News Center_ The file of protest detainees in Iran is witnessing escalating debate, amid human rights reports speaking of increasing judicial pressures and the absence of basic legal guarantees during the stages of investigation and trial.

The Supreme Court annulled the death sentence issued against Bits Hamti, one of the detainees of the recent protests, and returned her case to Branch 26 of the Tehran Revolutionary Court, presided over by Judge Iman Afshari _ the same branch that issued the initial sentence against her and against a number of other defendants in the case.

Human rights activists and judicial observers believe that returning the case to the same body may indicate the possibility of repeating the previous approach, and raises fears of the continuation of harsh treatment that protest detainees have experienced during the investigation and trial stages.

Bita Hamti and her husband were arrested following a wave of security tensions that followed the recent protests, which were accompanied by a widespread arrest campaign, security tightening, and the opening of judicial files against protesters. Assording to human rights sources, a large number of detainees during those protests were subjected to trials that lacked the minimum legal guarantees, including restricted access to independent lawyers, limited communication with their families, and a lack of transparency in procedures.

Human rights activists affirm that the handling of security cases in Iran, especially those related to protests, is often conducted in non‑public sessions under the direct influence of security institutions, raising concerns about the fairness of trials and respect for detainees' rights.

Death sentences

Based on a ruling by Branch 26 of the Tehran Revolutionary Court, the court sentenced Bita Hamti and three other men to death on charges of "carrying out operational acts on behalf of a hostile state." They were also sentenced to five years in prison for "assembly and conspiracy against national security," in addition to the confiscation of all their property. In the same case, one of the defendants received a sentence of five years and eight months in prison.

These sentences, which combined death, long imprisonment, and property confiscation, have drawn widespread criticism from human rights activists and judicial monitoring organizations. Critics believe that the use of heavy security charges against protest detainees has become a means to increase judicial pressure and create an atmosphere of intimidation that limits freedom of expression and protest.

Vague charges

The ruling in the case mentioned charges of participating in protest marches, chanting slogans, throwing projectiles, damaging public property, in addition to allegations of using explosives and causing harm to security forces. However, legal observers affirm that no specific details were provided about the individual role of each defendant, raising questions about the accuracy of the charges and the transparency of the procedures.

Legal experts believe that the most prominent problem in this case is the lack of clarity in how the charges were brought, and the absence of precise documentation determining each defendant's individual responsibility. They point out that many cases related to protests in the country are built on general, broad security charges without sufficient evidence, which deprives defendants of the right to effective defense and weakens the independence of the judicial process.

Concerns

The Supreme Court's decision to annul the death sentence against Bita Hamti initially brought relief to human rights activists, but the return of her case to Branch 26 of the Tehran Revolutionary Court brought back concern. This same branch, presided over by the judge who issued the initial sentence, is known for issuing harsh sentences against civil activists, protesters, and political prisoners in recent years, and its name has appeared repeatedly in human rights reports and international criticism.

Human rights activists warn that referring the case to the same body may pave the way for harsh sentences again, especially as many protest cases continue to be processed in a non‑transparent judicial environment under the influence of security pressures, raising concerns about the fairness of procedures and respect for defendants' rights.