Chapter 4 - Fundamental Rights and Freedoms
Rationale of Article 24 – Human Dignity
Article 24 is established so that the human being, within the legal order, shall not be a means, but rather the foundation and the point of origin. Without recognition of human dignity, rights and freedoms are transformed into privileges that the government may grant, restrict, or withdraw at will. This Article declares that the value of the human being takes precedence over the will of government, political expediency, ideology, and public power. Human dignity is the common foundation of all fundamental rights. The right to life, the prohibition of torture, fair trial, privacy, freedom of expression, and the equality of citizens all rest upon the principle that the human being possesses an inherent and inviolable worth. If this foundation is not expressly stated in the Constitution, it becomes possible for rights to be interpreted as fragmented, subject to exception, or dependent upon the expediencies of power.
This Article also has an anti despotic function, because it forbids the government from humiliating, instrumentalizing, or degrading the human being. Every despotic order, before violating rights, first denies or weakens human dignity; that is, it regards the citizen not as a holder of rights, but as an object of command. Article 24 rejects this logic and provides that the law, the state, and all public authorities must act only within limits compatible with human dignity.
Summary:
Article 24 is the moral and interpretive foundation of all fundamental rights and freedoms. This Article guarantees that within the legal order, the human being shall be an object of respect and a holder of rights, not an instrument of power. Without this Article, the protection of the other fundamental rights would likewise become fragile and unstable.
Rationale of Article 25 – The Right to Life and the Prohibition of Capital Punishment
Article 25 is established in order to make clear that the right to life is the most fundamental human right and the first boundary of governmental authority. If the state is able, in the name of law, security, public order, or justice, to take the life of a citizen, the most dangerous instrument of despotism is placed in the hands of power. By declaring that the right to life is inviolable and immune from infringement, this Article fixes that boundary from the outset and declares that human life is not a matter for political, ideological, or governmental expediency.
The express statement that the death penalty and any intentional deprivation of life as a punishment, under any title and in any circumstances, are prohibited, is necessary in order to close one of the most important paths by which despotism may return. In historical experience, execution has not served only as a means of punishment, but has repeatedly become an instrument for the elimination of opponents, the intimidation of society, the display of governmental power, and the silencing of political dissent. A system that grants the state the right to kill by law always carries the danger that, by expanding the definition of crimes, multiplying exceptions, or subordinating the courts, that same power will be turned into a weapon against liberty and political competition. The absolute prohibition of capital punishment closes this door at its root. This Article also deliberately distinguishes between the right to life and personal liberty and security. Human life is absolutely inviolable, and the state has no right, under any title, to take it as a punishment. But personal liberty and security, although protected, may within the framework of law and by judgment of a competent court be subject to lawful restriction. This distinction exists in order both to close every possible legal justification for execution and to allow the judicial system, within the bounds of law, to use legitimate means such as detention, imprisonment, or other punishments that do not deprive life. The phrase no one may be arbitrarily deprived of liberty or personal security is established in order to confront unlawful detention, enforced disappearance, extra legal confinement, and the abuse of power by security and law enforcement institutions. In a lawful order, the state may intervene in the liberty of persons only within the limits of law and under the supervision of a competent authority. This part of the Article removes life and liberty from the sphere of arbitrary governmental will and makes them subject to rule and adjudication.
The anti despotic function of Article 25 is not confined merely to the prohibition of capital punishment, but also lies in preventing the state from turning punishment into an instrument for the destruction of the human being. A government that knows that the utmost extent of its authority is punishment within the framework of law, and not the taking of life, is compelled to separate justice from revenge. This Article also has a direct connection with human dignity, the prohibition of torture, fair trial, and the presumption of innocence, because once the human being is recognized as possessing inherent dignity, the government has no right to turn that person into an instrument of making an example, political revenge, or the preservation of the majesty of power.
Summary:
Article 25 exists so that the ultimate boundary of public power may remain clear: the state may, within the framework of law, prosecute, try, and restrict liberty, but it has no right to take human life in the name of punishment. By guaranteeing the right to life and absolutely prohibiting the death penalty, this Article establishes one of the most fundamental barriers against penal despotism and governmental repression.
Rationale of Article 26 – Prohibition of Torture
Rationale of Article 27 – Fair Trial
Article 27 is established so that justice may depend not only upon the result, but also upon the manner of adjudication. In a free order, the government may not, by reliance upon power, security, or expediency, decide concerning the life, liberty, property, or rights of persons; rather, it must act through lawful process and within the framework of fair trial. If the process of adjudication is not fair, even a decision that appears substantively correct lacks legal legitimacy. The requirement that proceedings take place before an independent, impartial, and competent court exists so that judgment may remain immune from the influence of government, political power, and outside interests. If the adjudicating authority is dependent, biased, or lacking in competence, the court becomes an instrument for confirming power rather than a forum for the vindication of rights. This Article separates judgment from the will of officials and binds it to law.
