Seizing Instagram accounts of individuals and businesses and deleting their content by taking control of the accounts is an illegal act that lacks the necessary legal basis under Iranian laws. This not only violates the principle of legality of crimes and punishments and the principles of fair trial in criminal proceedings but also infringes upon the freedom of expression and respect for the privacy of Iranian users.
Even under existing laws, only judicial authorities or the Committee for Determining Instances of Criminal Content can issue filtering orders. These filtering orders are communicated to internet service providers to cease their services. However, entering a user’s account and deleting its content is not anticipated in the laws.
In the months of November and December 3023, and January 2024, the pressure on Instagram accounts took a new form. Iranian users witnessed the overnight disappearance of content from many accounts. In the emptied accounts, only one image was prominently displayed. It was a poster announcing the blocking of that page by judicial order.
Crackdown on activities on virtual platforms is not a new phenomenon. However, what distinguished the recent pressures was their extent. The types of pages that have been prevented from continuing their activities can be categorized into five groups:
- Pages of popular women: Athletes, artists, actors, singers, travelers.
- Professional pages related to women: Sports and fitness, fashion and clothing, health and medicine, hairstyling, cooking, etc.
- Pages belonging to political and social figures.
- Pages related to dance and music.
- Deletion of pages due to expressing political opinions.
The common thread connecting most of these cases is that the authorities did not block the accounts through advanced technical methods or by corresponding with online service companies. Instead, according to news reports, published reports, and first-hand information obtained by Filterban, the passwords were acquired from the victims themselves.
After summoning and pressuring the account admins or owners, the authorities demanded the passwords and took complete control of the accounts. In one case, which Filterban can confirm, the Instagram account of a popular Iranian female celebrity with a very high number of followers was taken over in this manner. She was also informed that she could not access her account. Even for a long period, whenever a password reset code was sent to the account owner, these codes were obtained by the authorities through contact.
In this way, with minimal changes in the factors that determine account ownership, the relevant entities tried to avoid triggering the security systems of Instagram, which usually identify unusual behavior. This method had previously been used for some Twitter accounts of detained individuals.
The main question is whether the law permits officers and judicial authorities to demand passwords and access to individuals’ accounts on social networks. Can a judicial authority, based on the law, remove access to individuals’ accounts on social networks or prohibit them from accessing their own accounts?
In what follows, an attempt will be made to answer these questions by referring to the rules of the Iranian Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP).
Blocked, Seized, or Made Inaccessible?
The posters placed on the Instagram accounts of the victims are not identical. In most cases, after all the posts have been deleted, one of these images is displayed:
- Image 1: “Due to the publication of criminal content and content contrary to ethics and public security, this page has been made inaccessible by the order of the judiciary and FATA Police until further notice.”
- Image 2: “This page has been seized by the Public Security Police by order of the honorable judicial authority.”
- Image 3: “Seized by judicial order due to the publication of vulgar images and content.”
In the published posters, the police (FATA) are introduced as the executor of the judicial authority’s order. Since these blockings have occurred at the stage of the prosecutor’s office and preliminary investigations, the mentioned judicial order can be considered within the framework of “judicial supervision order.”
But what is a judicial supervision order? And is it legally possible to resort to a “judicial supervision order” for cutting off access to Instagram accounts and deleting their content?
Currently, the prohibition of activity on virtual social networks is both communicated to individuals during the prosecutor’s office investigations and included as an additional punishment in the verdicts of courts dealing with social and political activists.
Depending on who issues the order to block or prohibit activity, and at which stage of the proceedings it is issued, different legal titles and effects are bestowed upon it.
The focus of this article is on orders issued during the preliminary investigation stage at the prosecutor’s office, i.e., when the case has not yet been sent for trial.
Judicial Supervision Order
Criminal cases initially go to the prosecutor’s office for preliminary investigations. In the prosecutor’s office, three main actions are taken: 1) collecting evidence, 2) preventing the escape or hiding of the accused, 3) deciding on the criminality of the accused.
During the preliminary investigation, there is a risk that if the accused is left completely free, they might flee and become inaccessible. To prevent escape and hiding, securing orders such as bail and surety are issued.
