Iran’s New Guidelines for Establishing Repentance Incompatible with the States Human Rights Obligations

In recent weeks, Hojjatoleslam Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei[1] issued new so-called “Guidelines for Establishing Repentance”[2] in accordance with Articles 114 to 119 of the Islamic Penal Code of 2013[3] and Clause “J” of Article 24 of the Executive Regulations of the Prison Organization.

According to Ejei, the new guidelines aim to reform and rehabilitate offenders while reducing recidivism. The guidelines outline a detailed process for appointed evaluators to evaluate repentance claims and emphasize the significant role of religious and legal repentance in the judicial system.

Within the guidelines, the definition of repentance is assessed as a psychological state involving a person’s return to God after committing a crime. The alleged offender must recognize the wrongness of their behavior, express genuine regret, commit to avoiding such behavior in the future, and make efforts to rectify the damage caused. If the accused claims repentance at any stage of the judicial process, they may submit their request along with evidence to a reviewing authority.

To support this review process, a new body has been created to review repentance claims. This body includes representatives from the judicial guidance and assistance unit, appointed social workers, and the classification council. Their role is to evaluate the sincerity of the repentance claim, considering factors such as adherence to religious obligations, compensation for damages, expression of regret, cooperation in uncovering crimes (informing on accomplices etc.), avoiding criminal associations, public service, treatment for addictions, and behavioral reform as assessed by appointed social workers. Cases involving repentance claims are to be reviewed expeditiously, with detailed reporting required within two weeks.

Articles in the New Guidelines for Establishing Repentance

Article 1, Definition of Repentance: Repentance is described as a psychological state where an offender returns to God after committing a criminal act. It involves recognizing the wrongfulness of the behavior, expressing regret, reforming behavior, committing to avoid future offenses, and making efforts to rectify the damage caused.

Article 2, Submission of Repentance Requests: Accused or those already convicted of crimes can submit requests for repentance along with evidence at any stage of the judicial process. The head of the penal institution can report evidence of repentance observed in the accused or convict, supported by a social worker’s report and the classification council’s confirmation.

Article 3, Verification of Repentance Claims: Judicial authorities may refer the accused or those already convicted to the judicial guidance and assistance unit or the penal institution for verification of repentance claims.

Article 4, Reporting Results: After referral by the judicial authority, the judicial guidance and assistance unit and the penal institution must report the results in detail within two weeks. If reporting within the specified time is not possible, this must be communicated to the judicial authority for further action.

Article 5, Criteria for Establishing Repentance:

Practical adherence to religious obligations.
Compensation for damages caused by the crime or arranging compensation or obtaining forgiveness from the victim or private claimant.
Expressing regret and providing a written commitment not to re-offend.
Effective cooperation in uncovering the crime or identifying accomplices.
Commitment to avoid associating with malicious individuals, accomplices, and crime partners.
Providing public services or participating in charitable activities.
Undergoing treatment and quitting addiction.
A written report by a social worker indicating behavioral reform.

Article 6, Review and Decision by Judicial Authority: Judicial authorities review cases out of turn, considering factors such as the personality file, behavioral file, and opinions from relevant institutions. If repentance is established, evidence is recorded in the decision.

Article 7, Repentance in Hudud Crimes: If repentance affects the punishment in Hudud crimes and is claimed after the final verdict, the prosecutor or penal institution reviews the evidence. If genuine repentance is found, it is reported to the court that issued the verdict and the judicial assistant of the judiciary. The judicial assistant informs the head of the judiciary for an appropriate decision.

Article 8, False Claims of Repentance: Claimants of repentance are informed that if the repentance is later proven to be given under false pretense, leniency and exemptions granted will be revoked, and they will face the maximum Hudud or discretionary punishment applicable.

Article 9, Implementation Responsibility: The Attorney General is responsible for the proper implementation of these guidelines.

Significance of Understanding Hudud Crimes

Understanding hudud crimes crucial for grasping the full implications of the guidelines.

Hudud punishments are a primary category of punishment in Islamic Penal Law, where the specific type and quantity are predetermined by Islamic jurisprudence. To impose such a punishment, the perpetrator must be mature, sane, and aware that their act is religiously forbidden. Crimes warranting hudud include adultery, theft, alcohol consumption, and others, with punishments such as flogging, amputation, execution, and exile. Crimes not explicitly mentioned in the penal code are judged based on credible Islamic sources and fatwas creating an even deeper concern around the subjective nature of punishment.