The principle of public hearing likewise exists in order to prevent secret, arbitrary, and unreviewable proceedings. A public hearing places the court under public, legal, and social scrutiny and reduces the likelihood of abuse, pressure, and unfair decisions. Exceptions to publicity must remain limited, otherwise secrecy becomes an instrument of repression. The guarantee of the right of defense and access to counsel exists so that no person shall remain defenseless and voiceless before public power. Without the possibility of effective defense, adjudication is transformed into a one sided process and the balance between the individual and the government disappears. Counsel and the right of defense are the most important instruments for restraining judicial and executive power within the process of adjudication.
Summary:
Article 27 exists so that judicial proceedings may be governed by law, impartiality, and the right of defense, rather than by power and the will of the ruler. This Article simultaneously protects individual liberty, the credibility of justice, and the balance of powers, and prevents the court from becoming the legal cover of arbitrariness.
Rationale of Article 28 – Presumption of Innocence
Article 28 is established so that no person shall be regarded as guilty merely by reason of accusation, suspicion, report, or the will of the government. In a free order, the human being is deemed innocent unless and until guilt has been established through lawful process and by valid evidence. If this principle did not exist, the government could, by accusation alone, deprive persons of dignity, liberty, and rights, and impose punishment before guilt had been proven. This Article places the burden of proof upon the government, not upon the accused. In other words, it is the government that must prove the offense by lawful evidence and before a competent court, rather than forcing the individual to prove innocence. If the burden of proof were placed upon the accused, public power could easily use accusation as an instrument of pressure, repression, and fabricated پرونده.
The presumption of innocence is one of the most important barriers against judicial and security arbitrariness. A despotic government typically begins by accusing individuals, and then uses that very accusation to justify detention, pressure, the destruction of reputation, or the deprivation of rights. This Article reverses that logic and provides that, until legal proof of guilt is established, the person enjoys all the legal protections due to an innocent individual.
Summary:
Article 28 guarantees that accusation shall not take the place of proof, and that public power may not, by mere allegation, designate persons as guilty and subject to punishment. This Article directly protects individual liberty, fair trial, and the restraint of the government’s penal power.
Rationale of Article 29 – Prohibition of Arbitrary Arrest
Rationale of Article 30 – Freedom of Expression
Article 30 is established so that society may think, criticize, warn, and question power without fear. Without freedom of expression, no other right can be truly preserved, because if people are unable to speak about injustice, corruption, abuse, or governmental error, violations of rights remain concealed and power escapes accountability. Freedom of expression is not merely the right to speak; it is the means by which truth becomes visible in the face of power. This Article specifically protects criticism of public persons and public institutions, because in a free order, public power must, above all else, remain open to questioning and criticism. If criticism of the government, public officials, or public institutions is restricted, law ceases to restrain power and instead becomes a shield for power. In such a condition, fear takes the place of dialogue and the government escapes public oversight. The guarantee that no one shall be prosecuted, punished, or deprived of rights because of peaceful expression exists so that opposition, protest, and the expression of opinion may not be turned into crimes. In an anti despotic order, mere dissatisfaction, criticism, or the expression of a dissenting view must not become a ground for repression. If the government is able, through broad and elastic labels, to punish peaceful expression, freedom of expression remains in appearance but disappears in practice.
The requirement that restriction must be only lawful, exceptional, clear, limited, and subject to judicial oversight exists in order to close the path of abuse. This means that the government may not restrict freedom of expression by administrative order, political judgment, or vague interpretation. Restriction must be rare, specific, and subject to judicial review, so that freedom remains the rule and prohibition remains the exception.
Summary:
Article 30 exists so that truth, criticism, and peaceful dissent may remain outside the sphere of crime, and so that public power may always remain open to questioning. This Article simultaneously protects individual liberty, public oversight, and the balance of powers, and prevents the government from immunizing itself against accountability by silencing voices.
