Opinion; Subjects: IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF), ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.26-05615 (E) 040526 050526
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 105th session, 23 March–1 April 2026
Opinion No. 9/2026 concerning Reza Khandan Heris (Islamic Republic
of Iran)*
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and
clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251
and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a
three-year period in its resolution 60/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 27 October 2025 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran a communication concerning
Reza Khandan Heris. The Government replied to the communication on 16 December 2025.
The State is a Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
3.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her
sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States Parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25,
26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to
the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the
relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to
give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
(d)
When asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy
(category IV);
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination, based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
* Miriam Estrada Castillo did not participate in the discussion of the case.
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/9
General Assembly
Distr.: General
5 May 2026
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/9
2
GE.26-05615
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Reza Khandan Heris is a national of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He resided in Tehran
and was 60 years old at the time of his arrest.
5.
Mr. Khandan Heris is a graphic designer and human rights defender. He is married to
a human rights lawyer and activist, who was subject of the Working Group’s opinion
No. 21/2011, Nasrin Sotoudeh.
6.
For decades, Mr. Khandan Heris advocated against compulsory veiling laws and the
death penalty in the Islamic Republic of Iran. He has been a consistent supporter of, and
collaborator in, the work of his spouse. He gained international prominence when he took to
social media and began publicly campaigning for his wife, following her arrest.
7.
In 2018, as part of a campaign to show support for women protesting against the
compulsory veiling laws, Mr. Khandan Heris began producing pins that read “I object to the
compulsory hijab”. These pins reportedly became a global symbol of the country’s women’s
rights movement.
(i)
Context
8.
Mr. Khandan Heris and one of his colleagues were originally arrested in September
2018 for producing and distributing the pins, and for posting online updates about
Ms. Sotoudeh’s arrest which had occurred in June 2018. Mr. Khandan Heris was imprisoned
for 111 days before being released in December 2018 due to the health impact of a hunger
strike that he was undertaking.
9.
Mr. Khandan Heris and his colleague attended the initial court session, but refused to
attend the following hearings, in protest. At the start, the court rejected the lawyers of the
defendants’ choosing, indicating that they would have to either accept court-appointed
lawyers or forgo legal representation. After much insistence and pressure, the court ultimately
accepted the lawyers but reportedly subjected them to harassment and threats.
10.
On 22 January 2019, both men were sentenced in absentia by Branch 15 of the Tehran
Revolutionary Court to six years of imprisonment, five of which were enforceable, for
“gathering and colluding with the intention of committing a crime against national security”,
and to one year of imprisonment on the charge of “propaganda activities against State”.
Mr. Khandan was also banned from leaving the country or engaging in online activities for
two years. However, Mr. Khandan Heris’s sentence was not carried out. As Mr. Khandan
Heris’s wife was also detained at the time and the couple had two minor children, his lawyer
applied for bail, which was granted.
11.
In February 2023, Mr. Khandan Heris was summoned to appear within 30 days for
the execution of his sentence, weeks after his spouse called for the release of Mr. Khandan
Heris’s colleague, whose life was in danger following a hunger strike. The summons was not
enforced at that time.
12.
The source also informs the Working Group about the discovery online of a leaked
letter indicating that the charges against Mr. Khandan Heris had been dropped and his case
had been closed. However, neither Mr. Khandan Heris nor his legal team were notified of the
closure of the case. While unaware of this important fact, Mr. Khandan Heris’s lawyer filed
a “resumption of proceedings” before the Court of Appeals on 25 September 2024, which
resulted in a reduction of the 2019 sentence from five years of imprisonment to four years,
one month and 10 days, of which three years and six months are enforceable.
(ii)
Arrest and detention
13.
On 13 December 2024, Mr. Khandan Heris was arrested again at his residence by the
Security Police. At the time, he and a friend were in the parking lot of their apartment
building, working on a home project. The officers claimed that he was being arrested for
traffic violations. When Mr. Khandan Heris’s spouse asked to see the warrant, it was
discovered that the warrant made no mention of any such violations. Instead, the warrant
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/9
GE.26-05615
3
produced, issued by the Security Prosecutor’s Office, gave “gathering and colluding with the
intention of committing a crime against national security” (art. 610 of the Islamic Penal
Code), “propaganda activity against the Islamic Republic of Iran” (art. 500 of the Islamic
Penal Code) and “encouraging people in society to engage in corruption and prostitution”
(art. 639 of the Islamic Penal Code) as the reasons for Mr. Khandan Heris’s arrest.
14.
As Mr. Khandan Heris was being arrested, his spouse asked the officers if they would
let him say goodbye to his child. They agreed, but when she returned with the child, the
officers had already left with Mr. Khandan Heris. Mr. Khandan Heris’s wife then went to
Janat Abad Police Station, where Mr. Khandan Heris was being held, however she was
refused entry as she does not wear a hijab.
15.
The following morning, on 14 December 2024, Mr. Khandan Heris was brought to
the prosecutor at the court in Evin Prison, where he was interviewed. He was then transferred
to prison quarantine, where he stayed for nine days with no outside contact. The source notes
that the day of his most recent arrest coincided with the enactment of the country’s new law
imposing harsher punishments on women and girls who did not wear the hijab, which
Mr. Khandan’s spouse had forcefully criticized.
16.
Mr. Khandan Heris’s wife has not been authorized to see her husband due to her
refusal to wear a headscarf. When Mr. Khandan Heris’s child attempted to visit Mr. Khandan
Heris on 29 January 2025, he was reportedly beaten by six prison officers, handcuffed, and
charged with “destruction of government property”, “insulting government officers” and
“resisting government officials”. This incident has greatly affected Mr. Khandan Heris’s
child and family.
