Many know her for her courage and resilience, but before being a global symbol, Nasrin Sotoudeh is a woman speaking with hope in the heart of darkness. A renowned lawyer, writer, and human rights activist, Nasrin Sotoudeh is remembered not so much for her prestigious international awards, but for her unwavering resistance to tyranny and her defense of the most vulnerable and voiceless in Iran’s contemporary history.
She has received honors such as the “Sakharov Prize” for Freedom of Thought from the European Parliament and the International Human Rights Award from the American Bar Association, but she has paid the price for this human dignity through years of imprisonment, deprivation, and unbearable pressure on herself and her family.
This interview was recorded in the final days before Israel’s massive attack against the Islamic Republic of Iran began. Its completion and publication were delayed due to the nationwide internet shutdown in Iran, and therefore, there was no opportunity to update the questions regarding the recent bloody developments or Ms. Sotoudeh’s positions on them. Nevertheless, her words in this interview offer a clear picture of the structural roots of the crisis, government repression, and civil resistance in Iran.
– Thank you for accepting my invitation to this interview. For the first question: why is a regime that for years succeeded in dominating women’s bodies and identities through moralization, religious philosophy, and discriminatory laws, no longer successful in doing so? Does this mean the end of the regime’s political legitimacy?
– I must say we women have waged this kind of struggle both inside and outside of prison. Now, the Islamic Republic is facing a situation where it can no longer use those old tools—imposing hijab in the name of morality, or enforcing discriminatory laws under the pretext of thousands of hollow philosophies hidden in the labyrinth of its illogical reasoning. This is the point at which women have come face to face with the regime and believe they will prevail.
But I think the outcome will be that a system defined by a patriarchal foundation will, most likely, not yield to any reasonable or logical demand. It will be forced to step aside so that a healthy referendum can be held and a new government can take shape through a just and democratic process.
– How does the reaction of governments to women’s rights in male-dominated societies change with generational shifts and increased awareness among women? Can we say that governments adopt different strategies to violate or justify gender discrimination depending on how much resistance or cooperation they face from society?
– A government seeking to violate the rights of its citizens chooses its methods based on the conditions it is in. Sometimes, a government finds no obstacle because its citizens also oppose women’s rights. Consequently, a spirit and atmosphere dominate society that recognizes male values as societal values and seeks to strengthen them.
In such a context, the government does not need to hide its actions or give them a legal façade, as there is no resistance to what it does. For instance, during the early years after the revolution, society was indifferent to women’s rights, and the government violated those rights without any concern—neither legally nor in terms of appearances.
When generations changed, and those raised in that context began raising their voices in protest, the government tried to justify the inequalities. For example, they said that if we decree that a woman’s blood money or inheritance is half that of a man, it doesn’t mean the woman is worth half a man. They started inventing other philosophies for it.
Now, as the voices of protest keep rising, the government tries to turn concepts like hijab into taboos. Hijab is a concept that was hidden behind morality—claiming that an unveiled woman has no morals and is seeking illicit relationships. But women gradually crossed those red lines. They declared: First, we want equal laws—equal inheritance, equal blood money, and equality in all areas. This was critical because they refused to listen to [governmental] justifications.
Second, women moved beyond the moral boundaries drawn by the regime because they knew where they stood in terms of ethics. They didn’t need anyone to lecture them on morality. Therefore, I believe we women have chosen the right path.
– What is the role and responsibility of the international community—especially the United Nations, the European Union, and human rights organizations such as Amnesty International—in supporting civil and human rights movements in repressive countries?
– If we return to the founding philosophy of the United Nations, we realize that this body is not meant to replace domestic actors. The main decision-makers in any society are its people. For example, if in a society men are always the ones defending women’s rights, it casts doubt on the authenticity of that defense.
Logic tells us that women themselves must be the pioneers in defending women’s rights. For minority rights, minorities themselves must lead. Others may then join and play a supporting role.
The role of the United Nations is similar. I do not want to deny the importance of the UN as an institution confronting human rights-violating regimes like Iran, the Taliban, or North Korea.
If we were ever to say we no longer want such support under international law, we would be placing ourselves alongside those regimes. But we can define our expectations from such support. We can say we expect more serious actions—actions we do not even see within the current framework of international law. Even according to international law, the countries criticizing the Islamic Republic are not fulfilling their oversight role as they should.
– Then what should be done in such circumstances?
– I think that although we have expressed our expectations many times, they have not been met. In such situations, I believe we must return to strengthening the internal movement. When we have a clear outlook and transparent demands inside the country, we can attract more meaningful and explicit international support.