Rationale of Article 31 – Freedom of the Media
Article 31 is established so that the flow of information, public criticism, and oversight of power shall not fall under the monopoly of the state or of those who hold power. In a free order, the media is not merely an instrument of information; it is one of the principal institutions for restraining power, exposing corruption, and bringing the voice of society into the public sphere. If the media is not free, the government can conceal reality, make error costless, and render corruption invisible. The guarantee of freedom of the media in its establishment, operation, publication, and access to information exists so that media freedom is not reduced merely to the outward survival of a few outlets. If the government can block establishment, disrupt operation, restrict publication, or control access to information, the media remains in appearance but becomes ineffective in practice. This Article recognizes freedom of the media throughout the entire chain of media activity. The prohibition of prior censorship is among the most important anti despotic guarantees of this Article. Prior censorship means that the state or a public authority decides, before publication, what may be said and what may not be said. If such authority is accepted, freedom of the media becomes meaningless at its root, because power eliminates speech before it reaches society. This Article provides that the rule is free publication, and that prevention of publication is possible only on an exceptional basis and under judicial supervision.
The prohibition of suspension, closure, or prevention of publication except pursuant to law and by judgment of a competent court likewise exists so that the government, executive institutions, and security authorities may not silence the media by administrative order or non judicial pressure. In an anti despotic order, shutting down a media outlet must not become a routine instrument of power for eliminating dissenting voices. Every restriction must be governed by law, exceptional in nature, and subject to the control of an independent judicial authority. The protection of the media against restriction on account of criticism, exposure, or the publication of lawful material likewise exists so that the media shall not be punished for performing its principal function, namely questioning power and bringing important public matters to light. If exposure and criticism become a pretext for restricting the media, the media is transformed from an institution of oversight into an institution of obedience.
Summary:
Article 31 exists so that reporting, exposure, and public criticism may remain free, and so that the government may not control the flow of information through censorship, suspension, or administrative pressure. This Article protects organized freedom of expression, public oversight, and the balance of powers, and is one of the most important barriers against secrecy and arbitrariness.
Rationale of Article 32 – The Right of Access to Information
Article 32 is established so that the government may not, through secrecy, escape public oversight, accountability, and legal control. In a free order, public information belongs to society, not to officials and institutions as their private property. If access to information is left to the discretion of the government, power can conceal its errors, corruption, abuses, and wrongful decisions from the people while at the same time evading accountability. This Article is written precisely to break that monopoly over information. The right of access to information is not merely an administrative right; it is one of the practical foundations of political and civil rights. The people can vote in an informed manner, criticize the government, and confront corruption only when they have access to public information. The media and civil society also cannot perform their true role in overseeing power without access to information.
This Article provides that the rule is access and transparency, and that confidentiality is only the exception. For this reason, any restriction on access must exist only in exceptional and limited cases and only pursuant to law, so that the government may not render the principle of transparency ineffective by relying on broad and vague labels. This rule clarifies the boundary between the legitimate protection of certain specific information and arbitrary secrecy. This Article also contributes to the balance of powers, because it removes the monopoly over information from the hands of the government and strengthens the possibility of oversight by the media, parliament, the courts, and public opinion. The less power is able to conceal information, the greater its accountability and the less its opportunity for abuse.
Summary:
Article 32 exists so that transparency may be the rule and secrecy the exception. This Article protects the people’s right to know, to oversee power, and to participate knowingly in public affairs, and prevents the government from immunizing itself against accountability by concealing information.
Rationale of Article 33 – Freedom of Assembly
Article 33 is established so that citizens may collectively, openly, and peacefully express their views, protests, support, or demands, without needing the permission of the government in order to exercise this right. If freedom of assembly depends upon prior authorization, approval, or governmental consent, that right in practice disappears; for the very power that may be the subject of protest is then given the authority to stop the protest itself. For this reason, in an anti despotic order, assembly is a right, not an administrative privilege. Freedom of assembly is one of the principal instruments of the direct presence of the people in the public sphere. Not all social demands are expressed through parties, elections, the media, or the courts. At times, society must be able, openly and collectively, to show its dissatisfaction, warning, solidarity, or demand. If this possibility does not exist, the distance between society and government grows, and social pressures are driven, instead of toward lawful and open expression, toward hidden dissatisfaction, the accumulation of anger, and instability. The emphasis that assembly requires no permission, license, registration, or prior approval exists in order to close one of the most common instruments for restraining freedom. Restrictive governments usually accept freedom in appearance, but make it dependent upon formalities, permits, or the judgment of an administrative authority. The result is that the right, in practice, remains only for assemblies approved by the government. This Article closes that path and provides that freedom is the rule, and that the government has no right to place itself in advance in the position of selector or gatekeeper of this right.