17.
Mr. Khandan Heris’s detention has taken place under severe prison conditions that
have amplified challenges to his physical and mental health. Amidst overcrowding,
unsanitary conditions, being placed in solitary confinement and having communication with
his family severed, the detention has reportedly left Mr. Khandan Heris isolated and
vulnerable.
18.
Furthermore, with the escalating tensions between Iran (Islamic Republic of) and
Israel, and a conflict in June 2025, Mr. Khandan Heris and other inmates sent a letter on
13 June 2025 to the head of the judiciary requesting him to apply Supreme Judicial Council
resolution No. 211 dated 23 Dey 1365 (13 January A.D. 1987), which stipulates that
whenever wartime conditions arise and endanger prisoners’ lives, it is necessary for
prosecutors to review the situation of prisoners and proceed with accepting conversion of
bail, conditional release, and similar measures. The letter further cited articles 197 and 201
of the executive regulations of the Prison Organization, and the country’s security and
correctional measures, as provisions supporting the authority of the head of the judiciary to
grant leave to eligible prisoners. Despite the letter, and a meeting with prison officials, no
action was taken by the prison administration or the judiciary.
19.
On 23 June 2025, when Evin Prison was bombed, 71 people in and around the prison
were reportedly killed, including inmates. Mr. Khandan Heris, along with the other prisoners
detained for political reasons, was transferred to Tehran’s Fashafoyeh Prison, where
conditions are reportedly worse. The transfer occurred without any clear indication or
announcements, in the middle of the night. Prisoners were reportedly chained together in
pairs, and even though many of them were wounded or in poor physical condition, none were
taken to a hospital. The conditions in Fashafoyeh Prison include severe water shortages,
overcrowding, lack of hygiene, heavy pollution and frequent verbal and physical abuse.
20.
After 45 days in that prison, Mr. Khandan Heris was transferred back to the
still-damaged Evin Prison, where he remains to date.
(iii)
Legal analysis
21.
The source submits that the detention of Mr. Khandan Heris is arbitrary, falling under
categories I, II, III and V of the Working Group.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/9
4
GE.26-05615
a.
Category I
22.
The source recalls that the Working Group has found detention to be arbitrary where
the law justifying the deprivation of liberty is extremely vague and lacks the requisite degree
of precision and legal certainty, leading to deprivation of liberty which is unreasonable or
unnecessary.2 The Working Group continuously expresses concern under category I about
criminal charges that “might allow an excessively broad interpretation of its provisions due
to their vagueness … resulting in unjustified and arbitrary criminalization of the legitimate
exercise of the right to freedom of expression”.3
23.
Mr. Khandan Heris was convicted under article 500 (“propaganda activity against the
Islamic Republic of Iran”) and article 610 (“gathering and colluding with the intention of
committing a crime against national security”) of the Islamic Penal Code. It is argued that
due to the vague, open-ended application of these legal provisions, Mr. Khandan Heris could
not have known that his actions would amount to criminal conduct. Moreover, the source
notes that in 2012, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic
Republic of Iran submitted a report to the Human Rights Council describing these provisions
as “vaguely defined” and noting that they “contravene international human rights law and
unduly limit freedom of expression, association and assembly”.4
24.
Furthermore, the Working Group found in another case regarding the Islamic
Republic of Iran that the above-mentioned legal provisions were not consistent with the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the Covenant5 and that both article 500 and
article 610 of the Islamic Penal Code “are so vague and broad that they could … result in
penalties being imposed on individuals who had merely exercised their rights under
international law”.6 The determination of what constitutes an offence under these provisions
appears to be left entirely to the discretion of the authorities, notes the source. In 2019, the
Working Group found that the vagueness and broadness of article 500 and other provisions
of the Islamic Penal Code made it impossible to invoke a legal basis for deprivation of
liberty,7 and were therefore incompatible with article 15 (1) of the Covenant and article 11 (2)
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
25.
According to leaked documents, Mr. Khandan Heris’s case was closed due to an
amnesty that was never notified to Mr. Khandan Heris and his lawyers. In this regard, the
authorities appear also to be in violation of article 14 (7) of the Covenant, as Mr. Khandan
Heris is being punished for an offence for which he has already been convicted and granted
amnesty. The Working Group has found that postponement of one’s release from prison after
being amnestied or pardoned cannot be justified under international law. 8 The Working
Group also noted, in that instance, that deprivation of liberty subsequent to the date on which
an individual should have been released after being amnestied is arbitrary and in
contravention of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.9
b.
Category II
26.
Mr. Khandan Heris was detained due to his production and distribution of “I object to
the compulsory hijab” pins. The source recalls that article 19 (1) and (2) of the Covenant and
article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantee freedom of opinion and
expression. Specifically, this right includes the freedom to impart information and ideas of
all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or
through any other media of a person’s choice. According to the Human Rights Committee,
this right includes the right to express dissenting political opinions, the right to participate in
discussions on human rights and the right to comment on public affairs. Importantly, the
Committee explains that article 19 (2) also safeguards the means of dissemination through
2 Opinion No. 8/2017, para. 36.
3 Opinion No. 20/2017, para. 35.
4 A/HRC/19/66, para. 13.
5 Opinion No. 19/2018, paras. 30 and 31.
6 Ibid., para. 33.
7 Opinion No. 32/2019, para. 31.
8 Opinion No. 7/2004, para. 9.
9 Ibid., para. 10.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/9
GE.26-05615
5
which expression is shared, including “books, newspapers, pamphlets, posters, banners, dress
and legal submissions”.10 The pins that Mr. Khandan Heris produced and distributed are
clearly protected by this right.
