Iran Upholds 74 Lashes for Singer Parastoo Ahmadi Over Hijab-Free Concert
An Iranian appeals court has confirmed a sentence of 74 lashes for singer Parastoo Ahmadi for performing without the mandatory hijab. The decision, reported on 28 September 2026, leaves in place the punishment given earlier this year to Ahmadi and eight band and production team members. BBC
Nine people were convicted in the case. It centers on a concert livestreamed on YouTube in December 2024. Ahmadi performed in a sleeveless dress. BBC She sang solo during the online concert. Iran International The set included a patriotic song. The Guardian
In June, a criminal court in Qom found Ahmadi and the eight co-defendants guilty of "offending public decency" through publication of "obscene and indecent material". BBC The court gave each defendant 74 lashes. It also banned them from audiovisual work and from leaving Iran for two years. BBC
The defence appealed. Lawyers for the defendants say a higher court rejected the appeal without a hearing. BBC An appeals court in Qom upheld the convictions. Iran International The Tehran-based Ham-Mihan newspaper reported on the performance without hijab and the court case. Iran International Under Iranian law, women and girls above the age of puberty must cover their hair with a hijab and wear long, loose-fitting clothing. BBC
The broader context here is the full enforcement toolkit, not only the lashes. The Qom rulings apply criminal liability to all nine participants, not only to Ahmadi. That extends responsibility from the lead singer to musicians and production staff. The extra penalties do related work. A two-year ban on audiovisual activity limits how they earn a living. A two-year exit ban limits travel. Together they keep pressure on after any physical punishment.
Looking at what this means for music and legal risk, three features stand out. First, place and procedure. The trial was in Qom, and defence lawyers say the appeal was decided without oral argument. That suggests little room to revisit facts once a publication charge is set. Second, medium. The court treated a YouTube livestream as publication. In effect, the camera becomes the boundary, not the concert hall. Third, collectivity. Punishing the ensemble and crew, like penalizing an entire film crew for one scene, raises the cost of working together. It can push others to censor themselves without new orders.
What practitioners will track now is narrow and practical. Whether the lash sentences are carried out, suspended, commuted, or left pending. How the audiovisual and exit bans are enforced in practice, and whether they fall evenly on all nine defendants. And whether Ham-Mihan and other domestic outlets keep reporting on implementation, which offers the limited public visibility available in such cases.