The prohibition of the suspension, disruption, or breaking up of an assembly likewise exists so that the government may not render this right ineffective in practice even without issuing a formal prohibition. Freedom of assembly does not mean merely that it is not legally prohibited; it must also be genuinely possible to hold it in reality. If a public authority is able, through pressure, intervention, obstruction, or practical disruption, to disable an assembly, the right remains in appearance but is destroyed in practice.
The phrase “exceptional and limited cases expressly provided by law” likewise exists so that this freedom is not left wholly without regulation, while at the same time the path of governmental abuse remains closed. The law may establish exceptions only in limited and clear cases, not by elastic and interpretable concepts that encompass every form of opposition. In this way, freedom remains the rule and the exception cannot take the place of the rule.
Summary:
Article 33 exists so that the people may, without needing the permission of the government, appear collectively and peacefully in the public sphere and openly express their views or protests. This Article protects political freedom, civic presence, and the restraint of power, and prevents the government from destroying one of the principal means of direct expression of the social will through permitting requirements, intervention, or practical disruption.
Rationale of Article 34 – Freedom of Association
Article 34 is established so that society may organize itself outside the state and independently of political power. If citizens do not have the right freely to come together in associations, unions, syndicates, or civil and professional organizations, the government gradually becomes the only center of organized power in the country, and society is reduced to a collection of scattered and weakened individuals. In such a condition, the defense of shared interests, the pursuit of demands, and the restraint of public power become difficult. This Article is written to prevent precisely that dangerous concentration of power. Freedom of association is one of the principal foundations of the balance of powers in a free society. Power is restrained not only by parliament and the courts, but also by independent social institutions. Unions, associations, and civil organizations stand between the individual and the state and do not allow the citizen to remain alone and unsupported before the government. The stronger these independent institutions are, the less the possibility of arbitrariness and the greater the capacity of society to defend its own rights. This Article also exists so that collective organization does not become a governmental privilege. If the formation or survival of associations depends upon the will of officials, only those associations favored by power will remain, and independent or critical institutions will, in practice, disappear. Therefore, the Constitution must place freedom of association as the rule, so that the government may not, by controlling social organization, take possession of the public sphere.
The part concerning the prohibition of compulsion to join or not to join is likewise necessary in order to preserve individual liberty and the independence of associations. No one should be compelled to enter an association, and no one should be prevented from joining one, merely because of the will of the government, the employer, or any other dominant power. This rule both protects individual liberty and prevents associations from becoming instruments of coercion, discrimination, or compulsory control.
The condition that restriction is possible only in exceptional and limited cases provided by law exists so that freedom may remain the rule and the exception may not take its place. Restrictive governments usually accept the principle of the right in appearance, but render it ineffective through broad and vague restrictions. By making the possibility of restriction limited and exceptional, this Article narrows the path to the gradual and discretionary closing of associations.
Summary:
Article 34 exists so that society may organize itself independently of the state and defend its interests, rights, and demands. This Article protects individual liberty, the independence of civil society, and the balance of powers, and prevents the government from keeping society scattered and defenseless by controlling or weakening associations.
Rationale of Article 35 – Freedom of Belief and Religion
Article 35 is established so that the conscience, belief, and each person’s relationship to religion or irreligion remain outside the domination of the state and social coercion. Belief belongs to the innermost sphere of human freedom, and if the state is able to interfere in this sphere, it in practice opens the way to intrude into every other area of the individual’s life as well. For this reason, the Constitution must make clear that every person has the right to be a believer, to be without religion, to change belief, or to abandon it, without being subjected, because of that choice, to pressure, discrimination, or deprivation. This Article is not written only to protect the religious, but to protect at the same time the religious, the nonreligious, the dissenter in belief, and the person who changes belief. If freedom of belief is understood only as the “possession of religion,” the government can suppress irreligion, conversion, or departure from a belief, and in practice take possession of the individual’s conscience.
Article 35 closes this path and provides that the legal legitimacy of the citizen does not depend upon the nature of that person’s belief. The prohibition of coercion, discrimination, or deprivation on account of belief or nonbelief is the most important anti despotic part of this Article. Ideological governments usually first create an official belief, and then make loyalty to it the condition for the enjoyment of rights, security, employment, education, or public participation. In such a condition, belief is no longer a personal matter; it becomes an instrument of political and social selection. This Article is written precisely to reject that logic, so that no one may become a second class citizen because of belief or unbelief. At the same time, this Article does not regard freedom of belief as an unlimited license to violate the rights of others or to disturb public order. For this reason, religious acts and ceremonies are recognized as free only insofar as they do not violate the rights of others, public order, or the principle of the separation of religion from government. This limitation exists so that religion may not be transformed, from an individual and social right, into an instrument of pressure, harassment, imposition, or interference in public power. This means that no belief or ceremony may become a pretext for violating public peace, encroaching upon the rights of others, or organized penetration into the structure of governance. The connection of this Article with secularism is likewise fundamental. Freedom of religion is real only when the state remains neutral toward religions and irreligion. If religion enters the structure of power, the freedom of the nonreligious disappears, religions themselves become instruments of political competition, and religion itself is removed from the sphere of free choice. Therefore, the condition of nonconflict with the principle of the separation of religion from government protects freedom of conscience and also prevents religion from being turned into an instrument of political domination.