27.
The right to freedom of opinion and expression has limitations under international
law; however, as the Human Rights Committee emphasizes, these restrictions “may never be
invoked as a justification for the muzzling of any advocacy of multiparty democracy,
democratic tenets and human rights”. 11 For a State to legitimately restrict expression,
restrictions must adhere to a three-part test: they must be provided by law, they must only be
imposed to protect a legitimate interest recognized under international law and they must
conform to the tests of necessity and proportionality.12
28.
The restriction of Mr. Khandan Heris’s expression is not provided for by law. The
source notes that nowhere under international law is the distribution of political pins a crime
or evidence of a crime for which detention can be imposed. While the State contends that
these actions amounted to propaganda under article 500 of the Islamic Penal Code, several
United Nations bodies have raised concerns about this law, indicating that “prosecutors and
revolutionary courts have systematically used these laws to target, harass and imprison
peaceful protesters”, in violation of international law.13
29.
Furthermore, the restriction of Mr. Khandan Heris’s expression was not imposed to
protect a legitimate interest, nor was it necessary or proportional. Article 19 (3) of the
Covenant allows for limitations of expression if they are for the following aims: respect for
the rights or reputations of others, and the protection of national security, public order and
public health or morals. The authorities have argued that national security is their legitimate
aim, however the source notes that there is no link between the aim and application of the
law – detaining a person for sharing political pins is not necessary for the protection of
national security.
30.
The failure of the authorities to identify any evidence linking Mr. Khandan Heris’s
distribution of pins to any national security threat demonstrates manipulation of the law to
suppress dissenting views. The Human Rights Committee emphasizes that arresting,
torturing, or threatening the life of a human rights defender never meets the “necessity” test.14
Ultimately, if a State restricts expression on legitimate grounds, “it must demonstrate in
specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and
proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and
immediate connection between the expression and the threat”.15 The State cannot identify a
legitimate threat posed by Mr. Khandan Heris, nor a legitimate justification for his detention.
31.
The Human Rights Council has opined that restricting the following is not compatible
with any limitations on article 19 (3) of the Covenant: discussion of government policies,
political debate, reporting on human rights and government activities, political activities,
peaceful demonstrations, and the expression of opinion and dissent.16 The source thus also
claims that the detention of Mr. Khandan Heris also constitutes an undue restriction on his
right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. Freedom of peaceful assembly and
association are guaranteed by articles 21 and 22 (1) of the Covenant and article 20 (1) of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
32.
For the past decade, Mr. Khandan Heris has been an avid participant in the work of
his spouse, who is a globally recognized human rights defender, lawyer, and figure in the
women’s rights movement in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The source contends that
Mr. Khandan Heris’s detention directly resulted from his association with and participation
in the women’s rights movement. Moreover, it is submitted that his arrest sends a broader
message to the movement, by signalling that those who challenge the State are at risk of
reprisal.
10 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011), paras. 11 and 12.
11 Ibid., para. 23.
12 Ibid., para. 22.
13 A/HRC/31/26, para. 29; and opinion No. 19/2018, paras. 30 and 31.
14 Njaru v. Cameroon (CCPR/C/89/D/1353/2005), para. 6.4.
15 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011), para. 35.
16 Human Rights Council resolution 12/16, para. 5 (p) (i).
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/9
6
GE.26-05615
33.
With regard to his right to the freedom of assembly, Mr. Khandan Heris’s distribution
of pins occurred in the context of the widespread protests of 2018 – an affirmation that his
actions constituted participation in a peaceful assembly. The Human Rights Committee
explains that symbols used during protests, such as flags, uniforms, signs and banners, should
be regarded as legitimate forms of expression. 17 The source argues that the pins that
Mr. Khandan Heris distributed fall within these protections.
34.
The source argues that although the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
association is not absolute, Mr. Khandan Heris’s exercise of his right did not exceed the
limitations set forth in the Covenant. It recalls that on multiple occasions, the Working Group
has found that belonging to a human rights organization and forming part of a group that
counters the Government constitute legitimate exercise of the right to association enshrined
in the Covenant and Universal Declaration of Human Rights.18
35.
Furthermore, the source notes that Mr. Khandan Heris was detained on the very day
that a new law relating to the mandatory hijab mandate was set to be enacted – a law against
which both Mr. Khandan Heris and his wife were planning to take a peaceful initiative.
According to the source, this context illustrates the authorities’ motivation to detain him in
retaliation for their advocacy and influence in the Iranian women’s rights movement.
36.
Finally, the source contends that Mr. Khandan Heris was detained because of his
advocacy in pursuit of non-discrimination. It notes that fundamental freedoms are enabling
rights which allow citizens and human rights defenders to advocate for other freedoms and
rights enshrined in international law. As the Human Rights Council foregrounds, the rights
to freedom of assembly and association are critical for the full enjoyment of civil and political
rights and of economic, social and cultural rights. 19 Mr. Khandan Heris exercised these
fundamental freedoms with the overarching goal of combating the discriminatory practices
that Iranian women are subject to. Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and article 26 of the Covenant affirm that all people are equal before the law and are entitled
to equal protection without discrimination. In this context, the General Assembly has
explicitly condemned “the discriminatory compulsory veiling laws and policies of the Islamic
Republic of Iran, which fundamentally undermine the human rights of women and girls”.20
The source submits that Mr. Khandan Heris’s distribution of pins, bearing the message
“I object to the compulsory hijab”, is a direct act of advocacy for realization of the substantive
right to non-discrimination and equal protection under the law. The targeting of Mr. Khandan
Heris constitutes, in effect, the targeting of this message of non-discrimination. As such, his
prosecution is not only an attack on his civil and political freedoms but is contrary to the
principles expressed in article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 26
of the Covenant.
c.
