How to cite this article / Come citare questo articolo
Akbari A.A.; Ghazani M. B. (2026). An Analysis of the Law on the Reduction of Ta’zir Imprisonment Punishments in Light of the General Policies of Iran’s Legal System. Aequitas Magazine, 10, 61-75.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23162111
ABSTRACT Empirical and doctrinal studies concerning the implementation of criminal sanctions have demonstrated that imprisonment entails a range of adverse repercussions extending well beyond the convicted offender, affecting family relations and imposing substantial social costs. In practical terms, the purported benefits of incarceration frequently fall short of the economic, institutional, familial, and social burdens that it generates. Against this backdrop, decarceration, understood as a manifestation of the broader policy of penal reduction, has progressively assumed significance within the framework of macro-level criminal justice policymaking. The present study examines the place of this policy within Iran’s legal and legislative system, with particular emphasis on the higher-order policy documents and the Law on the Reduction of Ta’zir Imprisonment Punishments, enacted in 2020, both of which were adopted in apparent alignment with the general policy of reducing reliance on imprisonment. The central question is the extent to which the provisions of the aforementioned law conform to the general policies governing Iran’s legal system. Through an examination of the relevant policy documents and the 2020 Law on the Reduction of Ta’zir Imprisonment Punishments, the study concludes that the legislation, particularly in view of the explanatory rationale underlying its enactment—including the necessity of revisiting the existing penal framework, reducing the prison population, curtailing public expenditure associated with prison administration, addressing the absence of a coherent judicial criterion and rational legal basis for prescribing imprisonment for various offenses, and reconsidering the compatibility of imprisonment with certain Islamic legal principles and its limited historical precedent in the governance of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)—is broadly consistent with the macro-level policies of the legal system and the objective of decarceration. Nevertheless, the law appears to have been enacted without reliance upon a sufficiently determinate normative or principled criterion. This deficiency has resulted, in certain provisions, in a divergence between the operative content of the legislation and the underlying rationale and declared philosophy of its enactment.
SUMMARY: Introduction – 1. General Policies of the Legal System and the Vision Document from a Legal Perspective – 2. Decarceration in the General Policies of the Legal System – 3. Decarceration in Development-Planning Legislation – 4. Decarceration in Ordinary Legislation – 5. The Law on the Reduction of Ta’zir Imprisonment Punishments – 6. Effects of the Law on the Reduction of Ta’zir Imprisonment Punishments – Conclusion.
Introduction
Recognition of the detrimental consequences associated with imprisonment, together with the proposition that the institutionalization of incarceration as one of the principal forms of punishment has, in certain respects, distanced the Iranian penal system from the normative foundations of Islamic criminal jurisprudence, has contributed to the increasing prominence of decarceration within contemporary Iranian criminal policy. Alongside decriminalization and dejudicialization, each of which seeks, in different ways, to reduce the number of cases entering or remaining within the criminal justice system, decarceration has increasingly emerged as a significant legislative and criminal-policy strategy.
This strategy, which has received explicit attention within the general policies of the legal system, has also manifested itself in ordinary legislation.
1. General Policies of the Legal System and the Vision Document from a Legal Perspective
1.1. Cultural Affairs
The general policy framework governing cultural affairs encompasses, inter alia, the following objectives:
- Strengthening the spirit of faith, self-sacrifice, and devotion as fundamental sources of national power, clarifying value-based foundations, and reinforcing national self-confidence.
- Fostering a healthy and ethical society grounded in Islamic values and cultural principles, together with citizens who are informed, dignified, honest, and endowed with an appropriate sense of social satisfaction.
- Promoting and elevating Iranian and Islamic culture and the arts as constituent elements of national identity.
- Advancing strategies for dialogue among civilizations and cultures at the national, regional, and international levels.
- Enhancing the role and status of women in the country’s economic, social, cultural, and political development while strengthening the institution of the family.
- Institutionalizing the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge and research, increasing Iran’s contribution to global scientific production, and expanding and deepening the knowledge-based movement with particular emphasis on creativity and innovation.
- Developing emerging sciences and technologies, including biotechnology, nanotechnology, cultural technologies, environmental technologies, and advanced materials technologies.
1.2. General Policies of the Legal System
The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran constitutes, in normative terms, an expression of the aspirations and ideals of the Iranian people and establishes the general direction and framework within which legislation and the general policies of the legal system are formulated. One of the distinctive characteristics attributed to the Constitution is its capacity for adaptability and responsiveness to changing circumstances and developments. It has also envisaged mechanisms for addressing structural difficulties and drawing more extensively upon the expertise and informed judgment of specialists and scholars in order to formulate practicable solutions.
1.3. General Policies of the Legal System in the Field of Social Participation
The final advisory position concerning the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the field of social participation conceptualizes social participation as a fundamental component of the administration of public affairs. It is grounded in an Islamic worldview and in the particular characteristics of Iranian society, with the objectives of sustaining the Islamic Revolution, promoting comprehensive development, cultivating and realizing human capacities, strengthening social vitality and dynamism, enhancing public trust and the legitimacy of the political system, and consolidating social order, security, stability, and cohesion.
