Judicial and Police Responsibility in Young Woman’s Self-Immolation; From Criminalizing Football Watching to Ignoring Defendant’s Mental Disorder
According to ROKNA news agency’s report, a 29-year-old woman who was arrested in March 2019 for attempting to enter Azadi Stadium, set herself on fire on September 2, 2019 by pouring gasoline on herself after leaving the courthouse. ROKNA did not publish the name of this young woman.
The sister of this young woman, in a conversation with ROKNA news agency, said: “My sister went to Azadi Stadium in March 2019, and when she tried to enter the stadium, security personnel noticed her and when she resisted, they arrested her.” ROKNA wrote: “After leaving the prosecutor’s office, this woman, while screaming and complaining about an issue, set herself on fire by pouring gasoline that she had prepared beforehand.” The news agency did not specify what she was screaming in protest about or what demands she had.
The self-immolation of a young woman who was arrested on the charge of attempting to watch a football match and was under judicial prosecution represents the latest example of the enormous costs that Iranian society pays due to the imposition of unlawful and unnecessary restrictions on women. According to her sister’s statements, this 29-year-old citizen, solely for attempting to watch a football match—the simplest daily activity for a young person in all parts of the world—was arrested under the charge of “violating public morality” and faced the threat of imprisonment, and after six months of going back and forth between police stations, prison, the prosecutor’s office and court, due to unsuitable mental conditions, she attempted self-immolation. A significant portion of responsibility for this tragedy lies with the officials handling the case at the moral security police, the prosecutor’s office and the guidance court, because despite being aware of the defendant’s mental condition—she suffered from bipolar disorder—they did not take this matter into account in how they dealt with and pursued the case.
The sister of this young woman, criticizing the court’s failure to consider that she was under medical supervision due to bipolar disorder, told ROKNA news agency: “My sister has bipolar disorder and has been under a doctor’s care for two years. We have complete documents that we submitted to the prosecutor’s office, but after my sister made some offensive remarks to the officers, they treat her like a healthy person and conduct a judicial investigation.” She added: “After my sister was transferred to Varamin Prison, she suffered severe psychological trauma and became afraid, until she was released on bail. When she goes to the prosecutor’s office to retrieve her phone, something happens there and she hears that she has to spend 6 months in prison. My sister, in her mental and psychological condition, sets herself on fire, and now she is in bad condition in the hospital.”
ROKNA, quoting a judicial official without specifying his name and position, cited the charges against her as “violating public morality” and “insulting law enforcement officers.” ROKNA wrote: “This young woman was arrested last March because of improper hijab and a confrontation with moral security police officers. The necessary documents were prepared by the officers and handed over to Tehran’s guidance prosecutor’s office. Thus, a judicial case was opened for this woman with the charges of violating public morality and insulting law enforcement officers, but she was released after the judge issued a bail guarantee order.”
This judicial official attributed this young woman’s protests and screams to the rescheduling of her court hearing. ROKNA, quoting this judicial official, wrote: “On Monday, September 2, this woman attended her first court hearing, but since the head of the court was on leave due to the death of a relative at the time of her visit, another date was set for her case to be heard. However, the young woman, in protest of this matter, after leaving the prosecutor’s office, set herself on fire using gasoline that she had prepared beforehand.”
This young woman is transferred to Motahari Burns and Trauma Hospital after the arrival of emergency services. Dr. Mostafa Deh Mardei, the head of this hospital, told ROKNA about her current condition: “The patient is a 29-year-old woman who was admitted to the hospital with 90 percent third-degree burns from severe gasoline burns and is currently on respiratory support and is being treated in the ICU; however, regarding other details of her case, we are not authorized to provide information.”
From a legal perspective, responsibility for this tragedy rests with law enforcement and judicial authorities from two angles. First, the treatment of women who intend to enter stadiums to watch sporting events is not based on any law, and therefore any arrest or treatment is considered unlawful and arbitrary. Iran is the only country that bans women from entering football stadiums. This unofficial policy has been implemented since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979, at the insistence of religious groups and hardline politicians. The prohibition on women’s presence in stadiums has never been approved and published in any official law or circular. In other words, the Islamic Republic’s authorities, within the framework of a general policy to marginalize and push women to the periphery, have informally prevented women’s access to these venues by failing to provide the necessary infrastructure for their presence in stadiums.
However, according to the principle of innocence stipulated in Article 37 of the Constitution and also based on the principle of legality of crimes, no act is a crime and punishable except when an adopted law explicitly defines it as a crime and determines punishment for its perpetrators. Article 2 of the Islamic Penal Code states: “Any act, whether action or inaction, for which punishment is specified in the law is considered a crime.” Therefore, no woman can be arrested, tried, or punished for entering a stadium to watch sporting events.
The second reason for holding law enforcement and judicial authorities responsible for this young woman’s self-immolation tragedy is the failure of the investigating authorities to consider her mental disorder (bipolar disorder) in how they interrogated and dealt with the defendant. As evident from the sister’s statements, during the officers’ confrontation with her to prevent her entry into the stadium, a conflict occurred, and based on this, the officers opened a case against her on the charges of “violating public morality” and “insulting officers,” and for some time without considering the potential risks to the defendant’s life and health, they sent her to prison. Subsequently, at the prosecutor’s office, she was told that she would likely be sentenced to six months in prison. This is despite the fact that if attention had been paid to the conditions resulting from the defendant’s mental disorder, the prosecutor’s office could have used its legal right under Articles 80 and 81 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provides for the possibility of filing away the case or suspending prosecution, provided that the defendant regularly visits a psychiatrist and counselor. According to these two articles, in minor crimes like this case, if there is no private complainant and the defendant has no criminal record, judicial authorities at the prosecutor’s office and before sending the case to court can completely file away the case or make the continuation of prosecution conditional on the defendant carrying out a series of rehabilitative activities.
Furthermore, law enforcement and judicial officials are obligated to consider the physical and mental conditions of suspects and defendants during preliminary investigations and prosecution, and if needed, to provide them with health and medical services. Article 13 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities obligates member states, including Iran, to ensure equal access to justice for persons with disabilities, including those with mental disabilities, by providing appropriate facilities and necessary accommodations. For example, judicial authorities should consider that arrest and imprisonment and even the threat of it may confront a person with a mental disorder with a crisis or psychological breakdown and lead them to disproportionate reactions such as suicide. This same article stipulates that the state must train relevant officials on how to treat persons with disabilities during judicial proceedings.
Source: Human Rights Campaign