Category III
37.
Mr. Khandan Heris was denied access to counsel of his choice. Under article 14 (3) (d)
of the Covenant, accused individuals are guaranteed a defence through legal assistance of
their own choosing. During his original sentencing in 2019, the court obstructed Mr. Khandan
Heris’s right to counsel of his own choice, throughout the proceedings.
38.
In this context, the source recalls that the court insisted that Mr. Khandan Heris must
be represented by a court-appointed lawyer, denying him any say in the selection of his
defence. As a result, for three months, Mr. Khandan Heris was unable to be represented
effectively by the lawyer of his choice, leaving him without effective legal representation
during that period. The source also recalls the Working Group’s assertion that persons
deprived of their liberty have the right to legal assistance by counsel of their choice at any
time during their detention, including immediately after apprehension, and must be promptly
informed of this right upon apprehension.21 According to the source, this right has been
violated, which follows a larger pattern of similar violations in the country. As discussed by
17 See the Committee’s general comment No. 34 (2011), para. 11.
18 Opinion No. 10/1993, para. 5 (h); and opinion No. 26/1992.
19 Human Rights Council resolution 15/21, p. 1.
20 General Assembly resolution 79/183, para. 15.
21 Opinion No. 81/2021, para. 105.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/9
GE.26-05615
7
the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran, the “vast
majority of those detained” following the 2022 protests “had no access to a lawyer during the
entire investigation” and those who did were “routinely denied access to independently
appointed lawyers, including at trial”.22
39.
Following sustained pressure, the court finally accepted Mr. Khandan Heris’s lawyer.
He was, however, reportedly subjected to physical and verbal harassment when he appeared
at court for the trial. Following the trial, the lawyer reportedly faced continued targeting by
State authorities, putting his life at risk and forcing him to flee the country. As a result of the
State’s targeting of his lawyer, Mr. Khandan Heris was again denied effective access to legal
counsel of his choice, as the legal professional concerned was no longer present in the country
or able to represent him without risk of reprisal. The source submits that the intimidation,
threats and surveillance that Mr. Khandan Heris’s lawyer experienced directly undermined
this principle and Mr. Khandan Heris’s right to counsel under article 14 of the Covenant.
40.
Furthermore, Mr. Khandan Heris was denied access to a competent, independent and
fair tribunal. The source recalls that article 14 (1) of the Covenant provides that “everyone
shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial
tribunal established by law”, which is reiterated in article 10 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. In addition, the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under
Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment requires “a judicial or other authority” to have “the
strongest possible guarantees of competence, impartiality and independence”. The Human
Rights Committee has emphasized that the right to be tried by an independent and impartial
tribunal is an absolute right that may not be subject to any exception23 and that States must
ensure “the actual independence of the judiciary from political interference by the executive
branch” and protect “judges from any form of political influence in their decision-making”.24
41.
In this context, the source submits that the Iranian judiciary is heavily influenced by
the Government. In the revolutionary courts, the magistrate acts as both prosecutor and judge
in the same case, creating threats to fairness and impartiality. In 2024, the Independent
International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran explained that the
criminal and revolutionary courts showed “manifest bias against protesters and real or
perceived political opposition”, thus creating a situation where human rights defenders would
inevitably be subject to detention.25 The source notes that the judge presiding over Branch 15
of the Tehran Revolutionary Court at the time of Mr. Khandan Heris’s sentencing was
sanctioned by the United States Department of the Treasury and the European Union due to
his harsh sentences on human rights activists and peaceful demonstrators.
42.
The source recalls that the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the
Islamic Republic of Iran has underscored that the absence of an independent judiciary, and
its consistent politicization, particularly through the use of the revolutionary courts, has been
a significant factor in the failure of accountability within the country. 26 The Special
Rapporteur further found that the judiciary, and specifically the revolutionary courts,
“persistently violate the rule of law, natural justice principles and the international human
rights obligations undertaken by the Islamic Republic of Iran”.27
43.
The source submits that as a human rights defender, Mr. Khandan Heris was targeted
by the court, which sought to criminalize his persistent dissent. Mr. Khandan Heris was
subjected to a revolutionary court, acting as a tool of repression and lacking independence,
impartiality and fair trial guarantees.
d.
Category V
44.
The Working Group has previously underlined that deprivation of liberty for reasons
of discrimination includes discrimination based on “a person’s status as a human rights
22 A/HRC/55/67, para. 57.
23 González del Río v. Peru (CCPR/C/46/D/263/1987), para. 5.2.
24 See the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 19.
25 A/HRC/55/67, para. 55.
26 A/HRC/55/62, para. 88.
27 Ibid.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/9
8
GE.26-05615
defender”, and in particular, “discrimination in the exercise of rights elaborated under
declaratory instruments such as the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders”.28
45.
Mr. Khandan Heris is being targeted and detained due to his status as a human rights
defender, who has consistently and peacefully advocated against mandatory hijab laws and
spoken in favour of women’s rights more broadly. Together with his wife, he has reportedly
been subject to retaliation for defending fundamental rights.
46.
It is argued that Mr. Khandan Heris’s ability to engage in this work is protected under
the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. Specifically, under article 6 (b), Mr. Khandan
Heris is guaranteed the freedom to “publish, impart or disseminate to others views,
information and knowledge on all human rights and fundamental freedoms”. It is submitted
that the authorities infringed on this freedom by arresting and detaining Mr. Khandan Heris
for spreading human rights messaging via the pins.
47.