The development of practical models of social participation and their institutionalization across all spheres of public life, together with the strengthening of the public sphere and political and social freedoms through the expansion of political parties, councils, and political and social institutions and associations, is likewise emphasized. Such participation is to be pursued through popular institutions and methods for organizing economic, social, political, and cultural affairs within the framework of Islamic principles and the Constitution.
Another central objective is the reduction of the government’s direct executive intervention while simultaneously strengthening governance in order to facilitate broader public participation within the constitutional framework.
2. Decarceration in the General Policies of the Legal System
Decarceration and the reduction of the prison population have constituted among the most significant policy concerns emphasized by the Supreme Leader to judicial authorities in recent years. Within the general policies of the legal system, which are promulgated by the Leader pursuant to Article 110(1) of the Constitution, reducing reliance upon imprisonment has repeatedly been identified as a significant policy objective.
The issue was expressly articulated for the first time in 2002 within the general policies concerning judicial security. Pursuant to paragraph 14 thereof, the revision of legislation with a view to reducing the number of criminal offenses and limiting the use of imprisonment was identified as one of the principal strategies for achieving judicial security.
Seven years later, in 2009, the general five-year judicial policy framework once again addressed the matter. Paragraph 12 of that document identified the adoption of appropriate measures concerning the use of imprisonment with a decarcerative orientation as one of the general policies of the relevant period.
Likewise, in 2015, the general policies governing the Sixth Five-Year Development Plan, while emphasizing the improvement of conditions in prisons and detention facilities under paragraph 65, expressly incorporated decarceration as one of the principal policy objectives. Paragraph 64 called for the revision of penal legislation with a view to reducing imprisonment sentences, substituting other forms of punishment, and ensuring proportionality between offenses and sanctions.
In implementation of paragraph 64 of the general policies of the Sixth Development Plan, adopted on 30 June 2015, the Judiciary subsequently approved the Directive on the Organization of Prisoners and the Reduction of the Prison Population, dated 28 August 2019. Several provisions of this directive expressly emphasize decarcerative policies.
Among these provisions is Article 7, which provides that, pursuant to the laws and regulations concerning decarceration and the use of beneficial legal institutions—including postponement of judgment, mitigation or exemption from punishment, the semi-liberty regime, and alternative punishments to imprisonment—the following measures shall be observed:
A. Courts shall refrain from imposing imprisonment upon persons who satisfy the statutory conditions for alternative punishments to imprisonment.
B. Heads of provincial justice departments and prosecutors shall ensure, to the greatest extent permitted by law, that the legal capacities relating to pre-trial measures and alternative punishments to imprisonment are employed so as to prevent, wherever possible, the incarceration of persons under eighteen years of age, persons without a prior criminal record, and women.
C. Courts of appeal, when considering objections to judgments imposing imprisonment, shall take legislative policies concerning decarceration into account.
The proviso further requires the heads of provincial justice departments, through supervision over judges’ utilization of the statutory mechanisms of decarceration and through appropriate judicial training, to plan for at least fifteen percent of judgments rendered by criminal courts to incorporate alternative punishments to imprisonment.
3. Decarceration in Development-Planning Legislation
The Iranian legislature has, in formulating successive development plans, demonstrated increasing awareness of imprisonment and its adverse consequences. Historically, the First Economic, Social and Cultural Development Plan of the Islamic Republic of Iran addressed decarceration, albeit primarily from a revenue-oriented perspective, thereby reviving, in a modified form, an approach that had existed in ordinary legislation enacted before the Revolution.
The Third Economic, Social and Cultural Development Plan, enacted in 2000, focused principally upon improving prison conditions and establishing an environment conducive to the rehabilitation and correction of offenders. The Fourth Development Plan, enacted in 2004, however, went further by addressing both the important issue of decriminalization and the reduction of criminal titles and the need to require the Judiciary to prepare and submit both a bill on decriminalization of criminal legislation and a bill concerning alternatives to imprisonment.
As reflected in Article 130 of that legislation, the objective was to employ modern methods of offender rehabilitation and correction within society while creating greater proportionality between the offense and the punishment and between the punishment and the offender’s personality. In other words, the legislature treated the substitution of imprisonment with alternative sanctions as one of the modern methods of offender rehabilitation and reform. At the same time, it regarded certain existing sanctions as disproportionate to the offenses in question and expressly identified proportionality between the offense and punishment, as well as proportionality between the sanction and the personality of the offender, as objectives and criteria for determining alternative sanctions.
Under the Fifth Economic, Social and Cultural Development Plan, enacted in 2010, the legislature took into account the fact that the Bill on Social Punishments as Alternatives to Imprisonment had already been approved by the Council of Ministers and transmitted to Parliament. Rather than reiterating the requirement for preparation of such a bill, the legislature emphasized matters such as standardization of criminal sanctions, replacement of imprisonment with effective non-criminal sanctions, enhancement of deterrence, strengthening the rehabilitative dimension of imprisonment, and improvement of prison environments.
