Legal Expert Hosein Ahmadi-Nia Warns of Persecution of Christians and Bahá’ís in Iran

Hosein Ahmadi-Nia, a legal expert and attorney, in an interview with Voice of America, criticized heavy sentences issued against Christians and Bahá’ís in Iran, stating that freedom of religious choice is not actually recognized in the Islamic Republic. He accused the judiciary of violating the rights of defendants, restricting access to independent lawyers, and disregarding Iran’s international obligations.

Hosein Ahmadi-Nia, a legal expert and attorney with a record of defending civil activists and ideological prisoners, criticized in an interview with Voice of America television the judicial treatment of Christians and Bahá’í citizens in Iran. He described the heavy sentences issued against these individuals as “extralegal and extrajudicial,” stating that what occurs in these cases contradicts fundamental principles of human rights and fair trial procedures.

Ahmadi-Nia emphasized in this interview: “In the Islamic Republic, there has never been such a principle as freedom of religious choice.” This statement refers to restrictions that critics of the Islamic Republic’s legal and religious system have repeatedly raised, particularly concerning conversion from Islam to Christianity and independent religious activities.

The legal expert stated that cases involving many Christian citizens and Bahá’ís are heard in Revolutionary Courts and claimed that some of these cases have been accompanied by accusations such as espionage for America and Israel—accusations that, according to him, have not been substantively proven in the cases he referenced.

Ahmadi-Nia also named Judge Iman Afshari, head of Branch 26 of Tehran’s Revolutionary Court, and accused him of issuing heavy sentences against Christian citizens and inappropriate treatment of ideological defendants. The legal expert claimed that in some cases, intimidation of defendants and extraction of forced confessions have been involved. These allegations represent claims raised by Ahmadi-Nia, and independent evaluation of each case requires examination of judicial documents, testimonies, and relevant official responses.

However, reports from organizations defending religious freedom demonstrate that concerns about the judicial treatment of Christian citizens are not limited solely to this attorney’s statements. For example, Article 18 organization and Christian organizations defending religious freedom have reported cases of lengthy prison sentences imposed on these citizens. In one case reported in 2026, Ghazal Marzbaan, a Christian citizen, was sentenced to more than nine years in prison—a case that religious freedom advocates have considered an example of judicial pressure on religious conversion and religious activity.

One of Ahmadi-Nia’s central criticisms concerns the conflict between the Islamic Republic’s judicial system’s performance and Iran’s human rights commitments. Iran is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of the United Nations; a covenant that in Article 18 recognizes the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This right includes the freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of one’s choice and the ability to express it individually or collectively, in private or in public.

Article 14 of the same covenant also emphasizes the right to a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, the presumption of innocence, adequate opportunity for defense, and the ability to have legal counsel. Article 7 also prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

In Iran’s domestic law, Article 9 of the Civil Code stipulates that treaties concluded in accordance with the constitution between Iran and other countries are equivalent to law; Article 77 of the Constitution also places the approval of international treaties and agreements within the authority of the Islamic Consultative Assembly. Therefore, the discussion about Iran’s implementation of international obligations must be examined with consideration to the text of these documents and how they are implemented in practice.

Ahmadi-Nia claimed in his interview with Voice of America that in ideological cases, defendants are sometimes deprived of effective access to independent lawyers and fair trial proceedings. He also stated that the process of examining some of these cases is conducted in such a manner that the defendants are denied genuine defense and impartial review of the charges against them.

Christians and Bahá’ís are among groups concerning whom human rights organizations have expressed concerns about their legal and social status in Iran. For Christian citizens, activities in house churches, holding religious meetings, or promoting religious beliefs can result in the opening of security cases. Bahá’ís are also described in human rights reports as facing extensive restrictions in areas such as higher education, employment, religious activities, and enjoyment of equal citizens’ rights.

The principle of freedom of religion and belief is not limited solely to the right to follow religions recognized in domestic laws. Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights explicitly states the right to have or adopt a religion or belief of one’s choice and prohibits coercions that would impair freedom of choice of belief. From this perspective, the criminalization of mere religious conversion or the imposition of unjustified restrictions on peaceful religious activity raises serious questions about the compatibility of government action with its human rights commitments.

Ahmadi-Nia concluded this interview by describing the sentences issued in ideological and religious cases as evidence of what he considers the judiciary’s disregard for fair trial standards. He claimed that some defendants face insults, threats, and pressure from the initial stages of the case through trial and appeal, and in some instances, forced confessions play a role in the proceedings.

Addressing these claims requires independent access to case files, examination of interrogation and trial procedures, the ability to speak with defendants and their lawyers, and transparent publication of judicial documents. However, legal standards are clear: charges must be proven with verifiable evidence, the defendant must have a genuine opportunity to defend themselves, and religious belief or religious conversion should not replace proof of crime.

The central issue in the cases of Christian and Bahá’í citizens, beyond the fate of individuals, returns to the question of whether Iranian citizens can choose their religious beliefs and peacefully adhere to them without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or deprivation.

Freedom of religion and belief and the right to fair trial are not government privileges; they are rights that must be guaranteed to all citizens, regardless of their religion, faith, or belief.