The source also submits that Mr. Khandan Heris’s arrest and detention is part of a
larger campaign to stifle human rights defenders. In November 2024, a month before
Mr. Khandan Heris’s arrest, the General Assembly expressed concern at “the use of
harassment and intimidation to silence individuals who oppose the Government of the Islamic
Republic of Iran, including human rights defenders and their families, such as through
arbitrary arrest and detention”.29
(b)
Response from the Government
48.
On 26 October 2025, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source
to the Government under its regular communications procedure. The Working Group
requested the Government to provide, by 26 December 2025, detailed information about the
current situation of Mr. Khandan Heris and to clarify the legal provisions justifying his
continued detention, as well as its compatibility with the obligations of the Islamic Republic
of Iran under international human rights law and in particular with regard to the treaties
ratified by the State. Moreover, the Working Group called upon the Government to ensure
the physical and mental integrity of Mr. Khandan Heris.
49.
In its response, received on 16 December 2025, the Government submits that
Mr. Khandan was arrested pursuant to an order issued by the competent judicial authority for
offences related to national security and propaganda activities against the State. His arrest
was carried out in accordance with legal procedures and with full respect for religious
principles after the arrest warrant was presented to him. The Government describes
allegations by certain media outlets hostile to the Islamic Republic of Iran, concerning the
manner of his arrest, as false and fabricated. Mr. Khandan Heris had been summoned on
several occasions to appear before the judicial authority but disregarded those summonses,
which ultimately necessitated the issuance of an arrest warrant.
50.
Mr. Khandan Heris has been sentenced, in accordance with the provisions of the
Islamic Penal Code, to three years and six months of imprisonment. Taking into account the
530 days of pardon granted, the sentence is scheduled to begin on 14 December 2024 and to
conclude on 3 September 2026. The judgment was issued in accordance with the law and
with full observance of all legal procedures, which included informing the accused of the
charges, and observing the right of access to a lawyer, the right to appeal and other relevant
safeguards.
51.
Despite benefiting from Islamic clemency and the application of a pardon,
Mr. Khandan has continued “anti-security activities” in prison by publishing false and
misleading letters and reports. He has refused to be presented to the judge or to attend
hearings by videoconference and has persistently declined to comply with lawful orders.
52.
The Government denies that Mr. Khandan Heris has been subjected to physical
mistreatment, characterizing the allegation as entirely false. It states that he has repeatedly
28 Opinion No. 45/2016, paras. 44 and 45.
29 General Assembly resolution 79/183, para. 20.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/9
GE.26-05615
9
resorted to violence in prison and caused damage but has been met with restraint by law
enforcement officers, with many disciplinary violations overlooked.
53.
Mr. Khandan Heris has received medical attention on several occasions: an
examination by an infectious diseases specialist for bronchitis; transfer to a specialized
medical centre on 24 May 2025 for gastrointestinal issues; thyroid function testing at an
external facility; and three authorizations for dental radiography, each of which he declined.
On one occasion, Mr. Khandan himself refused a transfer for gastrointestinal follow-up care.
54.
Mr. Khandan Heris is held in Evin Prison, with access to facilities and services
meeting, and in some cases exceeding, internationally declared standards. He has regular
access to family visits and to his lawyer. He was deprived of visitation rights (except for
visits with his lawyer and officials) for 21 days starting from 1 November 2025, as a
disciplinary sanction for disrupting prison order and refusing to comply with lawful
procedures; this measure has since concluded.
(c)
Additional comments from the source
55.
The Government’s response was submitted to the source, which provided its further
observations on 16 January 2026.
56.
The source reiterates that the legal basis for Mr. Khandan Heris’s arrest and conviction
is inconsistent with international human rights law. His prosecution under articles 500 and
610 of the Islamic Penal Code for producing and distributing pins inscribed with “I object to
the compulsory hijab” directly infringes his rights to freedom of expression, association and
peaceful assembly under articles 19 (1) and (2), 21 and 22 (1) of the Covenant and articles
19 and 20 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
57.
The source notes that the Government acknowledges the application of a “530-day
pardon” to Mr. Khandan Heris’s sentence. This admission confirms the existence of an
amnesty applicable to his case, consistent with the leaked document documenting the formal
closure of his case on grounds of amnesty. Despite the existence of this amnesty,
Mr. Khandan Heris was not informed of it and was subsequently rearrested and detained for
the same conduct, in violation of article 14 (7) of the Covenant.
58.
The Government has not addressed the substantive arguments regarding the
vagueness of articles 500 and 610, the Working Group’s prior findings concerning those
provisions, or the absence of any genuine link between Mr. Khandan Heris’s distribution of
pins and any national security threat. The source recalls that the Covenant may never be
invoked as a justification for suppressing advocacy of human rights, and that the State has
failed to demonstrate necessity or proportionality.
59.
The source underscores the heightened risk to Mr. Khandan Heris’s life arising from
the prison conditions, the bombing of Evin Prison, the transfer to Fashafoyeh Prison and the
ongoing deterioration of the security environment in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
2.
Discussion
60.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
61.
The Working Group has in its jurisprudence established the ways in which it deals
with evidentiary issues. In determining whether Mr. Khandan Heris’s detention is arbitrary,
the Working Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with
evidentiary issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of international
law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon
the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations. Mere assertions by the Government that
lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s allegations.30
30 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/9
10
GE.26-05615
(a)
Preliminary observations
62.