4. Decarceration in Ordinary Legislation
In light of the adverse consequences associated with imprisonment, the legislature has progressively introduced provisions designed to prevent or limit the imposition and execution of custodial sentences.
In 2013, the Iranian legislature, through the enactment of the Islamic Penal Code, devoted Articles 64 to 87 of Chapter Nine to alternative punishments to imprisonment. Nevertheless, owing to the disorder and heterogeneity characterizing Iranian criminal legislation—particularly the 1996 Ta’zirat provisions—and the extensive reliance upon imprisonment as the principal sanction for numerous offenses, frequently involving lengthy custodial terms, alternative sanctions were not adequately utilized in practice. Moreover, the entrenched institutional practice of resorting readily to imprisonment contributed to undermining the legislative objective of expanding non-custodial sanctions.
Although the 2013 Islamic Penal Code was generally perceived as an important legislative manifestation of the general policy of decarceration, a closer examination reveals that certain provisions continued to reflect a preference for imprisonment as a principal reference point in judicial sentencing. A salient example can be identified by comparing Article 37 of the 2013 Code with Article 22 of the 1991 Islamic Penal Code. Under the earlier legislation, courts possessed the authority to mitigate or replace imprisonment with another form of punishment that was more favorable to the accused. Under the 2013 Code, however, the court’s authority in this respect was substantially constrained, being limited primarily to reducing imprisonment by one to three degrees.
Similarly, in the classification of punishments in cases involving multiple offenses, where determining the more severe punishment was not possible, imprisonment was treated as the criterion for assessing the relative severity of sanctions. Thus, merely incorporating several provisions concerning alternative punishments to imprisonment could not, by itself, be regarded as sufficient to realize a comprehensive decarcerative policy.
Against this background, a legislative proposal was introduced in the Tenth Islamic Consultative Assembly in 2019. The proposal initially bore the title Bill on the Reduction of Ta’zir Imprisonment Punishments and consisted of nineteen articles. Following parliamentary approval, it was transmitted to the Guardian Council, where it encountered several objections. After a number of months and following the removal of the objections raised by the Guardian Council, the proposal was finally approved by the Islamic Consultative Assembly on 12 May 2020, during the final days of the Tenth Parliament, under the title Law on the Reduction of Ta’zir Imprisonment Punishments, consisting of fifteen articles.
Upon subsequent review, the Guardian Council found no incompatibility between the law and either the Constitution or Islamic law and therefore approved it. The legislation introduced substantial modifications in the fields of criminal procedure, general criminal law, and substantive criminal law, particularly with regard to reducing imprisonment, altering the prerequisites for prosecution, modifying the rules governing aggravation of punishment in cases of concurrence and recidivism, and expanding the application of mitigating circumstances.
5. The Law on the Reduction of Ta’zir Imprisonment Punishments
The principal amendments may be summarized as follows.
5.1. Prohibition of Imposing a Prison Sentence Above the Statutory Minimum Without Stated Reasons
Pursuant to Article 2 of the Law on the Reduction of Ta’zir Imprisonment Punishments, which adds a proviso to Article 18 of the 2013 Islamic Penal Code, whenever a court imposes a term of imprisonment exceeding the statutory minimum, the judgment must expressly state the reasons, based upon the grounds specified in the article or upon other legally recognized considerations, for imposing a sentence above the statutory minimum. Failure to comply with this requirement constitutes a disciplinary offense punishable at the fourth degree.
A significant interpretive issue arising from the incorporation of this proviso into Article 18 is that the requirement expressly concerns imprisonment and does not explicitly refer to other forms of Ta’zir punishment. This raises the question whether a court may impose a fine exceeding the statutory minimum without providing reasons and, if so, whether such conduct would fall outside the disciplinary sanction prescribed by the proviso.
Given the concluding part of Article 18 of the 2013 Islamic Penal Code, which requires the court, when imposing Ta’zir punishment and subject to the applicable legal rules, to consider the following factors, the scope of judicial sentencing discretion must nevertheless be understood within a broader normative framework:
A. The offender’s motive and mental and psychological condition at the time of committing the offense;
B. The manner in which the offense was committed, the extent of the breach of duty, and its harmful consequences;
C. The offender’s conduct following commission of the offense; and
D. The offender’s personal, family, and social circumstances and the impact of Ta’zir punishment upon the offender.
It is therefore noteworthy that Article 18 is formulated in general terms and encompasses other forms of Ta’zir punishment as well. It may nevertheless be argued that although failure to provide reasons in the context of imprisonment constitutes a disciplinary violation, the same omission with respect to other forms of punishment does not necessarily trigger an equivalent disciplinary consequence.
