Journal of Human Rights, Law, and Policy

This study aimed to explore how individuals with invisible disabilities in Tehran experience and navigate legal recognition, protection, and enforcement, highlighting systemic gaps and psychosocial consequences within Iran’s legal framework. A qualitative research design was employed using semi-structured interviews to capture the lived experiences of individuals with self-identified invisible disabilities, including psychiatric, neurological, and chronic conditions. Fifteen participants were recruited through purposive sampling in Tehran. Interviews were conducted until theoretical saturation was reached, lasting between 45 and 75 minutes, and were transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed thematically using NVivo software, applying Braun and Clarke’s six-phase framework. Open, axial, and selective coding were used to identify key themes and subthemes reflecting participants’ legal experiences. Three overarching themes emerged: (1) legal recognition and definition gaps, including the exclusion of invisible disabilities from statutory definitions and standardized assessments; (2) institutional barriers to enforcement, such as bureaucratic delays, interagency fragmentation, and discriminatory attitudes among legal staff; and (3) psychosocial impacts of legal invisibility, including emotional distress, advocacy fatigue, fear of disclosure, and withdrawal from legal systems. Participants also reported developing alternative strategies for resilience, such as peer advocacy, informal networks, and reframing of disability identity. These findings underscore how the structural invisibility of non-apparent disabilities produces legal exclusion and social disempowerment. The study reveals significant deficiencies in the Iranian legal system's recognition and support for individuals with invisible disabilities. Legal definitions, procedural systems, and professional practices must be reformed to accommodate non-visible impairments through inclusive policies, standardized evaluations, and disability rights training for legal professionals. Amplifying the voices of those affected is essential to advancing equitable justice and fulfilling the commitments of the CRPD.

This study aimed to explore the perceptions of disability advocates in Tehran regarding the inclusivity and effectiveness of Iran’s legal frameworks in addressing the rights and needs of persons with disabilities. A qualitative research design was employed using semi-structured in-depth interviews to collect data from 25 disability advocates residing in Tehran. Participants were purposively sampled based on their professional and activist experience in legal advocacy, disability policy, and rights-based work. Data collection continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically using NVivo software. Thematic analysis proceeded through open coding, axial coding, and selective coding to identify recurring patterns and extract conceptual categories representing advocates’ perceptions, critiques, and reform strategies. Three main themes emerged: (1) structural barriers in legal frameworks, including outdated definitions, legal fragmentation, and weak enforcement mechanisms; (2) lived experiences of exclusion, discrimination, and inaccessibility in legal processes; and (3) strategies for legal reform, emphasizing cross-sector collaboration, participatory lawmaking, legal empowerment, and digital innovations. Participants reported widespread dissatisfaction with the gap between legal commitments and implementation, lack of procedural accommodations, and limited involvement of persons with disabilities in legal reform. Despite these challenges, they also identified pathways for advancing inclusive legal practices through both institutional and grassroots channels. The findings underscore a disconnect between the formal legal recognition of disability rights in Iran and their practical realization. Disability advocates perceive existing frameworks as symbolically inclusive but functionally exclusionary. Reform efforts must prioritize participatory processes, enforceability, and accessibility to transform the legal system into a genuine instrument of social inclusion.

This study aimed to explore the dimensions of legal accessibility for persons with disabilities in public services, focusing on structural, informational, procedural, and attitudinal barriers in the context of Tehran, Iran. A qualitative research design grounded in phenomenological inquiry was employed to capture the lived experiences of persons with disabilities in accessing legal and administrative services. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 28 participants selected through purposive sampling in Tehran. Data collection continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis with the aid of NVivo software. The analysis proceeded through open, axial, and selective coding, ensuring an inductive approach to theme generation. Trustworthiness was established through peer debriefing, member checking, and triangulation of coding procedures. Thematic analysis yielded four core dimensions of legal accessibility: (1) structural barriers in legal access, including inaccessible physical infrastructure and digital platforms; (2) limited awareness and understanding of legal rights due to poor outreach and legal illiteracy; (3) negative experiences in interactions with legal and administrative bodies, characterized by discrimination, communication breakdowns, and procedural complexity; and (4) enabling factors and recommendations, including the supportive role of advocacy organizations, inclusive policies, and proposed legal reforms. Participants described widespread inaccessibility and institutional distrust, but also highlighted practical solutions and positive institutional practices. Legal accessibility for persons with disabilities in Tehran is constrained by multifaceted and intersecting barriers that limit equal participation in justice and public services. Addressing these challenges requires structural reforms, rights-based education, institutional training, and inclusive policymaking. The findings offer evidence-based insights to inform national disability strategies and promote compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