The Working Group notes that Mr. Khandan Heris has previously been the subject of
joint communications by special procedure mandate holders.31 In 2012, a communication was
addressed to the Government concerning a travel ban imposed on Mr. Khandan Heris in
connection with his public campaigning for the release of his wife. In 2018, another
communication was addressed expressing concern about the targeting of Mr. Khandan Heris
and his wife by the Iranian authorities on account of their human rights advocacy. Most
recently, in 2021, a further communication was addressed, raising concern that Mr. Khandan
Heris had allegedly been targeted by the authorities for his activities in support of his wife
and in protest against the country’s compulsory veiling laws. The Working Group observes
that the present case thus arises against a documented background of sustained special
procedures engagement regarding the repeated targeting of Mr. Khandan Heris by the
authorities, and that the concerns raised in those prior communications have not been
resolved.
(b)
Category I
63.
The source submits that Mr. Khandan Heris’s detention lacks any valid legal basis on
two distinct grounds. First, articles 500 and 610 of the Islamic Penal Code, under which he
was convicted, are so vague and overly broad that they cannot provide a lawful basis for
deprivation of liberty consistent with the principle of legality. Second, documents leaked by
the Edalat-e-Ali platform establish that Mr. Khandan Heris’s case was closed by way of
amnesty, a fact never communicated to him or his legal team; his continued detention for the
same conduct therefore violates the ne bis in idem guarantee under article 14 (7) of the
Covenant and article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
64.
With regard to articles 500 and 610 of the Islamic Penal Code, the Working Group
has on multiple occasions expressed serious concern about both provisions. In opinion
No. 19/2018, it found that they “are so vague and overly broad that they could result in
penalties being imposed on individuals who have merely exercised their rights under
international law”, and that these provisions are inconsistent with the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and the Covenant.32 In opinion No. 32/2019 it went further, finding that the
vagueness and breadth of article 500 made it impossible to invoke a legal basis for
deprivation of liberty in that case, rendering detention under that provision incompatible with
article 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 15 (1) of the
Covenant.33 These findings are directly applicable in the present case. Mr. Khandan Heris’s
conduct amounting to the production and distribution of pins reading “I object to the
compulsory hijab”, constitutes a paradigmatic exercise of the right to freedom of expression.
He could not have foreseen, on the basis of the text of articles 500 or 610 of the Islamic Penal
Code, that such peaceful advocacy would constitute criminal conduct. The Working Group
reiterates that the principle of legality requires that laws be formulated with sufficient
precision so that the individual can access and understand the law, and regulate his or her
conduct accordingly.34
65.
The Government asserts in general terms that Mr. Khandan Heris was convicted in
accordance with the provisions of the Islamic Penal Code and with due observance of legal
procedures. It does not contest the Working Group’s prior findings on the vagueness of
articles 500 and 610, nor does it provide any individualized explanation of how the
distribution of pins reading “I object to the compulsory hijab” could constitute an offence
under those provisions consistent with international standards. In the absence of such
explanation, the Working Group reaffirms its prior conclusions and finds that the deprivation
of liberty of Mr. Khandan Heris lacks a legal basis that meets the requirements of articles 3
and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 of the Covenant.
31 See IRN 16/2021, IRN 11/2018 and IRN 18/2012. These communications are available from
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/Tmsearch/TMDocuments.
32 Opinion No. 19/2018, para. 33.
33 Opinion No. 32/2019, para. 31.
34 See, for example, opinion No. 41/2017, paras. 98–101. See also opinion No. 62/2018, paras. 57–59;
and Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 22.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/9
GE.26-05615
11
66.
The Working Group additionally notes with concern the question of amnesty.
Documents leaked by Edalat-e-Ali and submitted by the source establish that a decision was
issued by Branch 1 of the Execution of Criminal Sentences Court in District 33, closing
Mr. Khandan Heris’s case on the grounds of amnesty. The Government, in its reply,
acknowledges that a “530-day pardon” was applied to Mr. Khandan Heris’s sentence, without
explaining the relationship between this partial pardon and the case-closure document that
the source has adduced. Critically, the Government does not contest the core allegation that
Mr. Khandan Heris and his lawyers were never notified of any amnesty or pardon decision.
The principle of legality and the right to liberty require that any amnesty or pardon be
communicated to the person concerned and be given immediate effect. The Working Group
has previously held that continued detention following a release order or amnesty has no legal
basis justifying further deprivation of liberty and is thus arbitrary, in clear violation of
article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 (1) of the Covenant.35
The Government has not offered an explanation that adequately refutes the conclusion that
the detention of Mr. Khandan Heris violates these norms.
67.
The Working Group therefore concludes that Mr. Khandan Heris’s deprivation of
liberty violates articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9
of the Covenant, and is arbitrary under category I.
(c)
Category II
68.
The Working Group goes on to consider whether Mr. Khandan Heris’s detention
results from the exercise of rights guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the Covenant, as submitted by the source.
69.
The undisputed facts establish that Mr. Khandan Heris was arrested and convicted for
producing and distributing pins reading “I object to the compulsory hijab”, an activity directly
connected to advocacy of women’s rights and to the right to non-discrimination. This
constitutes expression in the form of political advocacy. The Human Rights Committee has
confirmed in its general comment No. 34 (2011) that article 19 (2) of the Covenant protects
the freedom to impart information and ideas of all kinds through any medium of one’s choice,
and that this encompasses the means of dissemination, including books, newspapers,
pamphlets, posters, banners, dress and legal submissions.36 The distribution of political pins
falls squarely within this protection.
70.
Permissible restrictions on freedom of expression are subject to a tripartite test under
article 19 (3) of the Covenant: they must be provided by law, serve a legitimate purpose, and
be necessary and proportionate. The Working Group has already found, under category I,
that articles 500 and 610 do not satisfy the “provided by law” requirement of sufficient
precision and legal certainty. In its reply, the Government has not identified any specific
national security threat posed by the distribution of pins, nor has it demonstrated a direct and
immediate connection between Mr. Khandan Heris’s expression and any harm to others. The
Human Rights Committee has stated that a State invoking national security as a basis for
restricting expression must demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise
nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in
particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the
threat.37 No such demonstration has been made here.