This interpretation has subsequently been reinforced by the General Board of the Supreme Court. In Unification Decision No. 834 of 15 August 2023, the Court held that, for the purposes of sentencing under the proviso added to Article 18, the statutory punishment is to be understood, in practical terms, as the minimum term of imprisonment. Accordingly, where a court imposes a custodial sentence above that minimum without stating the reasons required by Article 18, the sentence may be regarded as exceeding the punishment prescribed by law and may constitute a ground for retrial under Article 474(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5.2. Extension of the Semi-Liberty Regime and Electronic Monitoring to Offenses Punishable by Ta’zir of the Second to Fourth Degrees
One of the contemporary institutional mechanisms whose development has been facilitated by scientific and technological progress is the semi-liberty regime and electronic monitoring. On the one hand, the substantial financial costs associated with administering prisons and managing incarcerated populations and, on the other, the damaging effects of incarceration upon families—particularly where the imprisoned person is the principal breadwinner—together with the resulting economic difficulties, make the development of effective mechanisms for addressing these problems imperative.
One of the principal concerns associated with releasing prisoners into the community is the possibility of recidivism and the consequent difficulty of maintaining effective judicial supervision. Contemporary technologies, however, including electronic monitoring devices, make it possible for judicial and supervisory authorities to maintain a degree of control over individuals who remain outside prison.
Under the 2013 Islamic Penal Code, the relevant mechanisms were principally confined to Ta’zir imprisonment of the fifth and sixth degrees. Under Articles 8 and 9 of the Law on the Reduction of Ta’zir Imprisonment Punishments, which amend Articles 57 and 62 of the 2013 Code, their application was extended to imprisonment of the second, third, and fourth degrees, provided that the offender has served one quarter of the custodial sentence.
The semi-liberty regime constitutes a form of custodial sanction under which a convicted person is permitted, during the daytime, to leave the prison environment without direct supervision in order to engage in educational, vocational, or therapeutic activities aimed at facilitating eventual reintegration into society. Following completion of the relevant employment, educational, or therapeutic activities, and during periods of inactivity, the individual is required to return to prison.
The semi-liberty regime is therefore applicable to persons serving relatively less severe custodial sentences who, while not regarded as posing an intolerable danger to society, require a structured mechanism of supervision. Subject to the individual’s consent, such persons may participate in employment, education, or therapeutic programs outside the prison and return to the custodial facility during the night, weekends, or public holidays.
The semi-liberty regime constitutes one of the mechanisms for the individualization of punishment and represents an institution without a significant precedent in the earlier Iranian Islamic Penal Code. Its incorporation into the contemporary Iranian penal framework was influenced, inter alia, by the French criminal justice model.
The subsequent case law has further strengthened the decarcerative reading of electronic monitoring. In Unification Decision No. 874 of 13 January 2026, the General Board of the Supreme Court held that Article 62 does not require the convicted person to enter prison before being placed under electronic monitoring. Where the statutory conditions are satisfied, the court may order electronic supervision when delivering judgment or subsequently during the enforcement stage, thereby avoiding an unnecessary prior admission to prison.
5.3. Legal Consolidation and Centralization of the Rules Governing Attempt and Complicity
An attempt to commit an offense may generally be understood as the commencement of acts of execution directed toward the realization of a criminal intent where completion of the offense is prevented by an external factor beyond the offender’s control. The concept therefore presupposes the transition from preparatory conduct to the execution stage of the intended offense.
The commencement of execution is of particular significance because the offender must have entered the operational phase of the criminal conduct and undertaken acts objectively directed toward completing the offense. Attempt thus constitutes conduct undertaken for the purpose of realizing a criminal intention where, owing to an external impediment, the intended result ultimately fails to materialize.
From a legislative-drafting perspective, an important principle is that rules governing a single legal subject should, as far as practicable, be consolidated within a coherent statutory framework rather than dispersed across numerous provisions of the same statute or across different pieces of legislation.
Under the 2013 Islamic Penal Code, Article 122 specified the punishment for attempt, while Article 127 addressed the punishment of an accomplice. Nevertheless, specific provisions elsewhere in the legislation also prescribed distinct punishments for particular forms of attempt and complicity.
Article 15 of the Law on the Reduction of Ta’zir Imprisonment Punishments, through its amendment of Article 728 of the 2013 Islamic Penal Code, eliminated the special statutory provisions prescribing specific punishments for certain forms of attempt and complicity and provided that the punishments for attempt and complicity should henceforth, as a general rule, be determined pursuant to Articles 122 and 127.
5.4. Examination and Elaboration of the Three Elements of Complicity
A. The Legal Element
Under the criminal justice system governing complicity, the liability of an accomplice is dependent upon the existence of a principal offense attributable to the principal perpetrator. The first prerequisite for complicity is therefore the criminal character of the principal conduct and the criminal liability of the principal offender.
Unless the conduct of the principal perpetrator possesses the legal characteristics of a criminal offense, there is ordinarily no basis for prosecuting another person for complicity. Thus, because suicide itself does not constitute a criminal offense under the general framework, assistance in suicide does not ordinarily constitute complicity in a crime. Nevertheless, certain contemporary legislative provisions have independently criminalized particular forms of assistance in suicide.