Summary:
Article 35 exists so that the belief and conscience of the human being may remain immune from governmental coercion and social discrimination, and at the same time so that no belief or ceremony may become a pretext for violating the rights of others or penetrating the government. This Article simultaneously protects individual liberty, civic equality, public order, and secularism, and is one of the most important barriers against religious despotism and discrimination on the basis of belief.
Rationale of Article 36 – Freedom of Movement
Article 36 is established so that the government may not, by controlling the movement of persons, in practice confine them, exile them, or deprive them of ordinary life. Freedom of movement is not merely a simple personal right; it is part of the real freedom of the human being. A person who cannot move freely, choose a place of residence, leave the country, or return to his own country, in practice loses part of his control over his life, work, family, and security. This Article is directed in particular against arbitrariness in the exercise of power. Despotic governments do not deprive liberty only through formal imprisonment; at times they exert pressure upon persons through exit bans, denial of return, exile, forced residence, or vague and prolonged restrictions without calling it punishment. Such measures can become silent instruments of political punishment, social control, or the elimination of opponents. Article 36 is written in order to close precisely these hidden paths of depriving liberty.
The express mention of the prohibition of exit, prohibition of return, exile, and forced residence exists so that these instruments may not be presented as ordinary administrative or security measures. The Constitution must make clear that these are exceptions, not ordinary methods of governing the country. If such restrictions can easily be imposed, freedom of movement remains in appearance, but in practice disappears by decision of a public authority. The condition that such restrictions are possible only in completely exceptional cases, pursuant to express law, and on an individual basis exists so that the government may not render the principle of freedom ineffective through general, vague, or permanent laws. “Express law” closes the path to broad and discretionary interpretation, and the requirement that the measure be “individualized” prevents the restriction from being imposed collectively, generally, or indefinitely upon a group of people. In this way, freedom remains the rule and the exception cannot be transformed into the rule. This Article also contributes to the balance of powers, because it limits the government’s control over the bodies and movement of persons. The easier it is for the state to restrict people in their location, travel, or return, the more instruments of political and social pressure it will possess. By contrast, the more secure freedom of movement is, the less possible hidden control and informal punishment become.
Summary:
Article 36 exists so that the government may not, by restricting movement, turn the lives of persons into an instrument of pressure and domination. This Article protects individual liberty, personal security, and the restraint of administrative and security power, and prevents exile, denial of return, or similar restrictions from becoming ordinary instruments of arbitrariness.
Rationale of Article 37 – Privacy
Article 37 is established so that the human being may possess not only rights against the state, but also a secure and inviolable sphere against the gaze, surveillance, and unregulated intrusion of government. Without privacy, human freedom becomes incomplete; because a person who knows that his home, correspondence, communications, or personal data are constantly exposed to search, interception, or recording can no longer think freely, speak freely, form relationships freely, or make decisions freely. In such a condition, fear takes the place of freedom, even if no open repression exists. This Article exists so that the state may not, by penetrating the private life of persons, acquire a hidden yet extremely extensive power over them. A despotic government does not control only through prison and arrest; at times it creates a condition in which the citizen censors himself in advance through surveillance, interception, the gathering of information, and access to the details of people’s lives. Therefore, privacy is not merely the protection of personal comfort; it is one of the most important shields against a surveillance state and organized fear.
The express mention of the home, correspondence, communications, personal data, and private information exists so that the protection of privacy does not remain confined to an old and vague meaning. In the modern world, intrusion into privacy is not limited to physical entry into the home; the interception of calls, access to messages, the collection of data, tracking, and the storage of information may interfere with human freedom to the same extent, or even more. The Constitution must expressly recognize these spheres so that the path to circumventing this principle through technical and administrative means may be closed.
The prohibition of search, interception, surveillance, disclosure, collection, retention, or access except in a specific case, pursuant to express law, and within limited bounds, exists so that interference with privacy does not become an ordinary and widespread governmental practice. If the state can, under broad or vague titles or general policies, expand access to the private lives of the people, the principle of privacy disappears in practice. This Article provides that every exception must be specific, limited, and exceptional, not collective, permanent, or unregulated.
