Iran appeals court upholds Parastoo Ahmadi’s 74-lash sentence, lawyers say

An Iranian appeals court has upheld a sentence of 74 lashes against singer Parastoo Ahmadi over a livestreamed performance without a headscarf, according to her lawyers. The ruling leaves in place a punishment that has drawn criticism from artists and human rights advocates. The available reporting does not establish whether the lashes have been administered.

The BBC reported on 28 September that the appeal was rejected on Friday without a hearing. Its account attributes the outcome to the defendants’ lawyers; it does not include the appeal judgment. The lawyers said the court could have held a hearing, and one said the decision appeared intended to deter similar performances. That proposed motive is the lawyer’s interpretation, rather than a reason established by a published judgment.

What the court upheld

Ahmadi’s case arose from a concert livestreamed on YouTube in December 2024. She sang in a sleeveless dress without the mandatory hijab, the BBC reported. Iranian authorities opened proceedings after the video spread online, saying the performance violated the country’s legal and cultural regulations. The appeal ruling concerns the sentence imposed after those proceedings, rather than a new performance or a new charge.

In June, the Qom Province Criminal Court sentenced Ahmadi and eight musicians and crew members to 74 lashes, a two-year ban on artistic activity and a two-year travel ban, according to Hana Human Rights Organization. Hana said the charges concerned alleged public-decency offences through the production and distribution of material on social media. The BBC described the restrictions upheld on appeal as two-year bans on audiovisual activity and leaving Iran.

Lawyers challenge the sentence

“In our view, holding the concert was not a crime at all,” one of Ahmadi’s lawyers told the BBC. The lawyer said the trial court had selected one of the harshest punishments available for the charges, although fines and less severe penalties were possible. The lawyer also criticised the appeals court for upholding the judgment without a hearing despite having the option to convene one.

The reported charges and penalties have also faced criticism outside the defence team. The National quoted Dadban 2021, a group of lawyers outside Iran, as questioning the use of public-decency charges for the production of music and other artistic work. It reported that the Abdorrahman Boroumand Centre, which monitors human rights violations in Iran, called lashing a “degrading and violent punishment.” Those are assessments by the named groups, not findings by the appeals court.

Photographer Tahmineh Monzavi, whom The National identified as a member of the concert team, responded to the original sentence in June. “The result of all that beauty is being banned from art and leaving the country for two years and 74 lashes for all of us,” she wrote on Instagram, according to the outlet. Her comment preceded the appeal decision and describes her response to the initial ruling.

The wider context

Iran requires women and girls above the age of puberty to cover their hair and wear modest clothing, the BBC reported. It also said public performances by women are banned. The restrictions make Ahmadi’s uncovered solo performance the central issue in the case, while the sentence extends to other people involved in making and distributing the concert video.

The BBC reported that news of the initial sentence prompted criticism from Iranian artists and human rights advocates. Exiled singer Googoosh wrote that she hoped women would regain the freedom to choose how they dress and that artistic expression could flourish. Musician Hossein Alizadeh said he was willing to take 70 lashes in Ahmadi’s place. Those reactions were to the first-instance sentence, before the lawyers reported the appeal outcome.

The use of flogging in a case involving an uncovered woman has a documented precedent. The BBC reported that Kurdish-Iranian activist Roya Heshmati was flogged 74 times in January 2024 after a conviction linked to a social-media photo of her without a hijab. That case shows that such a sentence has been carried out in another case; it does not establish what has happened, or will happen, to Ahmadi.

What remains unclear

The retrieved account of the appeal rests on statements from Ahmadi’s lawyers and does not reproduce the court’s judgment. It does not establish whether or when the lashes, travel ban or activity ban have been enforced, or whether another legal remedy is available. The confirmed development in the published reporting is the lawyers’ account that the appeal was rejected and the original judgment upheld.