B. The Material Element
Although conduct characterized as complicity derives its criminal significance from its relationship to the principal offense, Article 126 of the Islamic Penal Code expressly identifies and enumerates the forms of conduct capable of constituting complicity.
Whenever the conduct of the alleged accomplice corresponds to one of the forms of assistance expressly contemplated by that provision, complicity may be established; otherwise, there is no legal basis for prosecuting or punishing the individual under the heading of complicity.
From the perspective of the material element, which manifests itself through the accomplice’s external or physical conduct, the three categories identified in Article 126 are enumerated exhaustively and constitute the statutory forms through which complicity may be established.
C. The Mental Element: The Accomplice’s Criminal Intent
In relation to intentional offenses, the existence of criminal intent on the part of the accomplice is indispensable to the establishment of complicity. Accordingly, a sufficient correspondence of intention must exist between the conduct of the accomplice and that of the principal perpetrator.
The requirement of a unity of intent, however, does not necessarily mean that the accomplice and the principal offender must have engaged in a prior agreement or formalized plan of cooperation. Rather, it is sufficient that the accomplice knowingly regard the principal’s conduct as directed toward the commission of the offense and intentionally provide assistance in furtherance of that criminal purpose.
5.5. Expansion of the Scope of Suspension of Sentence in Certain Offenses
Article 7 of the Law on the Reduction of Ta’zir Imprisonment Punishments, through the addition of a proviso to Article 47 of the 2013 Islamic Penal Code, expanded the scope of suspension of execution of punishment.
Under the amended framework, in cases involving offenses against internal or external security, partial suspension of punishment may be granted where the accused provides effective cooperation in detecting the offense and identifying other offenders.
Likewise, offenses against public morality, except those falling within Articles 639 and 640 of Book Five of the Islamic Penal Code (Ta’zirat), together with fraud, offenses legally treated as equivalent to fraud, offenses for which the law prescribes the punishment applicable to fraud, and offenses legally classified as fraud, as well as attempts to commit the offenses enumerated in the relevant proviso, may fall within the scope of suspension, subject to the requirements of Article 46 of the Islamic Penal Code.
5.6. Reform of the Rules Governing Concurrence and Recidivism
Ideal concurrence of offenses refers to a situation in which a single act simultaneously falls within several criminal titles and statutory provisions. Multiplicity or concurrence of offenses, by contrast, arises where an accused person commits more than one offense.
Concurrence is legally relevant where, at the time of adjudication, the accused has not previously been convicted and punished by a final judgment for any of the offenses concerned. In regulating material concurrence, the legislature distinguishes between offenses for which the law prescribes both minimum and maximum penalties and offenses for which the punishment is fixed or lacks a statutory minimum. Separate legal consequences are provided for these categories.
Accordingly, where a person has committed several distinct or repeated offenses, but those offenses have not previously been discovered or the person has not been finally convicted of them, the situation may constitute concurrence of offenses.
From a sociological perspective, multiplicity of offending may be regarded as one of the indicators of heightened criminal dangerousness. Where repeated or multiple criminal conduct presents an increased threat to society and entails potentially irreparable consequences for individuals or the community, criminal policymakers may adopt special measures, including aggravated punishment, in an attempt to deter such conduct.
In certain instances of multiple Ta’zir offenses, one offense may constitute an inseparable component of another. A distinction must therefore be drawn between the most severe punishment and the maximum punishment. The legislature generally establishes minimum and maximum penalties for Ta’zir offenses. Within that statutory range, the judge exercises sentencing discretion by considering the circumstances of the offender and the individual and social factors relevant to the case. Accordingly, the maximum punishment refers to the upper limit prescribed by law for the particular offense.
Where aggravation of punishment was previously mandatory in cases of concurrence and recidivism, the Law on the Reduction of Ta’zir Imprisonment Punishments has, to some extent, relaxed the mandatory nature of such aggravation and conferred greater discretion upon the judiciary, subject to statutory conditions. It has even permitted mitigation in certain cases involving concurrence and recidivism.
Under the 2013 Islamic Penal Code, where the number of offenses did not exceed three, the court was generally required to impose the maximum statutory punishment; where the number exceeded three, the court was required to impose a punishment exceeding the statutory maximum, up to one-half above that maximum.
Article 12 of the Law on the Reduction of Ta’zir Imprisonment Punishments, amending Article 134 of the 2013 Islamic Penal Code, introduced a distinction between multiple offenses of the same nature and multiple offenses of different natures. Where the offender has committed multiple offenses of the same type, only one punishment is determined, while the court may aggravate that punishment in accordance with the rules applicable to multiple distinct offenses.
Where the offender has committed several different offenses not exceeding three in number, the minimum punishment for each offense must exceed the arithmetic midpoint between the statutory minimum and maximum. Where the number of different offenses exceeds three, the punishment for each offense corresponds to its statutory maximum, while the court may increase each punishment by up to one-quarter above the statutory maximum.
