Beyond the judicial details and criminal proceedings, the case of the two children in Sanandaj has once again brought a bitter, recurring truth to light: domestic violence against children is not merely an isolated incident, but a symptom of structural rifts within the social protection system. What transpired in this case is not just the discovery of a crisis within a single family; rather, it reflects a series of delays, institutional failures, and inefficiencies in prevention mechanisms that fall squarely under the human rights concept of a “failure to protect.”
Under international human rights law, states are not only obligated to refrain from directly violating children’s rights, but they also bear a positive obligation to prevent, identify, and intervene in domestic violence cases in a timely manner. This duty is enshrined in foundational instruments like the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which explicitly mandates states to protect children from “all forms of physical or mental violence.” Therefore, the core issue in such cases is not merely that violence occurred, but why the protective framework failed to intervene proactively before the crisis escalated.
In the Sanandaj case, accounts of citizens providing the initial reports demonstrate once again that the first line of defense against hidden violence is often the informal social network, rather than official agencies. While this highlights the value of social capital and public alertness, it simultaneously exposes a severe weakness in formal monitoring and early warning systems. In efficient child protection models, schools, healthcare centers, social workers, and local institutions are expected to systematically flag signs of danger, rather than waiting for sporadic public reports after a crisis reaches a breaking point.
Within this framework, the role of responsible bodies—specifically the State Welfare Organization and the Social Emergency (Orzhans-e Ejtemai)—must be evaluated through the lens of immediate, harm-minimizing intervention. Although the Social Emergency has been the primary arm for domestic crisis intervention in recent years, persistent reports of response delays, understaffing, and inadequate geographical coverage raise serious questions about its operational capacity. If the mechanism for responding to public alerts or institutional reports is hindered by delays or a failure to assess risk properly, the principle of early prevention becomes utterly ineffective.
From a human rights perspective, a critical flaw in this sector is the absence of an integrated child abuse risk management system. In robust child protection frameworks globally, educational, medical, judicial, and social data are consolidated across agencies to map out risk patterns early. Conversely, institutional fragmentation, the lack of a shared database, and poor cross-agency information sharing in Iran mean that critical warning signs are overlooked until it is far too late.
Public awareness and social education represent another major challenge. Even though citizens played a pivotal role in reporting the Sanandaj case, this must not obscure a structural void: the public’s lack of familiarity with official reporting channels, a deficit in public education regarding the signs of child abuse, and fear or hesitation surrounding social intervention. In many similar cases, the silence of bystanders stems not from indifference, but from the absence of clear, secure, and trustworthy reporting pathways.
From the standpoint of state obligations, the principle of ensuring effective protection goes far beyond merely establishing welfare agencies. It requires allocating adequate resources, training specialized personnel, building independent oversight bodies, and ensuring institutional accountability. Any deficiency in these areas constitutes a “structural failure”—a human rights concept denoting a systematic failure to uphold the fundamental rights of vulnerable individuals.
Ultimately, the case of the two Sanandaj children must be viewed not as an isolated incident, but as a symptom of a much broader crisis: the fragility of the social protection system in confronting hidden domestic violence. While the criminal liability of the perpetrators must be fully and justly prosecuted, the structural accountability of the state and its relevant institutions remains an open and urgent matter.
The core question remains: How can we prevent the recurrence of such tragedies when the earliest warning signs are visible, yet the system fails to act before they spiral into a crisis? The answer to this question will be the true metric of the efficacy of the child protection system—not merely on paper, but on the ground.