These punishments are severe and are intended to act as deterrents.

The implementation of hudud punishments is based on the 2019 Regulations on the Execution of Hudud Punishments, which strictly prohibit judges from altering the prescribed type, quantity, or method of punishment.

As outlined above, the new guidelines explicitly address how repentance claims affect severe punishments. The guidelines state that if repentance affects the punishment in hudud crimes and is claimed after the final verdict, the evidence of genuine repentance is reviewed by the prosecutor or penal institution. If genuine repentance is found, it is reported to the court that issued the verdict and the judicial assistant of the judiciary, who informs the head of the judiciary for an appropriate decision. The new guidelines state that genuine repentance can potentially mitigate these punishments even after a final verdict. However, this reliance on repentance introduces several additionally human rights concerns.

Consideration of Non-Shia and Non-Muslim Populations in Iran

According to official narratives, at least 10% of Iran’s population—amounting to between 8 to 9 million people—are not Shia Muslims. This demographic includes a significant number of Sunni Muslims, whose Islamic jurisprudence diverges from Shia interpretations, particularly regarding issues such as repentance. Furthermore, there are also Iranians who do not adhere to Islam at all, including members of various religious minorities, already facing persecution.

The failure to address the rights of these citizens is evident in the directive, which does not consider the non-Shia population all but ignoring their very existence. The implementation of laws grounded in religious principles introduces a lack of transparency and creates a substantial gap in legal protections. This diversity of views raises concerns that the increasing influence of religion within the judicial system will lead to administrative corruption, marginalize millions already facing persecution solely on the basis of beliefs, and result in subjective decisions superseding established legal codes.

Millions of citizens, including non-Shia Muslims and members of other religious minorities, are at risk of being marginalized and denied equitable legal protections.

Human Rights Concerns

he reliance on subjective assessments of repentance can lead to arbitrary and inconsistent judgments. Factors like practical adherence to religious obligations and expressions of regret are inherently subjective, which violates the right to a fair and impartial trial as enshrined in international human rights standards. In addition, the assessment of repentance involves subjective criteria such as expressions of regret and adherence to religious obligations. This subjectivity can result in arbitrary and inconsistent judgments, making the already bleak fairness and impartiality of the justice system worse.

The threat of severe retribution if repentance is deemed insincere undermines the principles of due process and fair trial. This threat potentially coerces individuals into expressing repentance out of fear of harsher penalties. The guidelines also do not provide adequate safeguards against coercion or undue pressure on the accused to claim repentance.  In an environment where individuals might feel compelled to demonstrate repentance to avoid severe punishment, there is a risk of false confessions and insincere repentance claims, which could lead to unjust outcomes. Furthermore, the potential for maximum Hudud punishments, which can include execution, raises serious concerns as such practices are prohibited under international human rights law.

Visit Peace Mark Magazine Online

Peace Mark Magazine is published monthly, and released on Mondays, featuring contributions from prominent thinkers, sociologists, and Islamic scholars who discuss and critique the latest policies of the Iranian government. With the recent launch of an English version to our website, https://www.peace-mark.org/en/ we invite you to explore the current issues including insightful articles by Islamic scholars and student activists regarding the new repentance guidelines.

Today the 159th issue of the Peace Line Monthly Magazine has been published. This issue also includes articles and commentary from: Ehsan Haqi, Sina Yousefi, Ghasem Baadi, Reza Alijani, Elahe Amani, Majid Shie’ali, Dina Ghalibaf, Motahareh Gonaei, Abdolali Bazargan, Amin Ghazai, Seyed Mohammad Sahafi, Mehdi Anbari, Alireza Goodarzi, Mostafa Daneshgar, Kazem Alamdari, Ahmad Alavi, Amir Aghaei, Monireh Baradaran, Bahram Rahmani, Sara Nadafian, Ali Kalai, Hormoz Sharifian, and other human rights activists.

[1] Review the profile of documented rights violations attributed to Ejei in HRA’s Spreading Justice database, https://spreadingjustice.org/new-islamic-penal-code-of-the-islamic-republic-of-iran-book-one-two/

[2] https://mehrnews.com/x35kkL

[3] Review the Islamic Penal Code (2013) in HRAs’ Spreading Justice Research Center, https://spreadingjustice.org/new-islamic-penal-code-of-the-islamic-republic-of-iran-book-one-two/

The post Iran’s New Guidelines for Establishing Repentance Incompatible with the States Human Rights Obligations appeared first on Human Right Activists In Iran.