Under the 2013 Islamic Penal Code, the rules governing concurrence did not apply to Ta’zir offenses of the seventh and eighth degrees, and the punishments for such offenses were aggregated with one another and with Ta’zir punishments of the first through sixth degrees. Article 12 of the Law on the Reduction of Ta’zir Imprisonment Punishments extended the rules governing concurrence to these offenses as well. Nevertheless, where seventh- and eighth-degree offenses are combined with sixth-degree or more serious offenses, they do not operate to aggravate the punishment applicable to the latter offenses.
Similarly, where multiple criminal consequences arise from a single material act, the 2013 Islamic Penal Code had previously subjected the conduct to the rules governing material concurrence and corresponding aggravation. Under the Law on the Reduction of Ta’zir Imprisonment Punishments, however, such circumstances are treated under the doctrine of ideal concurrence, with the offender being sentenced only to the punishment applicable to the most severe offense without additional aggravation.
Furthermore, under Article 10 of the Law on the Reduction of Ta’zir Imprisonment Punishments, where an individual intentionally commits several offenses and the statutory minimum punishment for at least one of them exceeds one year, the court lacks authority to impose an alternative punishment to imprisonment. This differs from Article 72 of the 2013 Islamic Penal Code, under which a statutory minimum imprisonment term exceeding six months for at least one of the offenses constituted an obstacle to imposing an alternative sanction. The legislative amendment thus sought to broaden judicial discretion in resorting to alternative punishments to imprisonment.
With respect to recidivism, Article 13 of the Law on the Reduction of Ta’zir Imprisonment Punishments, amending Article 137 of the 2013 Islamic Penal Code, reduced the threshold for prior conviction for intentional offenses by one degree and confined its operation to offenses falling within the first through fifth degrees. The punishment is determined from the statutory maximum up to one and one-half times that amount, while the minimum punishment for the subsequent offense is calculated by reference to the midpoint between the statutory minimum and maximum. The court is authorized, subject to the statutory requirements, to increase the punishment up to one-quarter above the statutory maximum.
5.7. Expansion of the Number of Offenses Subject to Private Prosecution
An examination of the amendments introduced by the Law on the Reduction of Ta’zir Imprisonment Punishments demonstrates that a substantial number of offenses against property and ownership, as well as offenses against personal reputation and dignity, have acquired the status of forgivable offenses.
These include, inter alia, certain forms of forgery and use of forged ordinary documents, exploitation of another person’s weakness, misuse of signed blank documents, coercion or threats to obtain writings, documents, or signatures, breach of trust, simple theft involving property below the statutory threshold, transfer of another’s property, fraud below the prescribed monetary threshold, offenses legally treated as fraud, and offenses against personal dignity, including insult of ordinary persons, dissemination of falsehoods, and defamation.
The relevant offenses are therefore no longer treated as purely public offenses and may ordinarily be prosecuted upon the complaint of the injured party. Withdrawal of the complaint or forgiveness by the complainant may consequently terminate the prosecution or execution of punishment, as applicable.
Moreover, under the proviso added to Article 104 of the Islamic Penal Code, the minimum and maximum terms of Ta’zir imprisonment for forgivable offenses falling within degrees four through eight are reduced by half. For example, where breach of trust under Article 674 of the Ta’zirat provisions previously carried a custodial range of six months to three years, the amended framework reduces that range to three months to one and one-half years.
It should nevertheless be noted that this legislative orientation was partially reconsidered in 2024. The Law Amending Article 104 of the Islamic Penal Code removed from the category of compoundable offenses, inter alia, the transfer of another person’s property, fraud and offenses treated as fraud, as well as the theft offenses referred to in Articles 656, 657, 661 and 665 under the conditions previously introduced by the 2020 reform. This subsequent amendment demonstrates that the Iranian policy of decarceration has not developed in a wholly linear manner, particularly with regard to property offenses.
5.8. Abolition of Life Imprisonment for Non-Hadd Offenses and Its Conversion into First-Degree Imprisonment
In the initial version of the legislative proposal introduced in November 2019, first-degree imprisonment was altered to a term ranging from twenty-five to thirty years. This provision, however, encountered constitutional and religious objections from the Guardian Council.
The Guardian Council reasoned that where the nature of the offense warranted imprisonment exceeding thirty years, restricting the sanction to thirty years would be contrary to Islamic law and inconsistent with paragraph 5 of Article 156 of the Constitution concerning the adoption of appropriate measures for preventing crime.
What is noteworthy, however, is that the Islamic Consultative Assembly did not substantively reform the provision in response to the objection, but instead removed the relevant paragraph altogether without simultaneously amending Note 6 to Article 19 of the Islamic Penal Code.
5.9. Extension of Complementary Punishments to All Punishments
Article 4 of the Law on the Reduction of Ta’zir Imprisonment Punishments, through amendment of Article 23 of the 2013 Islamic Penal Code, expanded the scope of complementary punishments. Accordingly, Ta’zir offenses of the seventh and eighth degrees also became subject to complementary sanctions from the date on which the amendment entered into force.
