On November 4, 2025, Cécile Kohler, a 41-year-old literature teacher, and Jacques Paris, a 72-year-old retired teacher, left Evin prison in Tehran for the French residence, under bail imposed by the Iranian judiciary. Paris hails it as a first step and calls for their definitive release; Tehran maintains surveillance. A story of a fragile in-between where diplomacy and care frame every gesture.
From the sinister hill of Evin to the cushioned walls of the French residence
They crossed a threshold believed to be locked. On November 4, 2025, Cécile Kohler, 41 years old, a literature teacher, and Jacques Paris, 72 years old, a retired teacher, left Evin prison in Tehran. Their journey is not over yet. On November 5, the announcement becomes official: the two French nationals no longer sleep behind steel bars. However, they are at the French diplomatic residence in the Iranian capital. There, they are now described as "safe." A relative safety, as they remain deprived of freedom: the Iranian judiciary places them on bail, as part of a hostage release in Iran monitored by the judiciary, and prohibits their departure from the country.
On November 5, 2025, on X, Emmanuel Macron hails "a first step" and expresses "immense relief." The same day in Paris, Jean-Noël Barrot, Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs, makes a statement via communiqué. He specifies that it is a conditional release and not a resolution. Their lawyers remind with precision: as long as they cannot leave Iran, they remain deprived of freedom. In Tehran, Esmaïl Baghaï, spokesperson for Iranian diplomacy, confirms the bail regime and the judicial control.
Three and a half years in the shadows
Arrested on May 7, 2022, charged with "espionage," "conspiracy," and "corruption on earth" according to Iranian media, Cécile Kohler and Jacques Paris endured 1,277 days of detention marked by isolation and forced confessions broadcast by state television. On October 14, 2025, a revolutionary court sentenced them to heavy penalties: twenty years for her, seventeen years for him, sanctions denounced as arbitrary by Paris. Their names join those of other Europeans caught in the proven mechanics of a hostage crisis in Iran.
The setting is familiar: Evin prison, and its section 209, a high-security detention center where many political prisoners are held. The release from prison does not erase the physical scars or the psychological fragilities of these years. Indeed, these are noted during consular visits and relayed through official communications.
To shed light without relaying propaganda narratives, we will stick to verified facts and public documents: the existence of an assignment to the diplomatic residence is acknowledged by French authorities and confirmed by Tehran. The exact conditions of the bail, however, fall under Iranian judicial secrecy.
A meticulously orchestrated diplomatic sequence
In Paris, they speak of a window opened by the harshness of negotiations. In Tehran, they emphasize the autonomy of an internal procedure. Between these lines lies the discreet work of Ambassador Pierre Cochard, tasked with overseeing the transfer from Evin to the residence, and that of a medical and diplomatic team dispatched for immediate support. Emmanuel Macron hails a progress, Jean-Noël Barrot calls for the definitive release.
This movement fits into a context of judicial exchanges. Mahdieh Esfandiari, an Iranian student prosecuted in France, benefited at the end of October 2025 from a release under judicial supervision, announced by Tehran, confirmed by the French side. No official link is established between these decisions, but the synchronicity fuels analysis. On the Iranian side, Massoud Pezeshkian, President of the Islamic Republic, lets his diplomacy handle the case, now led by Abbas Araghchi, Minister of Foreign Affairs, whose method is reputed to be pragmatic.
Caution dictates avoiding any syllogism. Iran persists in contesting the accusation of state hostage-taking. France maintains a consistent discourse: unfounded accusations, unfair trials, violations of the Vienna Convention on consular relations. At this stage, the official objective remains unchanged: to obtain the lifting of judicial surveillance and the exit from the territory of Cécile Kohler and Jacques Paris.
Voices and silences
Over the months, the families have maintained a line of endurance mobilization: press conferences, gatherings, open letters. They speak of exhaustion, fear, and this drift of time that carries away the seasons. On November 5, they welcome the end of the bars. Yet, they refuse to speak of liberation as long as the road to Imam Khomeini Airport remains forbidden.