The prohibition of general, collective, or unregulated surveillance likewise exists in order to close one of the most dangerous paths of modern despotism. Widespread surveillance is not used only for the detection of crime; it can become an instrument of political control, the engineering of behavior, pressure upon opponents, and the silencing of society. When the state is able to watch everyone, it no longer needs to punish everyone; that very possibility of surveillance becomes an instrument of domination. For this reason, the prohibition of mass surveillance is a necessary part of the real protection of freedom.
Summary:
Article 37 exists so that every person, in his private life, may remain immune from unregulated intrusion and surveillance by the government. This Article protects individual liberty, psychological security, and the restraint of the surveillance state, and prevents public power from dragging society into an atmosphere of fear, self censorship, and hidden control through intrusion into the home, communications, and personal data.
Rationale of Article 38 – Property
Article 38 is established so that no person, in relation to his home, property, land, or lawful interests, shall remain defenseless before public power. If the government can, without clear legal constraint, take, seize, or effectively deprive property of its value, economic security and individual liberty are destroyed, and property is transformed into a privilege dependent upon the will of the state. This Article does not merely prevent the “formal deprivation of property,” but also closes the path of circumventing that protection through compulsory seizure or fundamental and erosive restriction. For despotism does not always act through open confiscation; at times it acts through restrictions under which property remains in appearance, while in practice the owner is deprived of its use and benefit. The requirement of express law exists to prevent vague and discretionary decisions, the requirement of public interest exists so that property may be restricted only for a genuine public need, and not for the political or personal benefit of power, and the requirement of just compensation exists so that the cost of a public decision is not imposed unfairly upon one individual.
Summary:
Article 38 protects legal security, economic liberty, and the restraint of administrative and political power, and prevents the government from turning property into an instrument of pressure and domination through deprivation, seizure, or severe restrictions.
Rationale of Article 39 – The Right to Education and Civic Awareness
Article 39 is established so that education, as one of the foundations of liberty, equality of opportunity, and individual and social empowerment, may become a universal right and be removed from the sphere of monopoly, discrimination, and class based deprivation. In every democratic order, if basic education is not guaranteed for all as free, universal, and without discrimination, legal equality is in practice transformed into real inequality. This Article rests upon the principle that no child, adolescent, or person should be deprived of access to education because of poverty, place of residence, sex, language, or family status. The emphasis that basic education is the right of all persons residing in Iran, and that the state is obliged to guarantee equal access to education at all levels, exists so that education is not regarded merely as an administrative service or social privilege, but becomes a fundamental obligation of government. In an anti despotic order, education is not only a means of transmitting skills; it is also an instrument for the growth of awareness, intellectual independence, and the possibility of informed participation in public life. For this reason, Article 39 obliges the state to provide the conditions for equal access and not to allow education to become a field for the reproduction of discrimination and inequality. The inclusion of the duty of the state to teach the Constitution, fundamental rights and freedoms, and the principles of democratic government in school curricula is one of the most important anti despotic aspects of this Article. A constitution remains alive only when the people know it, understand their rights, understand the limits of governmental power, and recognize the responsibilities of public institutions. If public education is emptied of this awareness, the Constitution remains only in the hands of officials and jurists, and the people are deprived of one of the most important instruments for defending their own freedoms. For this reason, Article 39 requires that this education be age appropriate, recurrent, and periodic, so that civic awareness becomes part of public formation, not merely a formal and forgettable lesson.
The emphasis that this education must not become an instrument of partisan, ideological, or governmental propaganda exists so that the state may not, in the name of civic education, build a political propaganda apparatus for itself. In a free order, constitutional education must serve awareness of the rights of the people, the limits of governmental power, and the accountability of public institutions, not the praise of the government of the day, the ruling party, or any particular ideology. This part of Article 39 guarantees that public education shall support liberty and civic awareness, rather than become a means for the inculcation of political obedience.
Summary:
Article 39 exists so that education, as a universal, free, and non discriminatory right, may be guaranteed, and so that all persons residing in Iran may enjoy a real opportunity to learn. At the same time, this Article seeks to ensure that public education is not limited merely to the transmission of academic knowledge, but leads to the formation of citizens who are aware of the Constitution, fundamental rights and freedoms, and the limits of governmental power. The anti despotic function of Article 39 lies in making education both an instrument of social equality and a civic shield for the preservation of liberty and the rule of law.