5.10. Possibility of Applying Judicial Mitigating Circumstances to All Ta’zir Offenses
The Law on the Reduction of Ta’zir Imprisonment Punishments seeks to facilitate offender rehabilitation, enhance proportionality between offense and punishment, and strengthen the principle of individualization of punishment.
Accordingly, it expanded judicial discretion in applying mitigating circumstances and in reducing or substituting punishments, particularly imprisonment. The restrictions that had previously limited such discretion under Article 37 of the 2013 Islamic Penal Code were substantially relaxed.
6. Effects of the Law on the Reduction of Ta’zir Imprisonment Punishments
6.1. Release of Prisoners
Implementation of the legislation is expected to result in the release of a substantial number of prisoners and thereby mitigate many of the harmful consequences associated with incarceration. These consequences include the potential disintegration of prisoners’ family structures, deprivation of employment and productive activity, the corresponding loss to society of the individual’s social and economic productivity, and the absence of family support during the period of incarceration.
6.2. Reduction of the Prison Population
A reduction in the prison population necessarily decreases the costs associated with prison administration and enables the relevant authorities to exercise more effective supervision and management over correctional facilities.
6.3. Increased Criminal Boldness
At the same time, reducing Ta’zir punishments without reliance upon clearly defined normative criteria may produce adverse consequences. If criminal sanctions are weakened or their deterrent capacity is substantially diminished, the resulting erosion of penal certainty and severity may, under certain circumstances, encourage offenders to engage in criminal conduct with diminished apprehension of legal consequences.
Such an outcome may be particularly consequential with respect to offenses including theft, pickpocketing, bag-snatching, kidnapping, unlawful transfer of property, fraud, breach of trust, property destruction, intentional assault and battery, forgery, and the use of forged documents. In such cases, excessive reduction of sanctions may potentially contribute to increased offending, heightened criminal audacity, and even disruption of public order.
It appears that, during the final days of the Tenth Parliament, the legislators may have accorded disproportionate weight to the anticipated positive impact of the proposal upon reducing the prison population, while giving comparatively insufficient attention to the possibility that certain reductions in punishment could produce undesirable criminogenic consequences.
Under particularly difficult economic and social conditions, including the period of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting loss of employment for substantial segments of the population, excessive reduction of certain criminal sanctions may potentially contribute to increased offending and, consequently, an escalation of criminal justice burdens.
6.4. Expansion of Private Justice
The ultimate objective of criminal legislation is the preservation of public order and security. Nevertheless, legislation may itself become a source of criminogenic conditions where its provisions inadequately protect public order.
Where punishments for numerous offenses are reduced to the point at which they lose substantial deterrent effect, individuals may become less inclined to seek judicial protection and may instead attempt to vindicate their rights through private action. Such a development may contribute to disorder, proliferation of disputes, increased litigation, and greater complexity in judicial proceedings.
6.5. Application of Article 10 of the Islamic Penal Code
The principle of the retroactive application of the more lenient criminal law entails significant procedural consequences for individuals previously sentenced to imprisonment.
Under paragraph (b) of Article 10 of the Islamic Penal Code, where, after a final conviction but before completion of execution, a new law is enacted that is more favorable to the convicted person, the previous conviction must be reconsidered insofar as it falls within the scope of the new, more lenient legislation.
Consequently, implementation of the Law on the Reduction of Ta’zir Imprisonment Punishments is likely to generate a considerable number of applications by convicted prisoners seeking the benefit of the newly enacted provisions. This process places an additional burden upon criminal enforcement divisions, which must identify and transmit cases requiring modification of judgments to the competent criminal courts, while convicted persons may simultaneously submit substantial numbers of applications invoking their statutory rights.
6.6. Increase in the Volume of Cases Entering Criminal Courts
The Law on the Reduction of Ta’zir Imprisonment Punishments indirectly altered judicial jurisdiction in certain cases. For example, the reduction of the punishment for kidnapping from the third degree to the fourth or fifth degree, depending upon the circumstances, resulted in a corresponding change in judicial competence. Consequently, from 1 July 2020, adjudication of such offenses ceased to fall within the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court One and was transferred to the Criminal Court Two.
Likewise, under the amended framework, destruction of property resulting in damage up to the statutory monetary threshold may constitute a seventh-degree offense punishable by a relative fine. Seventh-degree offenses are subject to direct proceedings before Criminal Court Two.
Conclusion
The foregoing analysis demonstrates that, notwithstanding the recognition and expansion of first-generation leniency institutions—such as mitigation of punishment, suspension of sentence, and conditional release—as well as second-generation leniency institutions—including alternatives to imprisonment, postponement of judgment, and exemption from punishment—the contemporary Iranian criminal policy framework continues to contain instances of unnecessary penalization and, in some cases, sanctions that may conflict with the individual and social interests of convicted persons. Measures such as social deprivation, media publication of convictions, and extensive exceptions restricting the application of leniency mechanisms to particular categories of offenders have persisted from earlier periods and, in some instances, have even expanded in scope.
