Kambiz Barjas, Jamshidi’s lawyer, said that the only medical report in the case file dates back to the early days of the complaint and that neither party had been referred to the forensic medical authority again afterward.
“The medical information in the case is the same initial data. No new documentation has been added,” he said.
Barjas stated that the ruling issued by Branch One of the Court of Appeals fully aligned with the legal team’s arguments.
“If the forensic report or any other evidence in the file contained proof supporting the alleged accusations od sexual misconduct, the appeals court would not have overturned the initial verdict,” he noted.
He emphasized that the case contains a fixed set of evidence that has not changed over time.
“This is not a matter of competing claims. The final decision rests with the appeals court, which examined the same documents and determined whether the allegations were substantiated,” he said.
Barjas noted that the appeals court explicitly stated there was “no new evidence that would justify the continuation of Jamshidi’s detention,” and that under the law, the court was obligated to lift the detention order and overturn the preliminary ruling.
Reports first surfaced on October 20 regarding the arrest of a “well-known actor.” Hours later Jamshidi was identified as the individual involved in the complaint. The case was filed following a complaint by a woman, and Jamshidi was initially detained before being released on bail.