Rationale of Article 40 – The Right to Health
Article 40 is established so that minimum access to treatment may be removed from the sphere of wealth and privilege and placed within the sphere of human rights. If a person does not have access to basic and essential medical services, the right to life, human dignity, and equality are in practice weakened. Illness and urgent medical need must not become instruments through which poverty or personal status deprives a human being of the most elementary protections required.
This Article deliberately focuses on basic and essential medical services, not on guaranteeing every service without limit. Its purpose is to create a fundamental minimum so that no one remains defenseless in essential medical needs. In this way, Article 40 guarantees a minimum human right, not an unlimited and boundless obligation for the state. The express statement that no one shall be deprived of this right because of poverty or personal status exists in order to prevent discrimination in the most sensitive human condition. Otherwise, financial inability, social position, or personal condition may lead to deprivation of treatment and thereby to the practical deprivation of the right to life and dignity.
Summary:
Article 40 exists so that the minimum of essential treatment may remain beyond the reach of deprivation for no one. This Article protects human dignity, minimum equality, and the safeguarding of the human being against the helplessness caused by illness, without turning into an unlimited and overexpanded obligation for the government.
Rationale of Article 41 – The Right to Work and Wages
Article 41 is established so that the human being may, through work freely undertaken, provide for his livelihood, and so that his occupation may not be transformed into an instrument of political or administrative control. The right to work and the free choice of occupation are among the principal elements of individual independence; for a person who is arbitrarily deprived of work loses not only income, but also a part of liberty, dignity, and the capacity to stand against power. For this reason, this Article prohibits arbitrary deprivation of work and discrimination in employment. In an anti despotic order, the state, or any other dominant power, must not be able to punish, subdue, or eliminate individuals by closing the path to work. Occupation must not be a governmental privilege, but must arise on the basis of ability, choice, and free competition.
The express statement that wages are determined on the basis of free contract, agreement of the parties, and market conditions exists so that the economic relationship, in general, does not fall under the command of the state. If the government is able to determine wages in a universal and compulsory manner, that power may become an instrument for domination over the economy, the labor market, and the dependency of citizens. This Article rests upon the principle that the value of labor arises, in essence, from free interaction and economic reality, not from general governmental command.
Summary:
Article 41 protects individual independence, economic liberty, and the prohibition of discrimination in the labor market, and prevents the state from gaining domination over the economic life of the people through control of occupation or wages. This Article transforms work from a governmental privilege into a civic right.
Rationale of Article 42 – The Right to Strike and Collective Bargaining
Article 42 is established so that the employment relationship is not left to the unilateral will of the employer, the state, or economic power. In practice, an individual worker or employee usually stands in a weaker position than the opposing party, and if the person does not possess the right to strike and to collective bargaining, freedom of contract alone is not sufficient; because an agreement imposed under unequal conditions does not always express real consent. This Article is written in order to create a minimum balance in labor relations. The right to strike means that persons may, peacefully and collectively, suspend their work so that, in the face of injustice, unfair conditions, or the violation of employment rights, they possess a lawful instrument of pressure. If this right does not exist, the weaker party must either obey or lose employment. In that case, labor order may appear to exist, but in reality it rests upon fear and inequality.
Collective bargaining also exists so that persons may defend their occupational and professional interests collectively, instead of through scattered and ineffective individual negotiation. This right complements freedom of work and contract, because it allows agreements to be formed under more balanced conditions and prevents economic or administrative power from becoming wholly one sided. The prohibition of prosecution, punishment, or employment deprivation on account of lawful participation in a strike or collective bargaining is the most important practical guarantee of this Article. If the government or the employer can punish individuals after they exercise this right, the right remains in appearance but becomes ineffective in practice. This Article exists so that the peaceful use of these instruments does not become a pretext for occupational or administrative repression.
Summary:
Article 42 exists so that, in labor relations, economic or administrative power alone does not become decisive. This Article protects balance in labor relations, collective defense of occupational interests, and the prevention of unilateral domination, and recognizes the right to peaceful protest and bargaining as part of real freedom in the sphere of work.
Rationale of Article 43 – The Right to a Healthy Environment
Article 43 is established so that nature, shared resources, and animal life may remain protected from neglect, unregulated profiteering, and destruction. Without explicit legal protection, the environment and natural resources are easily sacrificed to short term interest, corruption, or weak oversight, while the harm falls upon the whole society and upon future generations. This Article declares that protection of this sphere is not merely an administrative policy, but a public duty and a universal right.