71.
The Working Group further notes that Mr. Khandan Heris’s arrest occurred on
13 December 2024, the date on which the new Law on Protection of the Family through the
Promotion of the Culture of Chastity and Hijab was due to enter into force and against which
his wife had been a leading public opposition figure, which indicates a retaliatory motivation.
The Human Rights Committee has made clear that article 19 (3) of the Covenant may never
be invoked as a justification for the muzzling of any advocacy of multiparty democracy,
35 Opinions No. 1/2021, para. 84; No. 8/2020, para. 53; No. 9/2011, para. 38; No. 7/2011, paras. 15–17;
No. 3/2011, para. 20; No. 3/2010, para. 6; No. 21/2007, para. 19; and No. 5/2005, para. 19; and
decisions No. 45/1995, para. 6; and No. 61/1993, para. 6. See also Human Rights Committee, general
comment No. 35 (2014), para. 22.
36 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34, para. 12.
37 Ibid., para. 35. See also Shin v. Republic of Korea (CCPR/C/80/D/926/2000).
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/9
12
GE.26-05615
democratic tenets and human rights.38 The Government has not provided any explanation that
severs the arrest from this retaliatory context.
72.
The Working Group considers that Mr. Khandan Heris’s rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly and association are similarly engaged. His activities were carried out in the context
of the 2018 protest movement opposing compulsory veiling laws and reflected his sustained
association with the women’s rights movement led by Ms. Sotoudeh. The Working Group
recalls that it has previously found that belonging to a human rights organization and forming
part of a group that counters the government constitutes a legitimate exercise of the right to
association enshrined in articles 21 and 22 (1) of the Covenant. 39 The Government’s
invocation of national security to justify the suppression of peaceful political association
lacks the specificity required under articles 21 and 22 (1) of the Covenant.
73.
Having regard to the above, the Working Group concludes that Mr. Khandan Heris’s
deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of his rights to freedom of expression, peaceful
assembly and association guaranteed by articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and articles 19, 21 and 22 (1) of the Covenant, and is arbitrary under
category II.
(d)
Category III
74.
Given its finding that the detention of Mr. Khandan Heris was arbitrary under
category II, the Working Group emphasizes that no trial should have taken place.
Nevertheless, the trial took place, and therefore, the Working Group will proceed with
examination of the source’s submissions concerning the denial of fair trial rights.
75.
Regarding the right to counsel, article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant guarantees the right
to communicate with and to be defended by counsel of one’s own choosing. In limited
scenarios, counsel can be assigned by the court, but for a court to assign a lawyer over the
wishes of the accused, the substitution must be based on “an objective and sufficiently serious
purpose”.40 The source submits that, during the proceedings against Mr. Khandan Heris
before Branch 15 of the Tehran Revolutionary Court, in 2019, the Court rejected his chosen
lawyers and required him to accept court-appointed representation. As a result, he was
deprived of effective legal representation by counsel of his choosing for a period of
approximately three months. When his chosen lawyer was ultimately accepted, the State
subjected that lawyer to persistent harassment and threats, ultimately forcing him into exile
and again depriving Mr. Khandan of effective legal assistance. The Government does not
address this specific allegation, noting broadly that the judgment was issued in accordance
with the law and with full observance of all legal procedures, including the right of access to
a lawyer.
76.
The Working Group recalls that all persons deprived of their liberty have the right to
legal assistance by counsel of their choice at any time during their detention, including
immediately after their apprehension, and such access is to be provided without delay.41
Furthermore, the Human Rights Committee emphasizes that the right to counsel depends on
lawyers being “able to advise and to represent persons charged with a criminal offence in
accordance with generally recognized professional ethics without restrictions, influence,
pressure or undue interference from any quarter”.42 The forced departure of Mr. Khandan
Heris’s lawyer following State harassment constitutes a serious violation of this principle.
The Working Group thus finds that Mr. Khandan Heris was denied access to legal assistance
following his arrest, in violation of his right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation
of his defence and to communicate with counsel, under article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant.
38 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34, para. 23. See also Human Rights Committee,
Mukong v. Cameroon (CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991).
39 Opinions No. 73/2025, No. 54/2024 and No. 3/2024.
40 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32, para. 37.
41 A/HRC/45/16, paras. 51–53; see also the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on
Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings
Before a Court, principle 9 and guideline 8.
42 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32, para. 34.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/9
GE.26-05615
13
77.
The Working Group recalls that judicial independence is a sine qua non for the right
to a fair hearing, enshrined in article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
article 14 (1) of the Covenant, and that the Human Rights Committee has stated that the
requirement of competence, independence and impartiality of a tribunal in the sense of
article 14 (1) is an absolute right that is not subject to any exception.43 The Working Group
has repeatedly found that the revolutionary courts do not meet international standards of
independence or impartiality, and that their very operation itself creates a strong presumption
that an individual has not been tried by an independent and impartial tribunal. 44 In its
reasoning, the Working Group noted findings of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of
human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran that the absence of an independent judiciary,
and its consistent politicization, particularly through the use of the revolutionary courts, has
been a significant factor in the failure of accountability within the country.
78.
In this context, the Working Group notes that Mr. Khandan Heris was convicted by
Branch 15 of the Tehran Revolutionary Court. According to the source, Mr. Khandan Heris’s
case was presided over by a judge known for harsh rulings in politically sensitive cases. The
source specifically notes that the judge has been sanctioned by both the United States of
America and the European Union for his alleged role in human rights abuses. 45 The
Government has not provided any information capable of rebutting these concerns. The
Working Group therefore concludes that Mr. Khandan Heris was not tried by an independent
and impartial tribunal, in violation of article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and article 14 (1) of the Covenant.