On the other hand, to prevent the accused from repeating their actions and harming society or individuals, judicial supervision orders are also issued. According to Article 247 of the Iranian Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), 2023, the judicial authority can only select the following limitations for a “judicial supervision order”:
- A) Periodic self-reporting to centers or institutions designated by the investigator,
- B) Prohibition of driving motor vehicles,
- P) Prohibition of engaging in professional activities related to the committed crime,
- T) Prohibition of holding licensed weapons,
- TH) Prohibition of leaving the country.
Based on existing evidence, it can be said that the “order” referred to in the above images is a “judicial supervision order.” That is, the investigators, interpreting clause P of Article 247 of the CCP, have issued an order prohibiting activity on virtual social networks.
However, clause P of Article 247 of the CCP relates to the “prohibition of employment” in a specific profession or job. For example, if a financial employee of an office is accused of embezzlement, the judicial order of “prohibition of employment under judicial supervision” is communicated to the employer to prevent the continuation of the accused’s work.
If an accused is employed in a profession that requires a license or permit, their work permit or license is temporarily revoked by the relevant professional body upon the judicial authority’s order. For example, if someone is accused of medical negligence, the judicial authority can order the medical council to revoke their medical license.
However, the presence of individuals on social networks and sharing content is a social activity, not a specific profession. The judicial authority cannot go beyond the five cases specified by law and impose other restrictions in the name of “judicial supervision order.”
But can the order of prohibition of employment under judicial supervision be used to prevent the continuation of business pages on Instagram?
Although in some cases, the possibility of sealing or filtering online businesses based on current law exists, these types of actions must be carried out through a different legal channel and process, not by issuing a judicial supervision order during preliminary investigations.
“Virtual business” is defined in regulations, and mere virtual activity does not make a business “virtual.” For example, a women’s beauty salon is a profession established with its specific license. The activity of Instagram accounts of beauty salons does not make them virtual businesses.
Legally speaking, if a business is established for offering goods and services in the virtual space, including websites and applications, it is considered a virtual business. The prohibition of employment in virtual businesses is carried out through the suspension of their business licenses.
Preventing the continuation of the activity of a virtual business cannot be implemented by accessing the account and ordering the cessation of activity. Instead, judicial authorities or the Committee for Determining Instances of Criminal Content in Cyberspace, based on existing laws, can only issue filtering orders. These filtering orders are communicated to internet service providers to cease providing services to those businesses. (Article 571 of the Islamic Penal Code)
Moreover, if virtual businesses are operating on foreign platforms that are filtered, in practice, it is impossible to implement the legal provisions of filtering for them. This is because, due to lack of jurisdiction, Iranian judicial authorities cannot issue orders to foreign platforms.
On the other hand, ordering the filtering of a page operating on a filtered platform is like issuing a death sentence for someone who has already died. This is because all the effects of the prohibition of employment or sealing desired have already been fully, permanently, and extensively implemented.
Meta’s Policy on Restoring Deleted Content
According to Meta’s policies, it is possible to restore deleted Instagram content within 30 days. To recover deleted photos, videos, reels, and archived stories, the user must log into their account and follow the necessary steps.
However, in cases where account control has fallen into the hands of authorities or where logging into the account could have consequences for the user, practically, this option is not feasible. In such situations, given the illegality of the access barriers and deletion of content from Instagram accounts by authorities, Meta, by anticipating alternative methods to verify the authenticity of the Iranian account owners whose access has been limited, can assist them in regaining control of their accounts. Additionally, the option of archiving the complete content of these accounts or restoring deleted content even after 30 days is another possibility that, if provided by Meta to these Iranian users, could solve part of their problems.
When discussing the legal basis for “closing Instagram accounts,” we seek to understand which legal provisions authorize judicial and executive authorities to issue and implement such orders. As explained, considering the text of Article 247 of the Iranian Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) and the “Regulations for the Implementation of Judicial Supervision and Security Orders,”2016, none of the following actions and orders during the preliminary investigation stage have the necessary legal backing:
- Obtaining the password from the account owner or admin,
- Taking control of the account on social networks,
- Issuing an order prohibiting access to the account and activity on virtual networks.
What happens in practice is the order prohibiting activity on virtual networks and preventing access to user accounts. Therefore, the use of terms like seizure, blocking, and filtering does not have legal relevance in this context.
