, family contact, and information about charges has effectively dismantled the right to defense and to a fair trial. In such circumstances, there is no doubt that the judiciary has ceased to function as a guarantor of justice and has instead become part of the machinery of repression.
Against this backdrop, the arrest of lawyers—particularly human rights lawyers—represents a direct assault on the right to defense and on the very foundations of judicial security in society. When lawyers themselves are subjected to arrest and prosecution, it signals the collapse of the independence of the legal profession and leaves citizens defenseless in the face of state power. This is not an isolated development, but part of a broader pattern aimed at eliminating independent legal voices.
This raises a fundamental question: why, in the face of such unprecedented circumstances, is there no meaningful response from Iran’s bar associations? Institutions whose very purpose is to defend the rule of law, the right to defense, and citizens’ rights cannot credibly remain silent while mass killings, mass arrests, and the collapse of fair trial guarantees unfold.
Even if bar associations were to define their role in purely professional or corporatist terms, silence in the face of the arrest of fellow lawyers—especially those engaged in human rights work—is indefensible. Defending members of the profession is the minimum expectation of the institution that claims to represent the independence of the legal profession. Inaction at this level amounts to surrendering that independence and acquiescing in unlawful pressure.
The continuation of this silence carries consequences far beyond the present moment. The failure of bar associations to act erodes public trust in these institutions and increasingly casts them, in the eyes of society, as complicit through silence in mass killing and repression. The warning is clear: an institution that remains mute at the critical moment of defending life, liberty, and the right to defense will ultimately forfeit its professional and moral standing.
It must also be emphasized that the silence of legal institutions is not a neutral or passive stance. In practice, it contributes to the normalization of violence and lawlessness. When bar associations do not respond to mass killings, mass arrests, and the systematic destruction of the right to defense, they signal to the authorities that violations of the law come at no cost—thereby paving the way for repetition and escalation.
If Iran’s bar associations retreat today from even their most basic historical and legal responsibilities, tomorrow they may no longer exist as meaningful professional bodies at all. The independence of the legal profession is not preserved through vague statements or cautious silence, but through clear alignment with the law, with justice, and with the victims of human rights violations. This is a defining test of credibility, courage, and responsibility—one whose failure will exact a heavy price for the future of justice in Iran.
Moein Khazaeli, Legal Scholar and Human Rights Researcher