The express mention of biodiversity and natural habitats exists so that legal protection is not confined only to the outward appearance of nature. If the law speaks only of the “environment” in general terms, the destruction of species, the erosion of habitats, and the gradual degradation of ecosystems may in practice go unanswered. This Article seeks to make clear that protection includes both resources and land, and also the living network that makes natural life possible. The criminalization of cruel abuse of animals exists so that cruelty to animals is not treated as ordinary, private, or insignificant conduct. A society that tolerates needless and cruel abuse of animals in fact lowers its own moral and legal boundaries against violence. For this reason, this Article does not regard cruelty to animals as merely undesirable, but recognizes it as prohibited and criminal, so that the state is obliged to intervene, prosecute, and impose penal consequences.
Likewise, the prohibition of unlawful hunting, killing, or exploitation of animal life exists so that animals and ecosystems do not become objects of unlimited seizure and profit seeking. If such acts are left without effective prohibition, the result is not only harm to animals, but also the disruption of natural balance, the destruction of species, and the weakening of the country’s ecological security. This Article seeks to make clear that harm to animal life is also harm to the public interest. The requirement that offenders be prosecuted and punished, and where necessary deprived of the keeping or exploitation of animals, exists so that these prohibitions are not merely declaratory. In an anti despotic constitution, criminalization must be accompanied by the responsibility of the state for real enforcement; otherwise, prohibition without enforcement is easily rendered ineffective. This part transforms the Article from a moral statement into a binding rule.
Summary:
Article 43 exists so that the environment, biodiversity, natural resources, and animal life may be protected against destruction, violence, and unregulated exploitation. This Article both protects the public interest and the rights of future generations, and by recognizing cruel abuse of animals and destruction of nature as crimes, obliges the state not to remain neutral or passive in the face of such violations.
Rationale of Article 44 – Prohibition of Gender Discrimination
Article 44 is established so that gender may not become a basis for reducing the rights, opportunities, or legal standing of persons. If gender discrimination is permitted or tolerated in law or in the implementation of law, civic equality disappears and a part of society enters public life from the outset with fewer rights and more limited opportunities for participation. In such a condition, law, instead of being an instrument of justice, becomes an instrument for the consolidation of inequality.
The emphasis on prohibiting discrimination both in law and in implementation exists in order to close both paths of abuse. At times, discrimination is introduced formally into the text of the law, and at other times the law appears equal on its face, yet discrimination is imposed in practice through employment, education, access to opportunities, or administrative treatment. This Article seeks to prohibit both forms so that equality does not remain only on paper. The anti despotic function of this Article is also clear: discriminatory governments usually preserve their domination by dividing society into groups possessing full rights and groups possessing diminished rights. Once gender discrimination is accepted, power can more easily exclude part of the people from participation, independence, and effective presence in society. This Article rejects that logic and provides that gender, in and of itself, has no diminishing effect upon rights.
Summary:
Article 44 exists so that civic equality may be expressly and bindingly guaranteed in one of the most important spheres of discrimination. This Article protects human dignity, equality before the law, and equal participation in public life, and prevents law or government from turning gender into an instrument of deprivation and inequality.
Rationale of Article 45 – Rights of Local Language and Culture
Article 45 is established so that national unity is not built upon the elimination of linguistic and cultural differences, but remains grounded in equality and mutual respect. The declaration that the official language of the country is Persian is necessary in order to establish a common administrative, educational, and legal language throughout the country, so that public communication, law, and the administration of the state do not fall into plurality and disorder. At the same time, the official status of Persian must not become a pretext for suppressing or discrediting other languages and cultures.
For this reason, the use and teaching of local languages and the preservation of indigenous cultures, alongside the official language, are recognized as rights. This part exists so that citizens are not compelled, in order to enjoy full rights, to abandon their mother tongue or their cultural identity. If the state seeks to impose forced uniformity, the result will not be enduring unity, but mistrust, a sense of discrimination, and a widening divide between the center and the periphery. This Article also has an anti despotic function, because centralized and autocratic governments often use language and culture as instruments of control and enforced homogenization. When the state is able to make one language or culture the standard by which citizens are valued, the way is opened to administrative, educational, and political discrimination. Article 45 closes this path and provides that no one may be deprived of rights on account of language or cultural affiliation. This Article also preserves the necessary balance: on the one hand, it establishes Persian as the official and common language, and on the other hand, it guarantees the freedom of local languages and respect for indigenous cultures. Thus, it protects both national cohesion and cultural diversity.
Summary:
Article 45 exists so that the country may have one common official language, namely Persian, without allowing that fact to become an instrument for the elimination of local languages and indigenous cultures. This Article simultaneously protects national unity, civic equality, and the prevention of linguistic and cultural discrimination.