Judiciary: Punishment for Violating Mandatory Hijab is 'Final and Non-Appealable'; Sina Yousefi: It's an Extralegal Interpretation of the Law

The Judiciary has stated regarding cases related to mandatory hijab that the issued verdicts and supplementary punishments are 'final and non-appealable.' Sina Yousefi, a legal expert, rejected this notion in an interview with Voice of America, stating that judges are making 'extralegal interpretations' of existing laws to 'advance the regime's goals' and 'suppress dissenters.' Recently, the Judiciary's Legal Department responded to an inquiry about whether the punishment of '10 days to two months in prison' or '2 to 10 million rials in fines' for women who do not comply with mandatory hijab can be appealed, stating that 'the issued verdict is final and non-appealable' and 'supplementary punishments are also non-appealable.' Sina Yousefi, a lawyer residing in Germany, said on Wednesday, March 1, that generally 'consultative opinions issued by the Judiciary's Legal Department are not binding sources for courts' and 'do not replace the law,' but rather 'experienced judges provide opinions in the form of consultative and advisory opinions regarding questions sent by some branches and authorities.' This legal expert pointed out the 'issuance of various social deprivations' in addition to the 'main punishment' for women who do not comply with mandatory hijab, citing instances such as 'orders for washing the deceased' or 'visiting a psychologist,' and added: 'In the matter of hijab, considering the lack of final approval of the Hijab and Chastity Law, judges are issuing controversial rulings by making extralegal interpretations to advance the regime's goals and effectively suppress dissenters, which sometimes leads to significant criticism from the legal community and human rights activists.' According to this lawyer, 'the recent consultative opinion regarding the possibility of appealing the crime of uncovering hijab is an opinion of an advisory nature that is not binding on the courts.' Sina Yousefi also added that this opinion 'states that for the possibility of appealing a verdict, the main punishment is considered, and supplementary punishments are not a criterion for measuring the possibility of appeal, although based on clause (c) of Article 474 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, recent supplementary rulings regarding the crime of uncovering hijab can be considered subject to retrial.' He noted that 'based on this provision, the ruling for washing the deceased, although not subject to appeal in the appellate court, was retried in the Supreme Court and, upon overturning this ruling, the case was sent to an equivalent branch.' This lawyer also emphasized: 'Some judges misuse supplementary punishments on the recommendation of security agencies to suppress dissenters of mandatory hijab.' Despite pressures on opponents of mandatory hijab and the issuance of judicial rulings and deprivation of social rights for them, civil disobedience continues in response to it. As the elections approach, the Islamic Republic has, in a contradictory process, temporarily suspended some punishments for opponents of mandatory hijab. Citizens have reported that vehicle confiscations for 'uncovering hijab' have stopped as the elections approach; a lawyer in Iran has also criticized the government's performative actions regarding vehicle confiscations for non-compliance with mandatory hijab.