راهنمای اقدامات ضروری فرد و خانواده پس از بازداشت؛ اهمیت اطلاع‌رسانی درباره وضعیت بازداشت‌شدگان

A Guide to Essential Steps for Individuals and Families After Arrest

- Public Communication About the Situation of an Accused or Detained Person

In many cases, families remain silent out of fear or in the hope that their loved one will be released, and they do not share information publicly. In political and security-related cases opened because of protests or for any other reason in different regions, particularly ethnic regions and Sistan and Balochistan, I must say that the general principle should be to publicise the detention.

The reason is that the repressive and security apparatus has no interest in public communication and does not want society to know about the situation of those who have been detained. It wants to carry out its activities and deal with matters concerning itself away from public attention.

For this reason, we find ourselves in a position where we must assess the interests involved. If we are lawyers, we must consider the interests of our clients. If we are family members, we must consider the interests of our detained loved ones. And if we are social or political activists, we must consider and assess the interests of the person affected by the decision to publicise their situation.

This applies to situations where our activities directly affect another person's circumstances. Sometimes our activities are intended to help a group of people, and it is not possible to obtain consent from every individual. But when one specific person is involved, obtaining their consent can sometimes be difficult, especially when that person is in detention.

However, assessing their interests is not particularly difficult. Therefore, the decision must be centred on that person. Our decisions must be guided by the interests of the detained individual.

How should we assess these interests from a legal perspective?

First, when interrogators and the repressive apparatus, including the Revolutionary Guards, the IRGC Intelligence Organisation and police intelligence, say that publicising the detention will make the detainee's situation more difficult, this shows that the system sees no benefit for itself in such publicity. And this is an advantage that serves the interests of the accused person. In other words, public communication is in the accused person's interests.

Second, when information is made public, the pressure on the detained person may decrease. This is because people may be subjected to severe torture during the first days after arrest.

I personally had a client who was in detention. When I followed up on their case, officials at the prosecutor's office would tell me how many websites had published articles about my client up to that day. This means they count these reports and pay attention to them.

Therefore, it is useful to take this into account during the first days after an arrest.

There is only one situation in which we can say with confidence that not publicising the detention will lead to the person's release. This applies to someone who is not facing a serious charge, is not a well-known person and is not facing severe accusations.

Naturally, when a person is not facing serious charges, the likelihood of torture and also the likelihood of their detention decrease.

However, in the case of individuals who are well known and face serious charges, and who, for example, are arrested following a major activity, it is natural that their detention may last longer.

From this perspective, publicising their situation can be useful and can at least help raise public awareness of their circumstances, so that the repressive system is careful not to carry out horrific torture and understands that this person must come out of detention safely.

As the case receives media attention, pressure on the repressive forces also increases.

These considerations are important.

But most importantly, if a lawyer is consulted from the very beginning to assess the person's interests accurately, that lawyer must be a human rights lawyer, not just any lawyer.

This is because some lawyers are very cautious about protecting their own position. Since they want to continue taking other cases and maintaining contact with security agencies and prosecutors, they also try to take their own interests into account.

By their own interests, I mean that they also try, to some extent, to remain on good terms with the authorities.

A human rights lawyer, however, does not take this approach. For such a lawyer, the interests of the individual are what matter.

When I was practising as a defence lawyer, I personally assessed whether publicising a particular case would help or not.

Whenever public communication was helpful, I immediately took action through domestic and international media, and domestic media outlets would also republish those reports.

Now, families can carry out this work on a wider scale.

However, when information is made public, it is important that someone close to the family and the detained person takes responsibility for communicating it, rather than just anyone.

False information must not be shared. Information should be accurate, helpful, free from exaggeration and published properly.