One of the Hijab Rulings Overturned; Supreme Court: Court's Reasoning is Incorrect

According to a ruling issued by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court, presided over by Ahmad Mortazavi Moghaddam, the conviction of a woman accused of 'improper hijab' has been overturned. The 1088th branch of the Tehran Criminal Court 2 had previously sentenced a female citizen accused of 'improper hijab' to perform 'free public services' for 270 hours (four hours daily) in the Ministry of Interior and its subsidiaries, as an alternative to imprisonment. According to the ruling of the Supreme Court, which overturned the aforementioned sentence, 'the vehicle is the location of the crime, not the means of committing the crime.' In the text of the ruling, while criticizing the issuing court, it states: 'The court introduced the mentioned vehicle as a facilitator of the crime and then, stating that the accused misused it, issued a one-year vehicle confiscation and revocation of the driver's license. However, the court's reasoning is incorrect because the vehicle is not a facilitator of the mentioned crime but is, in fact, the location of the crime (omission of action) since observing the religious hijab is a religious obligation that the legislator has criminalized, and the vehicle has no effect on its realization.' Furthermore, in another section of this ruling, it states, 'Supplementary punishments or public services must be aimed at impacting the perpetrator's actions, and in cases where the person denies the offense, does not insist on committing the crime, has no criminal record, and their family background does not confirm their delinquency, what necessity is there for applying it?' In this ruling, issued by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court and published with the signature of the Chief Justice, it initially points out the evidential flaw in the court's ruling, stating that 'in the documents obtained from the camera that captured the moving vehicle, the offender is usually not clearly identifiable; rather, the identification criterion is the vehicle's license plate.' Despite the accused woman's denial, the court 'instead of clarifying the subject and preparing a work report and reasoning to prove the crime, discussed the philosophy of hijab and its necessity.' After reviewing the request for retrial in this case, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court overturned the ruling and referred the case to another branch of the Tehran Criminal Court 2 for further consideration. The 1088th branch of the Tehran Criminal Court 2 has recently made controversial rulings and used specific language in its texts that have caused a stir, and the overturning of this ruling will be significant in this regard. Additionally, Gholamhossein Mohseni Eje'i stated on July 20, without referring to any specific ruling, that 'the determination of punishment should not be such that it causes disgrace; if the punishment determined is disgraceful to the judiciary, it will not have the necessary impact.' Following the intensification of the presence of women with optional hijab in public places, the confrontations with women have also intensified, and the rulings issued against them have taken on a different tone. Azadeh Samadi, a cinema actress, was sentenced to six months of prohibition from activity in the virtual space for not observing the mandatory hijab, and according to the issued ruling, she must visit official psychological centers every two weeks and ultimately provide a health certificate for 'anti-social personality disorder.' In another controversial ruling, the head of the 104th branch of the Varamin Criminal Court 2 sentenced a woman to pay approximately 3 million tomans 'in lieu of 2 months of imprisonment and one month of washing corpses in the Tehran County morgue' for not observing the mandatory hijab. An unusual directive from the Baharestan investigator stated that journalists must file cases in welfare and forensic medicine. Afshaneh Baygan's lawyer stated that the court ruling 'lacks legal validity.' A member of the legal committee of the House of Cinema resigned, stating that they consider the prevailing practice to be contrary to human dignity and human rights. Experts have criticized the rulings of mandatory hijab courts, stating that diagnosing psychological disorders is not within the judge's jurisdiction. Punishments for opposing mandatory hijab include 10 months in prison in Semnan for Leila Bolukat's hat.