– Given the structure of some Middle Eastern governments, to what extent can respect for women’s rights be considered a real indicator of democratic progress?
– Thank you, that’s a very important question. One key common feature among all authoritarian Middle Eastern regimes is that without exception, they are patriarchal. The first thing that comes to mind when thinking of a regime like the Taliban is the banning of girls’ education. Anywhere in the world, when you mention the Islamic Republic, the immediate response is mandatory hijab.
They are willing to kill women and girls but insist on enforcing hijab. Even if we don’t see the same level of bans on girls’ education or mandatory hijab in other Middle Eastern countries, there are clear signs of patriarchy—like in international negotiations, where men are the ones holding power.
Top political, managerial, and governmental positions are held by men. Moreover, patriarchal laws are in force. In most of these countries, polygamy is legally valid, but if a woman has an extramarital relationship, her murder is considered a defense of honor.
This means the same actions lead to completely different consequences for men and women. What I want to conclude from this is how deeply democracy in these countries is tied to women’s rights.
– Considering what you said about the link between democracy and women’s and minorities’ rights, and looking at Ahmad al-Sharaa’s Islamic appearance, his remarks about non-compulsory hijab, and his engagement with Western diplomacy—can we see signs of democratic tendencies? Or is it still too early to judge?
– When someone like Ahmad Al-Sharaa—with his background—comes to power in Syria, and appears in an Islamic guise similar to the Taliban, we nevertheless see a glimmer of hope when he says no one has the right to force women to wear the hijab.
We consider that a positive sign. Or when he walks side-by-side on the red carpet with Germany’s foreign minister—we think perhaps this government has the potential to move toward democracy.
But we remain cautious. It’s still too early to fully judge, because democracy is not defined by a single factor. It requires many components. Still, we know that one of the most important indicators of democracy in Middle Eastern governments is their respect for women’s rights—such as voluntary hijab, women’s presence in state, political, and judicial positions, freedom to choose careers, and most importantly, that society must not impose moral codes of modesty or chastity on women.
This is closely tied to ethical standards. These are the foundations upon which we can judge whether a government is moving in the wrong direction—or whether there is hope for it.
– Looking at the performance of the Revolutionary Court over the past four decades and its repeated violations of fair trial standards, do you see this institution more as a remnant of revolutionary justice or as a tool of systematic repression?
– The part of the judiciary that functions as a machine of repression and violence in every city in Iran is the “Revolutionary Court.” Until about ten years ago, capital punishment sentences were issued by a single judge.
These could then be overturned—or not—by the Supreme Court. Later, they added a second judge. Even entering the Revolutionary Court building requires special protocol, and not everyone is allowed in.
For instance, if someone is on trial, authorities can easily prevent their siblings or relatives from attending. So, the atmosphere of the public courts does not apply here.
For years, lawyers were barred from participating. Even after lawyers were officially allowed, they still faced major risks.
In the past 30 years, lawyers who defended political prisoners in this court have repeatedly ended up imprisoned themselves. Even the formation of a jury for political charges is blocked. In fact, political crimes are never formally recognized—so defendants cannot benefit from legal protections for political offenses.
– Given the major flaws in Iran’s current judicial system, in your opinion, is this system reformable, or does it require fundamental change?
– Regarding the first part of your question, I must say that any judiciary system which includes the death penalty at its core must be discarded entirely.
There’s no point in even discussing such a system. This judicial system uses the death penalty as a means to suppress society. Dialogue with such a system is meaningless.
Currently, the death penalty is imposed for actions that in other countries are daily behaviors—like drinking alcohol. If repeated four times, it can lead to execution.
Or sexual relationships between men and women (or same-sex relationships) are ambiguously labeled as “corruption on Earth”—which can cover anything.
Even “propaganda against the Islamic Republic on a large scale” is classified as corruption on Earth, carrying the death penalty.
Or in the latest hijab and chastity law, it states that anyone who broadly opposes mandatory hijab is committing corruption on Earth and may be executed.
So, we simply cannot talk with such a system. It uses the death penalty as a tool of intimidation and silencing.
Putting all this together, I can tell you: No, this system is not reformable. I believe we must design a secular judiciary system from the ground up.
– In your view, what challenges would we face in creating such a secular judiciary system?
– These new challenges are mostly tied to what system of government people will vote for. We all envision a [national] referendum in which the people vote on the type of future government.
It appears—though not with certainty—that people would welcome a secular and laïque system.
If so, we will need to rewrite all the laws from scratch—a very heavy task. Because we intend to design the system around the principle of laïcité. Therefore, I believe this will be our most important challenge.
(Images supplied by the interviewee and authorized for publication)