79.
The Working Group therefore finds that the violations of Mr. Khandan Heris’s right
to a fair trial are of such gravity as to give his deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character and
concludes that his detention is arbitrary under category III.
(e)
Category V
80.
The source submits that Mr. Khandan Heris’s deprivation of liberty is motivated by
discrimination based on his status as a human rights defender and his political opinion. It
recalls that, for decades, he has peacefully advocated against compulsory veiling laws and in
support of women’s rights, in close collaboration with his wife, and that his arrest occurred
on the precise day that a new repressive veiling law was to enter into force – a law that his
wife had been publicly opposing. The source contends that this targeting forms part of a
documented systematic campaign by the authorities against human rights defenders and their
families, and that Mr. Khandan Heris’s detention constitutes discrimination in the exercise
of rights elaborated under the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, contrary to articles 2
and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant.
81.
The undisputed facts establish that Mr. Khandan Heris has spent decades engaged in
human rights defence work, in particular in support of women’s rights and opposition to
compulsory veiling laws, in close collaboration with his wife, a recognized human rights
defender who has herself been subjected to arbitrary detention. His arrest occurred on the day
that a new veiling law was to come into force, which his wife had been actively opposing.
Multiple United Nations mechanisms, including the General Assembly, have documented the
country’s systematic targeting of human rights defenders and their families, with the General
Assembly expressing specific concern at repressive activities conducted by the Islamic
Republic of Iran to harm, silence and intimidate individuals who oppose the Government of
the Islamic Republic of Iran and who bring attention to human rights violations, including
human rights defenders, journalists, dissidents and their families.46
82.
The Working Group has previously considered cases involving women who have
expressed their opposition to compulsory wearing of the hijab in the Islamic Republic of
Iran.47 In his 2021 report, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the
43 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32, para. 19. See also González del Río v. Peru,
para. 5.2.
44 See, among others, opinions No. 21/2023 and No. 53/2024.
45 Opinion No. 85/2021, paras. 86 and 87; No. 37/2023, para. 73; and No. 27/2025, para. 79.
46 General Assembly resolution 80/222, para. 21.
47 See opinions No. 15/2021, No. 54/2022, No. 21/2023 and No. 15/2025.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/9
14
GE.26-05615
Islamic Republic of Iran stated that the authorities continued to arrest and imprison women’s
rights advocates who had challenged compulsory veiling, on national security- and
morality-based charges.48 The Working Group further observes that the three prior special
procedure communications sent concerning Mr. Khandan Heris personally document a
consistent and escalating pattern of targeting by the authorities directed at him on account of
his human rights defence activities and his political opinion. That pattern, unremedied across
more than a decade despite repeated international engagement, is itself indicative of
discrimination based on political opinion and on his status as a human rights defender and
reinforces the conclusion that the present detention is motivated by those same discriminatory
grounds rather than by any legitimate law enforcement purpose. The Government has not
offered any information capable of rebutting this presumption.
83.
The Working Group therefore concludes that Mr. Khandan Heris’s deprivation of
liberty constitutes a violation of international law on grounds of discrimination based on his
status as a human rights defender and his political opinion, in violation of articles 2 and 7 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant, and is
arbitrary under category V.
(f)
Concluding remarks
84.
The present case is one of several brought before the Working Group in recent years
concerning arbitrary detention in the Islamic Republic of Iran.49 The Working Group is
concerned that this might indicate a widespread or systemic practice of arbitrary detention in
the country. The Working Group underlines that States have the obligation not to engage in
acts that could constitute crimes against humanity and to prevent and punish them if they are
committed. The Working Group refers the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, for appropriate action.
3.
Disposition
85.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Reza Khandan Heris, being in contravention of articles 3,
7, 9, 10, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9,
14, 19, 21, 22 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is
arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III and V.
86.
The Working Group requests the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to take
the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Khandan Heris without delay and bring it
into conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
87.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Khandan Heris immediately and accord
him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with
international law.
88.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Mr. Khandan and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of
his rights.
89.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
48 A/HRC/46/50, para. 54.
49 See, for example, opinions No. 18/2013, No. 28/2013, No. 52/2013, No. 55/2013, No. 16/2015,
No. 44/2015, No. 1/2016, No. 2/2016, No. 25/2016, No. 28/2016, No. 50/2016, No. 7/2017,
No. 9/2017, No. 48/2017, No. 49/2017, No. 92/2017, No. 19/2018, No. 52/2018, No. 83/2018,
No. 32/2019, No. 33/2019, No. 20/2022, No. 46/2022, No. 54/2022, No. 82/2022, No. 21/2023,
No. 37/2023, No. 53/2024 and No. 15/2025.
A/HRC/WGAD/2026/9
GE.26-05615
15
4.
Follow-up procedure
90.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests
the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up
to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether Mr. Khandan Heris has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Mr. Khandan
Heris;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of
Mr. Khandan’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of the Islamic Republic of Iran with its international
obligations in line with the present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
91.
The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may
have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and
whether further technical assistance is required, for example through a visit by the Working
Group.
92.
The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the
above-mentioned information within six months of the date of transmission of the present
opinion. However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up
to the opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action
would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in
implementing its recommendations, as well as of any failure to take action.
93.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States
to cooperate with the Working Group and has requested them to take account of its views
and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily
deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.50
[Adopted on 24 March 2026]
50 Human Rights Council resolution 60/8, paras. 6 and 9.