This study investigates the human rights implications of preventive detention policies in Tehran, focusing on the lived experiences of individuals affected by these measures. A qualitative research design was employed to explore the socio-legal consequences of preventive detention. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 20 participants residing in Tehran, including former detainees, family members, legal professionals, and civil society advocates. Participants were selected through purposive sampling to ensure relevance to the research objectives. Interviews continued until theoretical saturation was reached. Data were transcribed, anonymized, and analyzed thematically using NVivo software. Thematic coding followed an iterative process involving open, axial, and selective coding stages to develop key themes grounded in participant narratives. Three major themes emerged from the analysis: (1) legal and procedural violations, including lack of judicial oversight, denial of legal representation, and the use of vague or retroactive laws; (2) psychological and social impacts, such as trauma, economic hardship, family disintegration, and stigma; and (3) institutional accountability and power dynamics, characterized by security force impunity, weak oversight mechanisms, and political instrumentalization of detention. Participants consistently emphasized how preventive detention contributed to a climate of fear, legal uncertainty, and civic disengagement. Their narratives illustrated the gap between Iran’s formal human rights obligations and the operational realities of detention practices. Preventive detention in Tehran imposes significant legal, psychological, and social costs, undermining fundamental human rights. The findings underscore the urgent need for legal reform, transparent oversight, and trauma-informed support mechanisms. A rights-based approach to security policy must be prioritized to protect individual dignity and promote institutional accountability.

This study aimed to explore the multifaceted barriers to political participation experienced by stateless individuals residing in Tehran, Iran. Using a qualitative research design, this study employed semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 16 stateless participants selected through purposive sampling. The interviews focused on participants' lived experiences with civic exclusion and perceptions of political engagement. Data collection continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically using NVivo software. Thematic analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s six-phase approach, including open, axial, and selective coding to identify recurrent patterns across participant narratives. Trustworthiness was ensured through member checking and peer debriefing. Analysis revealed four major themes: legal and administrative barriers, socioeconomic constraints, psychological and cultural inhibitions, and institutional and structural exclusion. Subthemes included lack of documentation, ineligibility for voting, poverty, educational deprivation, political disillusionment, internalized stigma, and absence of representation. Participants consistently reported systemic neglect, fear of state surveillance, and feelings of invisibility in public discourse. These barriers interacted in complex ways, compounding exclusion and limiting not only formal political engagement but also informal civic expression. Quotes from interviews highlighted a pervasive sense of helplessness and resignation among participants, underpinned by decades of bureaucratic marginalization and social discrimination. Stateless individuals in Tehran face intersecting legal, social, psychological, and institutional obstacles that severely restrict their political participation. Addressing these barriers requires a multi-pronged strategy involving legal reform, inclusive public policy, civic education, and active engagement by civil society. Political inclusion should be treated as a fundamental right, not a privilege, to ensure the democratic representation of all residents regardless of legal status.

