Nazanin Azizmohammadi, Ph.D.

Nazanin Azizmohammadi, Ph.D.

Legal scholar specializing in constitutional and public law, women's rights and health, gender-based violence, and access to justice.

Sitemap

A list of all the posts and pages found on the site. For you robots out there, there is an XML version available for digesting as well.

Pages

Posts

When Does Employment Actually Redistribute Power?

3 minute read

Published:

A review of Women, Business and the Law 2026 and of the complex relationship between employment, economic independence, bargaining power, and women’s safety.

When Women’s Protection Depends on Their ZIP Code

7 minute read

Published:

A public-law response to Equality Now’s case for constitutional equality, examining federalism, congressional power, the ERA, and the need for an enforceable national minimum of protection.

portfolio

publications

Cover of Electoral Justice

Electoral Justice

Published in Mizan Publication, Iran (book in Persian), 2018

Recommended citation: Azizmohammadi, F., Yavari, A., Ehteghali, H., and Karimi, M. (2018). Electoral Justice. Mizan Publication.

Cover of Law: The Essence of Social Survival

Law: The Essence of Social Survival

Published in Legal essays in honor of Professor Seyed Ezatollah Araghi (contributed volume in Persian), 2021

Contributing author to this commemorative volume of legal essays.

Right to Mental Health and Vulnerable Women

Published in First National Conference on the Right to Mental Health, Shahid Beheshti University (in Persian), 2021

Recommended citation: Azizmohammadi, F. (2021). "Right to Mental Health and Vulnerable Women." First National Conference on the Right to Mental Health, Shahid Beheshti University.

Critical Analysis of Corruption in Iran’s Health Care System and Its Control Strategies Permalink

Published in Shiraz E-Medical Journal, 23(3), e115669, 2022

A narrative review of corruption risks in Iran’s health system and legal, governance, and institutional strategies for addressing them.

Recommended citation: Joulaei, H., Bagheri Lankarani, K., Shahabi, S., Azizmohammadi, F., and Keshavarzian, A. (2022). "Critical Analysis of Corruption in Iran's Health Care System and Its Control Strategies." Shiraz E-Medical Journal, 23(3), e115669.

Cover of The Role of Safe Housing in Empowering Survivors of Domestic Violence in Iran

The Role of Safe Housing in Empowering Survivors of Domestic Violence in Iran Permalink

Published in ELCOP Journal on Human Rights, 1(1), 89–102, 2023

This article examines Iran’s Safe Housing Guideline and identifies legal and policy gaps affecting the protection and autonomy of survivors of domestic violence.

Recommended citation: Azizmohammadi, F. (2023). "The Role of Safe Housing in Empowering Survivors of Domestic Violence in Iran." ELCOP Journal on Human Rights, 1(1), 89–102.

Cover of Computational Analysis under Selective Judicial Publication: Gendered Credibility and Constitutional Access to Justice in Iran

Computational Analysis under Selective Judicial Publication: Gendered Credibility and Constitutional Access to Justice in Iran

Workshop presentation · Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen · 22–23 April 2027

This paper examines how women’s accounts of sexual violence acquire, retain, or lose credibility in judicial reasoning. Focusing on officially published Iranian decisions concerning rape allegations and related sexual-conduct charges, it asks how a complainant’s narrative is translated into legally significant categories and whether computational analysis can help identify gendered patterns in that process. The constitutional question concerns access to justice: whose account receives serious consideration, which experiences become legally recognisable, and how evidentiary uncertainty is allocated between the person seeking protection and the institutions deciding her claim.

The project treats credibility as a question requiring close examination of the reasoning expressed in a judgment. It asks which statements the court accepts, doubts, or leaves unresolved; what reasons it gives for doing so; and how those assessments relate to the legal classification of the alleged conduct. The inquiry will distinguish an explicit assessment of credibility from an inference supplied by a reader or a language model. This distinction matters because a decision may reject a particular allegation without explaining whether the court considered the complainant dishonest, mistaken, insufficiently corroborated, or unable to satisfy the applicable evidentiary threshold.

A central concern is the distinction between failure to establish coercion and an affirmative finding of consent. The project will examine how these propositions are expressed in the selected decisions and whether they remain separate in computational interpretation. It will also distinguish the rejection of a rape allegation from a determination concerning other sexual conduct. The analysis asks when the reasoning moves between these categories, what textual support exists for that movement, and how the complainant’s procedural position changes. These are questions for investigation within the corpus, rather than findings assumed in advance.

The study uses a bounded collection of officially published judicial decisions. Because publication is selective, the collection cannot establish the national prevalence of a reasoning pattern or provide a complete account of how Iranian courts handle sexual-violence complaints. Unpublished cases, omitted procedural details, and the selection of particular decisions affect what researchers can observe. The project therefore treats the production of the public judicial record as part of its methodology. Claims will remain tied to the decisions examined, with a distinction between identifying an interpretive mechanism and estimating how often it occurs.

Methodologically, the project combines expert legal coding with analysis by a Persian-capable large language model. A legal codebook will guide the identification of allegations, assessments of evidence, statements about credibility, legal classifications, and procedural outcomes. An expert-coded benchmark will be used to evaluate the model’s classifications and interpretations. The analysis will attend to who is speaking in a passage: a complainant, an accused person, a lower court, or a reviewing court. Statements reported within a judgment will not automatically be treated as the deciding court’s own conclusions.

Validation will examine category-level accuracy alongside the substance of interpretive errors. The project will test whether changing prompts alters the model’s treatment of legally significant passages and whether translation changes distinctions preserved in the Persian text. Errors involving consent, coercion, credibility, or the attribution of judicial statements will receive qualitative examination. The purpose is to establish the conditions under which computational assistance can support legal analysis, including the points at which an apparently coherent output requires correction or cannot sustain the proposed interpretation.

The paper connects feminist legal inquiry with constitutional access to justice and computational legal research. Its intended contribution is a method for examining gendered credibility that keeps the complainant’s legal position, the judgment’s reasoning, and the limitations of the available record in view. It will assess what language-model analysis can reliably identify, what remains dependent on expert interpretation, and how selective publication shapes the resulting knowledge. It also treats corpus construction, coding, and translation as choices that influence the legal questions researchers can answer, rather than neutral preparatory steps.

View paper details and workshop information

talks

teaching

Comparative Administrative Law and Administrative Law

Teaching assistant, Shahid Beheshti University, 2018

Teaching assistant in Comparative Administrative Law with Professor Mohammad Hossein Zarei (2016–2018) and in Administrative Law with Professor M. Jalali (2014).