Celebrity Scandal, Vicious Penalty: 99 Lashes

Iranian actor Pejman Jamshidi has been sentenced to 99 lashes after Iran’s highest court upheld a ruling tied to “illicit relations.”

Quick Take

Iran’s Supreme Court upheld the 99-lash sentence, according to multiple reports.
The case was handled under Article 637 of Iran’s Islamic Penal Code.
Reports say Jamshidi was acquitted of rape charges but punished for “illicit relations.”
The case has drawn fresh attention to Iran’s harsh morality laws and opaque courts.

What the Court Said

Reports from Iranian and international outlets say the ruling was first issued by Branch 9 of Tehran’s Criminal Court I and later affirmed by Branch 29 of Iran’s Supreme Court. Radio Farda reported that the complainant said the higher court left the sentence unchanged after appeal. IranWire also reported that Emtedad said the conviction was officially upheld after Supreme Court review.

The reports say the charge was tried under Article 637, which covers illicit relations and allows a punishment of up to 99 lashes. One report says the courts applied that penalty only to Jamshidi, because the law shifts punishment in coercion cases to the person who used force. That detail matters because the court’s legal label is not the same as the original public claims tied to the case.

What Happened in the Case

Pejman Jamshidi is also a former national soccer player, which helped turn the case into a major public story. Several outlets reported that his defense said he was cleared of rape charges but still found guilty of an unlawful sexual relationship or adultery-related offense. Those reports also said the sentence came after a wider national debate in Iran tied to the country’s #MeToo conversation.

The hard part of this case is the legal language. Different outlets used different English terms, including “illicit relations,” “illegal relations,” “extramarital affair,” and “unerased” or “unlawful relationship,” while the Iranian reports used the local legal phrase linked to Article 637. That kind of translation gap can blur the real legal issue for readers, even when the core court result is the same.

Why It Matters

This case is another reminder of how severe Iran’s criminal system can be when it deals with sex and morality cases. The sentence is not just about one celebrity. It also shows how quickly a high-profile dispute can move from public accusation to criminal punishment inside a system that offers little transparency to ordinary people watching from the outside.

For conservatives, the story fits a larger pattern that should raise eyebrows: a government that controls private conduct with harsh punishments, vague labels, and little public accountability. Iranian law may frame the issue as morality enforcement, but the result is still a stark example of state power that reaches deep into private life. In a free country, courts are supposed to protect rights, not weaponize them against basic human behavior.