This study aims to identify and analyze the legal indicators of overreach embedded in emergency decrees through the perspectives of legal professionals and civil society actors in Tehran. This research employed a qualitative case study design using semi-structured interviews with 29 purposively selected participants, including legal scholars, civil society advocates, journalists, and former public officials residing in Tehran. Data collection continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. All interviews were transcribed and analyzed thematically using NVivo software, following open, axial, and selective coding procedures to extract recurrent patterns and build a grounded typology of legal overreach. Thematic analysis revealed three core categories of legal overreach: (1) Procedural Violations, including lack of legislative oversight, the use of vague legal language, and indefinite extensions of emergency powers; (2) Rights Erosion Mechanisms, encompassing suppression of dissent, discriminatory enforcement, mass surveillance, arbitrary detentions, and restrictions on freedom of movement and expression; and (3) Structural Democratic Backsliding, characterized by executive aggrandizement, weakening of institutional checks, shrinking civil society space, and manipulation of electoral processes. Participants emphasized how emergency powers were normalized and strategically deployed, often beyond their initial scope, in ways that undermined legal accountability and democratic safeguards. Emergency decrees, though intended for crisis governance, are frequently manipulated to entrench executive authority, bypass institutional checks, and erode civil liberties. The Iranian case reflects broader global patterns where emergency governance becomes a vehicle for legal and political overreach. Identifying these indicators is crucial for informing constitutional safeguards, institutional reforms, and civil society resistance against the normalization of states of exception.

This study aims to explore how national security laws affect individuals’ freedom of movement in Tehran, with a focus on the legal, psychological, and social dimensions of restricted mobility. This qualitative study employed a thematic analysis approach using semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 21 participants residing in Tehran. Participants were selected through purposive sampling to ensure a diversity of perspectives regarding experiences with movement constraints under national security frameworks. Data collection continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. All interviews were conducted in Persian, recorded with consent, and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were analyzed using NVivo software through open, axial, and selective coding, following Braun and Clarke’s six-phase method of thematic analysis. Ethical protocols, including anonymity and voluntary participation, were strictly observed throughout the research process. Three main themes emerged: Legal and Structural Constraints, Psychological and Social Impacts, and Resistance and Coping Mechanisms. Participants described the ambiguous and discretionary nature of national security laws, experiences of surveillance, legal exclusion, and mobility zoning, as well as emotional distress, social withdrawal, and loss of institutional trust. Many adopted adaptive strategies such as legal navigation, digital anonymity, and underground mobility networks. Community-based solidarity also emerged as a key coping mechanism in response to spatial repression. National security laws in semi-authoritarian contexts like Iran produce multi-layered restrictions on freedom of movement through legal ambiguity, bureaucratic control, and psychological intimidation. These constraints have profound implications not only for physical mobility but also for personal identity, civic participation, and social cohesion. Addressing these issues requires both local advocacy for legal transparency and broader international scrutiny of internal mobility rights.

This study aims to explore how legal professionals construct, justify, and critique counterterrorism policies in relation to individual rights and institutional legitimacy within a securitized legal context. The research employed a qualitative methodology grounded in a phenomenological approach to examine the lived experiences and interpretive narratives of legal practitioners, policy experts, and rights advocates based in Tehran. Sixteen participants were selected through purposive sampling to ensure relevance to the subject of counterterrorism legislation and rights discourse. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews, each lasting between 45 and 70 minutes, and continued until theoretical saturation was reached. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis with the aid of NVivo software. An inductive coding process was followed by axial coding to identify patterns and interrelations among themes. Three primary themes emerged from the analysis: (1) legal justifications of security measures, including rule-of-law framing, preventive logic, and judicial endorsement; (2) rights and liberties under pressure, characterized by disproportionate targeting, suppression of dissent, and fear-based public consent; and (3) ethical and institutional dilemmas, such as professional role strain, institutional accountability gaps, and the erosion of democratic norms. Participants described how ambiguous legal terms and selective use of international norms facilitate the normalization of exceptional measures and the marginalization of human rights discourse. Legal narratives in counterterrorism policy are not merely descriptive but deeply constitutive of the security-rights equilibrium. In fragile or securitized contexts, law can function as both a facilitator of repression and a potential site of resistance. Understanding these narratives is crucial for designing legal reforms, enhancing institutional accountability, and protecting fundamental rights.