Furthermore, the absence of sufficiently systematic criteria governing the selection and incorporation of religious opinions into legislative policymaking constitutes a potential threat to the stability and continued development of penal-reduction policies in Iran. The delegation of the practical implementation of decarcerative institutions to executive regulations adopted by the Judiciary or executive authorities may also raise concerns from the perspective of sound regulatory governance. Delays in the formulation and promulgation of such regulations, together with the failure to adopt certain essential implementing regulations concerning postponement of judgment, suspension of punishment, conditional release, and the semi-liberty regime, may further impede the effective and timely expansion of decarcerative policies.
Accordingly, it is imperative that the legislature reconsider the existing dualistic orientation whereby penal expansion is pursued simultaneously with decarceration and undertake the necessary legislative reforms in accordance with the general policy of minimal penalization. To this end, the scope of punitive measures based upon complementary and consequential sanctions should, on the one hand, be restricted to clearly defined and exceptional circumstances. On the other hand, the categories excluded from access to leniency institutions should be specified with legislative precision, transparency, and consistency with a coherent criminal policy and, wherever possible, narrowly construed. Finally, in order to ensure the integrated implementation of leniency institutions, the legislature should either avoid delegating essential details of their operation entirely to subsequent executive regulations or establish explicit and enforceable deadlines and sanctions for failure to adopt the necessary implementing regulations within a prescribed period.
References
- Ancel, M. Social Defence. Translated by Mohammad Ashouri and Ali-Hossein Najafi Abrandabadi. 4th ed. Tehran: Ganj-e Danesh; 2012. (in Persian)
- Akrami, R. Analysis of the process of the Guardian Council’s religious supervision over parliamentary legislation: A case study of the Islamic Penal Code. Quarterly Journal of Public Law. 2014. (in Persian)
- Omidi, J, Atouf H. Public execution of punishment: Justifications and consequences. Quarterly Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Studies. 2015. (in Persian)
- Ansari, MJ, et al. Ta’zirat from the Perspectives of Islamic Jurisprudence and Criminal Law. Qom: Research Institute for Islamic Culture and Thought; 2006. (in Persian)
- Borhani, M, Radmand MA. Reductionism regarding life-deprivation punishments in Iranian criminal law. Rahbord Quarterly. 2017. (in Persian)
- Beheshti Aghdam, M. A Criminological Investigation of Complementary Punishment. Master’s thesis in Criminal Law and Criminology. Faculty of Social Sciences, Imam Khomeini International University; 2017. (in Persian)
- Research Center of the Guardian Council. The 2013 Islamic Penal Code in Light of the Opinions of the Guardian Council. 1st ed. Tehran: Research Center of the Guardian Council; 2013. (in Persian)
- Peyvandi, GR. The wisdom underlying punishment in the Islamic penal system. Islamic Law Quarterly. 2016. (in Persian)
- Tavjehi, AA, Ebrahimvand H. The necessity of limited use of custodial punishment based upon Islamic jurisprudence. Judicial Legal Perspectives Quarterly. 2014. (in Persian)
- Tavjehi, AA. Pathology of the Islamic Penal Code. 3rd ed. Tehran: Judiciary Press and Publications Center; 2016. (in Persian)
- Hajizadeh, H. The authoritative fatwa in legislation within the legal system of the Islamic Republic of Iran: Reconsidering the concept of scholarly superiority in the framework of Shi’a governmental jurisprudence. Islamic Studies Quarterly: Jurisprudence and Principles. 2015. (in Persian)
- Hajihosseini, H. Examination of the jurisprudential foundations for public execution of hudud in Shi’a jurisprudence. Rasa’il Journal. Center for Specialized Jurisprudential Education; 2015. (in Persian)
- Hajidehabadi, A. Reflections on imprisonment in the legal system of Islam. Islamic Jurisprudence and Law Studies. 2011. (in Persian)
- Habibzadeh, MJ, Alipour A. Prohibition of ta’zir capital punishment in Imami jurisprudence. Islamic Jurisprudence and Law Studies. 2013. (in Persian)
- Habibitabar, J, Habibi Z. Jurisprudential foundations of capital punishment for drug-related offenses. Fiqh: A New Analytical Approach to Islamic Jurisprudence. 2014. (in Persian)
- Hosseini Ashkouri, B, Darabi B. Public execution of punishments from the perspective of comparative jurisprudence and the impact of temporal circumstances. Comparative Jurisprudence Quarterly. 2014. (in Persian)
- Heydari, AM. A penological critique of media publication of criminal convictions. Islamic Law Quarterly. 2013. (in Persian)
- Rostami Tabrizi, L, Zare MK. Analysis of publication of criminal convictions in Iranian criminal law from the perspective of penal philosophy. Criminal Law Research Quarterly. 2013. (in Persian)
- Zamani, A. Analysis of the function of the governmental decrees of the Supreme Jurist in the opinions and decisions of the Guardian Council: A case study of legislative criminal policy. Quarterly Journal of Public Law. 2016. (in Persian)
