From Resolution No. 211 of the Supreme Judicial Council to International Rules for the Protection of Prisoners’ Lives
Introduction
With the increase in military tensions and the possibility of the expansion of hostilities, concerns about the security of prisons and the lives of prisoners have also seriously increased. Prisoners are among the most vulnerable groups in any crisis situation, because they do not have the possibility of making independent decisions about their place of residence, access to medical treatment, or even securing their basic needs, and they are completely dependent on prison administrative structures. For this reason, in every legal system, the responsibility for protecting the life and health of prisoners lies directly with the governing authority.
In Iran, this issue has even more worrying dimensions. A considerable number of prisoners are being held in detention with political or security-related charges and with cases that human rights organizations have considered seriously questionable. Among prisoners there are also multiple vulnerable groups, including school students and underage individuals, women, mothers with children, persons with disabilities, and prisoners struggling with serious illnesses. The widespread detention of these individuals on vague charges or charges lacking the standards of fair trial has not only caused severe overcrowding in the prison system but has also doubled the responsibility of the state for the protection of their lives and health.
The Situation of Prisons in Conditions of Military Tension
Numerous reports from prisons in Iran show that even under ordinary circumstances prisoners face serious limitations in access to treatment, medicine, food, and hygienic facilities. When the country faces military tensions or the risk of armed conflict, this situation can quickly turn into a humanitarian crisis.
Disruption in access to medicine, increasing difficulty in transferring sick prisoners to medical centers outside prison, limitations in the supply of food and hygienic facilities, and the intensification of the security atmosphere within prisons are all factors that place the health and lives of prisoners at risk. In such circumstances prisoners effectively become trapped in a closed environment; an environment that, if placed within the range of military attacks, can turn into an extremely dangerous location.
Prisons at Risk
Although Evin Prison has received more media attention than other prisons, the situation of prisons in Iran is not limited to this facility. Greater Tehran Prison (Fashafouyeh), Adelabad Prison in Shiraz, the Central Prison of Mashhad, and Qazvin Prison are among the facilities where numerous reports have been published in recent years regarding difficult detention conditions.
Overcrowding, limited access to medical services, inadequate hygienic conditions, and difficulties in transferring sick prisoners to medical centers are among the problems reported in many of these prisons. In conditions of increasing military tensions, keeping large numbers of prisoners in such environments can create serious risks to their lives.
The Situation of Evin Prison Under Military Tension
Evin Prison, as one of the most well-known prisons in Iran, has repeatedly been the focus of human rights concerns in recent years. A large number of political, civil, and ideological prisoners are held in this prison. Under conditions of increasing military tensions, keeping this population in a closed and overcrowded environment without adopting effective protective measures may place their lives at risk.
In such circumstances the concern arises that, if the risks of war are ignored, prisoners may effectively be placed in a situation that can be interpreted as exposing human beings to danger as human shields; a situation that is explicitly prohibited under international law.
Iran’s Experience in Recent Crises and the Twelve-Day War
Despite the existence of legal capacities, Iran’s experience during different periods of crisis has shown that these measures have not been effectively implemented. During what became known in public discourse as the Twelve-Day War — a period of intensified military tensions that raised concerns about the vulnerability of infrastructures, including prisons — no broad action was taken to reduce prison populations.
During that same time reports were published indicating that prisoners’ access to treatment, medicine, and basic facilities had become more difficult and that concerns about the security of prisoners had increased. This situation once again raises the question: when the state is aware of the risks, why does it not use the existing legal tools to protect prisoners’ lives?
Resolution No. 211 of the Supreme Judicial Council and the Ignored Legal Capacity
Within Iran’s domestic legal framework, mechanisms for such situations have been anticipated. One of the most important of these is Resolution No. 211 of the Supreme Judicial Council dated 22 January 1987, adopted during the Iran-Iraq war.
This resolution allows the judiciary, in emergency conditions arising from war, to use instruments such as converting detention orders, accepting bail or surety, granting conditional release, and temporary release in order to reduce prison populations. The aim of adopting this regulation was to reduce human risks for prisoners in crisis situations.
However, the experience of recent crises shows that this legal capacity has in practice been used very little, even though the philosophy behind its adoption was precisely the prevention of such dangers.
The Obligation to Release Low-Risk Prisoners
Under conditions where prisons may effectively fall within the range of war, the first rational and humane step must be the immediate reduction of prison populations. Based on Resolution No. 211 of the Supreme Judicial Council and in coordination with international rules, the judiciary can and must use tools such as converting detention orders, accepting bail, granting conditional release, and temporary release in order to remove from unsafe prison environments all prisoners whose continued detention is not necessary for public security.
This group includes political and ideological prisoners, financial prisoners, those convicted of non-intentional offenses, and those convicted of minor crimes. Keeping these individuals in prison under conditions of increasing military risk may expose their lives to unnecessary danger.
International Law Rules on the Protection of Prisoners
At the international level as well, there are clear standards regarding the protection of prisoners. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, known as the Nelson Mandela Rules, emphasize prisoners’ access to medical services, adequate food, and appropriate hygienic conditions.
International humanitarian law — particularly the Geneva Conventions — also obliges states to protect the lives and health of individuals under their control during armed conflicts.
Placing individuals in situations that expose them to the danger of military attacks, or using them as tools of military deterrence, may constitute serious violations of international law.
The Experience of Other Countries
In some countries, measures have been taken during wartime conditions to reduce human risks within prisons. For example, during the war in Ukraine, with the expansion of hostilities, actions were taken to transfer prisoners from high-risk areas to safer regions and, in some cases, to reduce prison populations.
Such measures demonstrate that even in crisis situations decisions can be made that place the safety and health of prisoners as a priority.
Conclusion
Being imprisoned does not mean the loss of human dignity. Even during wartime conditions, states remain obligated not to depart from minimum humanitarian standards in their treatment of prisoners.
At a time when prisons may fall within the range of danger and their populations have increased due to widespread arrests and vague accusations, the responsibility of the governing authority not only does not decrease but becomes heavier. Ignoring this responsibility may place the lives of thousands of prisoners in danger — a danger whose consequences are not difficult to foresee.
Sara Ghoreishi
Sources
1. United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules), United Nations, 2015.
2. Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocols relating to the protection of civilians and detainees in armed conflict.
3. International Committee of the Red Cross, Detention in Armed Conflict: Legal Standards and Guidance.
4. Penal Reform International, Protecting Prisoners during Armed Conflict and Emergencies.
5. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Reports on Detention Conditions in Conflict Situations.
6. Human Rights Watch, Reports on Prison Conditions and Armed Conflict.
7. Amnesty International, Detention and Armed Conflict Reports.
