1. Introduction
The development of human rights standards has made the treatment of prisoners and other persons deprived of liberty an important indicator of a government’s commitment to human rights and good governance. It also serves as a benchmark for assessing the legitimacy and credibility of governments in the international arena. One clear sign of humane treatment is the application of control measures and the use of instruments of restraint, particularly during the transfer of prisoners and detainees from prisons and detention facilities. Instruments of restraint, such as handcuffs and leg irons, are applied to the body to impose restrictions that partially or completely limit the movement of prisoners and other persons deprived of liberty. Like many other coercive measures, such restrictions inherently affect the human dignity of those subjected to them.
Using two key indicators of respect for human dignity and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, the current study aimed to examine whether Iran’s domestic laws and regulations governing the use of instruments of restraint on prisoners and other persons deprived of liberty are consistent with human rights standards and established international criteria. The use of restraint instruments and the question of their necessity were the primary focus of the current inquiry. The analysis also examined the most commonly used instrument (i.e., handcuffs) along with other prohibited devices specifically identified in human rights documents and related sources. Finally, it considered the factors that must be taken into account in relation to vulnerable individuals and certain groups.
2. Literature Review
Regarding this topic, only scattered references can be found in Persian-language scholarship. However, it seems no study has specifically examined the use of instruments of restraint on prisoners and other persons deprived of liberty, nor has any research addressed the permissibility or prohibition of such practices. In addition, Iran’s domestic laws and regulations have not been critically analyzed for their compliance with human rights standards and international norms.
3. Materials and Methods
The present research used library and documentary source to analyze the conditions under which the use of instruments of restraint may amount to inhuman treatment or even torture. The study began by outlining the issue and then descriptively and analytically examining the declarations, resolutions, and other instruments adopted by international organizations, particularly the minimum standards for the treatment of prisoners as reflected in two key documents: the Bangkok Rules and the Nelson Mandela Rules. Drawing especially on the reasoning set out in numerous judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, the study identified, evaluated, and analyzed the relevant human rights standards. Finally, the analysis critically examined Iran’s domestic laws and regulations in light of those standards.
4. Results and Discussion
Preventive measures and the use of instruments of restraint inevitably affect prisoners’ human dignity and, in particular, raise concerns under the principle prohibiting torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment. At the same time, prison authorities may be required to use such measures during prisoner transfers and emergency situations in order to prevent prisoners from harming themselves or others. Consequently, human rights instruments have, in limited circumstances, recognized the permissibility of their use.
The Nelson Mandela Rules establish a broad standard prohibiting the use of instruments of restraint that are inherently degrading or painful, while permitting the use of other instruments provided that this principle is respected. This standard is too broad and, apart from the specific prohibition on chains and irons, is not framed through an exhaustive list of prohibited devices. Nevertheless, human rights instruments and international institutions have identified and prohibited particular methods and devices in light of their nature and effects. These include leg cuffs; devices that immobilize the hands, feet, or fingers; instruments that secure a prisoner to a wall, ceiling, or fixed location; cages and other enclosed structures; and restraint chairs and boards.
The primary basis for prohibiting the instruments of restraint has been their incompatibility with states’ obligations to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights, the U.N. Committee Against Torture, and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture have frequently emphasized that the use of such restraints in prohibited circumstances is inhuman and degrading, while only rarely finding that it reaches the threshold of torture. Whether that threshold is met is a relative assessment, depending on factors such as the physical and psychological effects of the restraint, as well as the victim’s gender, age, and state of health. Therefore, the use of instruments of restraint on vulnerable groups—including children, women, and sick prisoners—carries a significantly greater risk of amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment or even torture. Hence, human rights institutions, particularly the European Court of Human Rights, have repeatedly emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of proportionality, carefully assessing each individual’s particular circumstances, and recognizing the heightened obligation of states to protect vulnerable persons. In practice, this has led to the development of a form of enhanced protection for such groups.
By adopting a substance-based approach, the European Court of Human Rights has not confined the scope of the prohibition under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights to conventional forms of restraint. Rather, it has interpreted that prohibition as extending to any restraining measure that is, in substance, degrading, inflicts severe pain or suffering, or violates human dignity. This broad interpretation is not only consistent with the underlying philosophy of the European human rights system, which is founded on the protection of human dignity, but also fully aligned with the principles set out in the Nelson Mandela Rules, particularly Rule 47, which prohibits the use of inherently painful or degrading restraints.
5. Conclusion
The legal basis for prohibiting the use of restraining devices in unauthorized circumstances lies in the violation of states’ obligations to prevent torture and other forms of inhuman or degrading treatment. Moreover, the European Court of Human Rights has addressed the use of such devices in prohibited circumstances under other legal grounds, including violations of the right to privacy. Nevertheless, both prevailing public opinion and relevant legal instruments suggest that the principal rationale for this prohibition is the characterization of such practices as inhuman and degrading.
Given the prominent status of human rights in Europe and the continuing development of more humane standards, it is likely that the Strasbourg Court will establish more precise criteria for assessing the conditions under which instruments of restraint may be used and possibly impose stricter scrutiny on the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty. As methods of control and supervision have evolved alongside technological progress, courts may also consider less restrictive alternatives and encourage governments to adopt such technologies. Ultimately, the European Court is likely to continue promoting the principles of human dignity and the abolition of unnecessary or disproportionate restrictions, while seeking to strike a balance between individual rights and security.
Iran’s criminal justice system has taken into account the principal considerations and practical criteria necessary to respect prisoners’ human rights. However, it is essential to adopt measures that further restrict the use of restraints. These measures should include prohibiting inherently painful or degrading restraint devices, banning the use of handcuffs on persons under 18 within correctional facilities, and prohibiting the use of restraint devices on women during childbirth and the postpartum period, as well as on patients undergoing surgical procedures.