A group of legal scholars and experts, speaking at the opening session of the conference “Transition and Safeguarding Citizens’ Rights in Iran”, held on Saturday, 31 August 2024, at the University of Oslo, underlined that lasting democracy in Iran depends on inclusive participation and the guaranteed protection of fundamental rights for all citizens.
The first session, titled “From Transition to Consolidation: The Law of the Land”, concluded with a Q&A moderated by journalist Roya Karimi-Majd of Radio Farda. The four main speakers — Pegah Bani-Hashemi, a legal scholar; Shahram Kholdi, a historian and international relations researcher; Shadi Manesh, a scholar of law and international relations; and Behnam Daraeezadeh, a human rights lawyer and researcher — fielded questions from the audience. Later, Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, director of Iran Human Rights, joined the panel.
Karimi-Majd opened by asking Bani-Hashemi to expand on her earlier reference to a “council of jurists.” Bani-Hashemi clarified that she envisaged a group of constitutional and public law specialists tasked with drafting a new constitution during the transitional period, drawing not only on international expertise but also on collaboration with Iranian jurists inside the country.
An audience member then questioned why pre-revolutionary laws should be revisited, given that post-revolutionary criminal procedure already provides a “right to silence.” Kholdi responded that such a right existed explicitly before the revolution, citing the work of Dr Abdolhossein Ali-Abadi, who wrote that a defence lawyer could advise a client under interrogation to remain silent. The problem, he argued, lay less in criminal procedure than in constitutional provisions on the right to counsel, which were not drafted as precisely as in some other modern constitutions. But, he added, similar shortcomings exist even in countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom.
Kholdi went on to argue that objections to his view were misplaced, since the first National Assembly after transition should issue a Declaration of Rights covering the protections mentioned by other speakers. Elections would follow, and if doubts arose about a candidate’s record, parliament could reject their credentials and call a repeat election in that district. He recalled Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi’s observation that Iran’s criminal procedure code, even before the revolution, was in some respects more advanced than that of present-day Turkey.
The discussion turned to the role of ethnic and religious minorities in lawmaking. Shadi Manesh insisted that no sustainable political change in Iran is possible without the participation of these groups: “Any reform package or systemic change that ignores the demands of oppressed communities will not be accepted by society.”
Karimi-Majd then raised the issue of political institutions’ independence from government. Bani-Hashemi stressed that a durable constitution must enshrine the separation of powers and provide for independent institutions alongside the three branches of government.
Another audience question addressed public education on the Constitution. Bani-Hashemi warned against repeating the mistakes of 1979: “Society must be fully informed about the content before any vote is held. The constitution is not merely a legal text; it is a symbol of national will and identity, and it must be drafted with broad public participation.”
When asked what safeguards would prevent the return of past problems if old laws were revived, Kholdi firmly rejected reliance on pre-revolutionary codes. He argued that Iran’s civil laws were riddled with discrimination and could not serve as a foundation without fundamental reform. His stance highlighted a divergence of opinion among the experts.
On transitional justice, Manesh stressed that it must begin from the very first days of transition and must involve everyone from legal professionals to victims. “Experience shows that whenever the concerns of vulnerable groups are postponed, the transition fails,” she cautioned.
The next question concerned the enforcement of fundamental rights. Daraeezadeh responded that such rights should not be contingent on lengthy referenda or legislative delays: “The abolition of the death penalty and discriminatory laws must take effect from day one. Fundamental rights cannot be deferred to an uncertain future.”
The role of international institutions also came under discussion. Daraeezadeh emphasised that technical support and monitoring by international organisations in future free elections could serve as crucial guarantees for a peaceful transfer of power.
One participant drew attention to the case of Mashallah Karami, father of executed protester Mohammad-Mehdi Karami, who himself was sentenced to eight years in prison for seeking justice. He asked why reports on executions often neglect minority issues, including those of the Yarsan community.
Amiry-Moghaddam thanked him for raising the point, admitting: “The marginalisation of minorities is not always deliberate censorship. In our own reports on Mohammad-Mehdi Karami we failed to mention his family’s Yarsan identity — simply out of ignorance. We must ensure such omissions are not repeated.”
Another participant, identifying himself as Akbar Rafsanjani, asked Kholdi whether federalism figured in his proposed model for transition. Kholdi replied: “Federalism is not necessarily the best form of government.” He argued that Iranian political culture lacks a federalist tradition comparable to the United States. Even in Canada, he noted, often described as federal, provinces like Ontario operate with highly centralised authority, leaving municipalities little real independence. “Even within so-called federal systems,” he observed, “strong centralisation persists.”
Kholdi concluded that a provisional National Assembly could address all such issues in its Declaration of Rights: “I oppose elitist perspectives. Our people demand accountability, and they should not have to wait years for answers.”
As the session drew to a close, Karimi-Majd invited final remarks. Daraeezadeh reiterated that the danger of authoritarian relapse in transition is real, underscoring the need for independent and transparent oversight bodies from the outset. Manesh stressed again that transitional justice is meaningless if it excludes minorities and oppressed groups. Bani-Hashemi emphasised that any draft constitution must be prepared by a team of experts accountable to society. And Kholdi once more cautioned against reverting to discriminatory laws of the past.
The session ended with broad agreement that Iran’s path to democracy cannot succeed without firm guarantees for the fundamental rights of all citizens and the inclusive participation of every community.
Translated from Farsi via machine translation and lightly edited for clarity.