Their lawyers adhere to a strict grammar. Release from prison does not mean freedom. They anticipate an opaque judicial calendar, where hearings, bails, orders, and appeals could follow one another. Every word counts. Every qualification commits. The French authorities encourage them: avoid hypotheses, stick to the communiqués.
In Tehran, Esmaïl Baghaï repeats that justice is taking its course. Abbas Araghchi speaks of a useful dialogue with his French counterpart. Jean-Noël Barrot asserts that he continues, relentlessly, the necessary steps to make the return possible. In this economy of language, silences weigh as much as announcements.
The legal framework, between international law and national sovereignty
The cases of Cécile Kohler and Jacques Paris are played out at the interweaving of Iranian law and international law. Tehran asserts the independence of its judiciary, claims the maintenance under control of the two French nationals as long as appeal avenues are not exhausted. Paris invokes the Vienna Convention and demands the effectiveness of consular protection. Additionally, it requests the absence of pressure and the respect of adversarial proceedings. In the meantime, the diplomatic residence acts as a buffer zone.
This ambivalence is not new. Indeed, it is far from the release of American hostages in Iran in 1981, often cited as a historical precedent. It fits into a broader dispute over geopolitical backgrounds and coercive practices attributed to the Islamic Republic. It explains the restraint of the French executive: avoiding verbal escalations, preserving channels. In this context, temporality is not that of immediacy. Instead, it is that of a step-by-step where caution is the condition for real progress.
Motives and scope of a release on bail in Iran
The release on bail in Iran means leaving prison without regaining freedom of movement. In practice, it is generally accompanied by a prohibition to leave the territory and the confiscation of the passport. Sometimes, there are also periodic summons before the judicial authority and the payment of a sum. The amount and terms of this sum are not public.
For foreign nationals, these measures imply a total dependence on the judge’s decision and consular protection. They make any return schedule uncertain and prolong a state of in-between. Even when the French embassy in Tehran can offer a safe haven, this situation persists.
In the present case, Tehran confirms a bail regime and judicial control. Meanwhile, Paris reiterates its demand for definitive release and free exit from the territory. These two lines coexist, awaiting a judicial decision that could lift the departure ban.
An interior scene
The exit from Evin is first and foremost a sensory shift. After months of neon lights and swinging doors, there are padded corridors. An inner courtyard where one can breathe better. A doctor takes vitals, a diplomat announces the rules, a security agent checks the phones. The outside world has not reintegrated the bodies: it only brushes against them. A room, a bed, a curtain that can finally be closed without a hatch opening.
One imagines the first night: the noises are no longer those of locks, but those of the city. From a distance, relatives in Paris, in Strasbourg, or elsewhere, relearn the art of hoping without deluding themselves. They take stock of the simple gestures that remain out of reach: a carriage door, a train platform, a dog recognizing its master.
In this suspended time, the consular team prepares the documents, anticipates the scenarios: postponed hearing, increased bail, confirmed decision, overturned decision. Nothing is linear, everything can go backward.
Paris and Tehran, the art of negotiating without breaking
The French method relies on two threads: constancy and discretion. Constant, because the line is repeated at every level: immediate and unconditional release. Discreet, because publicity harms the behind-the-scenes work. The Iranian method showcases the autonomy of its judges and the sovereignty of its procedures. Additionally, it shows the potential inflection according to a diplomatic power balance.
In this choreography, words serve as signals. In Paris, the executive prefers the term "state hostages," without making it a banner in every circumstance; in Tehran, they counter with the judicial grammar of the Islamic Republic. No one gives up their lexicon, but each adjusts the volume.
What can be said, and what must be kept silent
It can be affirmed that Cécile Kohler and Jacques Paris are no longer incarcerated at Evin. It can be observed that they are housed and protected by France in Tehran. It can be documented that Iran mentions a release on bail, while Paris now demands a definitive release. Additionally, this demand is accompanied by the lifting of controls. It must be acknowledged that the outcome remains uncertain.
Everything else belongs to the time of decisions and closed sessions. It is there that the margins of the Iranian rule of law are played out. Furthermore, it includes these moments of transition where a passport is returned. Moreover, it is when a door opens onto the gangway. Only then will it be permissible to write that the return has begun.