Kurdistan/Iran; Extrajudicial sentencing of Karo Alidad – legal ambiguity surrounding the concept of “punitive concern” and IRGC intelligence reports

June 5, 2025 – Karo Alidad, age 23, civil and environmental activist from Meriwan, has been sentenced to 18 months of discretionary imprisonment, despite the legal maximum for the charge against him being 12 months. The ruling was issued based on a report by the Intelligence services of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and invoking an ambiguous term referred to as “punitive concern” with no additional charges having been substantiated or formally declared.

According to a source familiar with the case who spoke to Kurdistan Human Rights Association-Geneva, on May 25, 2025, the Revolutionary Court in Meriwan, by presiding Judge Aazami, sentenced Mr. Alidad to 18 months in prison on the charge of “propaganda against the regime.” Under Article 500 of the Islamic Penal Code, the maximum sentence for this offense is 12 months. Nevertheless, the court imposed a longer sentence, citing the IRGC Intelligence report and the vague justification of “punitive concern,” despite no other charges being confirmed.

Mr. Alidad, who was held in arbitrary detention and interrogated by the IRGC Intelligence in February 2025 for 38 days, was sentenced under Article 500 of the Penal Code and “with reference to Article 2 of the Law on Reducing Discretionary Sentences.” His previous detention period was factored into the sentence. However, the ruling appears to be grounded in IRGC intelligence reports and statements obtained through coercion, torture, and without his knowledge of their contents without any additional charges being cited.

In May 2025, Mr. Alidad was initially sentenced to three months of imprisonment and a nine month suspended sentence in a court hearing held after the indictment hearing. However, the IRGC Intelligence objected to this sentence. Following its intervention and a revised indictment by the Revolutionary Prosecutor’s Office in Meriwan, a new sentence of 18 months’ discretionary imprisonment was issued. The charge of “propaganda against the regime” was linked to Mr. Alidad’s participation in protests and political activities opposing the Islamic Republic.

Legal Ambiguities and Procedural Irregularities in the Case of Karo Alidad,

Sentencing Beyond Legal Limits in the Absence of a Secondary Charge: Violation of the Principle of Proportionality.

The primary legal irregularity in this case lies in the imposition of a sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum. While Mr. Alidad had previously been accused of “membership in anti-government groups” in a separate proceeding later opposed by the IRGC Intelligence this charge was never formally upheld in the final judgment. The only confirmed charge is “propaganda against the regime,” which, under Article 500 of the Islamic Penal Code, carries a maximum punishment of one year. According to Article 36 of the Constitution and Article 2 of the Islamic Penal Code, no judicial authority is permitted to issue a sentence exceeding the legal maximum for a given offense. Therefore, the verdict issued against Mr. Alidad lacks a clear legal foundation and constitutes a violation of the principle of proportionality and judicial competence.

Arbitrary Interpretation of Article 2 and Unlawful Use of the Concept of “Punitive Concern”

The court ruling states that the sentence was issued “with reference to Article 2 of the Law on Reducing Discretionary Sentences and due to punitive concern.” However, Article 2 merely allows courts, under specific circumstances, such as a defendant’s clean criminal record and the non security related nature of the offense to substitute imprisonment with alternative punishments. Since “propaganda against the regime” is classified as a security related offense, Mr. Alidad is not eligible for such leniency. More importantly, the inapplicability of leniency provisions does not in any way justify increasing the sentence beyond the legal ceiling. Furthermore, the term “punitive concern” lacks any legal definition or precedent in the Iranian legal system and appears to have been used arbitrarily as a subjective justification by the judge, in direct contradiction with the principles of fair trial and statutory clarity.

Extrajudicial Interference: Reliance on IRGC Intelligence Reports and Coerced Interrogation Statements,

The court’s decision heavily relies on a report submitted by the IRGC Intelligence in Meriwan as the primary basis for conviction. According to Articles 60, 125, and 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, intelligence reports may only serve as preliminary indicators and lack definitive probative value particularly when not supported by independent evidence or subjected to cross examination by legal counsel.

Furthermore, the judgment references statements and interrogation records attributed to Mr. Alidad during his detention. However, according to informed sources, these statements were extracted under conditions of arbitrary detention, coercion, and complete lack of access to the content of the documents or legal counsel. Mr. Alidad was reportedly forced to sign the documents under duress and threats. According to Articles 125 and 194, such statements are rendered legally invalid under these circumstances. Thus, the court’s reliance on these materials undermines the legal validity of the verdict and violates fundamental fair trial standards.

Arbitrary Detention of Karo Alidad for 38 Days,

On January 23, 2025, Alidad was arrested at his workplace without a judicial warrant by Iranian security forces. It was later revealed that he had been held and interrogated at the IRGC Intelligence detention center in Meriwan. After 38 days in custody, he was released on March 1, 2025, on bail for 8 billion IRR pending trial.

The arrest was reportedly violent, involving more than eight security personnel arriving in two vehicles who stormed his workplace, a shop located in Molewi Mall in Meriwan. During the 38 day detention, Mr. Alidad was denied access to legal representation and family visits and was unaware of the charges against him or the reasons for his arrest until the indictment was issued in May 2025.