Justice under the Islamic Republic of Iran
December 13th, 2007Justice must correspond to the necessities of our time. The penal system of the Islamic Republic of Iran is not in compliance with our society’s expectations. Our Iranian norms of morality and the Islamic jurisdiction cannot complement each other. To describe how this system was mechanically imposed on our society, we must go back to the first years after the revolution of 1979 in Iran to see how the IRI steadily developed an ever greater repression with a growth in the number of executions and increasing violence throughout the country.
Immediately after the February 1979 revolution, Revolutionary Courts were set up to prosecute agents of the Pahlavi regime. The procedures of these courts clearly violated Iran’s international obligation. People were tried under retroactive legislation for acts which did not constitute penal offences at the time when they were committed. Since 1979, according to the statements of opposition groups, 3,350 persons had been executed, more than 2,000 of them since the dismissal of President Bani Sadr, i.e. from June to October 1981.
Accused persons were put up on trial with no previous warning of the charges, no opportunity to prepare a defence, to engage a lawyer or to bring witnesses in their defence. They were condemned to death and immediately executed without any rights of appeal, whether in law or for clemency. Those not condemned to death were in peril of double jeopardy; an example was general Nazemi who was condemned to 15 years imprisonment and a few months later was retried on the same charges, condemned to death and executed in violation of all international norms, including the International covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Iran is a party (1). Death sentences have been accompanied by flogging or carried out by stoning.
Having deal with former officials of the Shah’s regime, the courts began to concentrate on people accused of moral transgressions and of being “counter-revolutionaries (i.e. anyone opposed to the Khomeini regime). The charges included “corruption on earth” and “waging war against God, his Prophet, his Imam and representatives of the Imam”. This policy followed the line of action which Ayatollah Khomeini emphasised in a speech in the Feyzia Islamic Institute of Learning: “It is a day to day programme of identifying the opponents of Islam, our struggle against them shall become more intense” (2). And so it did.
The repression discarded rule of any law. Examples of this arbitrary rule were as follows:
–many prisoners under the Shah’s regime were released in February 1979, only to be arrested to imprisonment, if not executed. Such was the case of Reza Saadati, a MOK member (MOK or the People’s Mojahdin Organisation is an Islamic opposition group). Mr. Saadati was first sentenced to ten years imprisonment, was shot after a second and secret trial;
–ethnic minorities (Kurds, Turks, Arabs, Turkamens, and Bluchis) have seen their demand for a greater degree self-government met with a repression. Cases of massacres, imprisonment and executions were widely reported; religious groups banned by Islam have been increasingly harassed under the IRI. The Baha’is, who represented a population of half million in Iran before the revolution, faced charges such as promotion of prostitution, cooperation with Zionism, spying for imperialist powers, corruption on earth and warring against God. Thousands have lost their homes and possessions, thousands have been dismissed from their jobs and many of them have been executed by revolutionary firing squads;
– the main opposition groups after the overthrow of the Shah (democratic groups, moderate Islamic groups, the MOK and left-wing opposition) had not only been denied the right to share power in the post-revolutionary Iran, but were severely repressed. Not a week has passed without arrests and executions of many of their members;
– writers, poets and artists are particularly harassed. The first Islamic Revolutionary Judge, Sheik Sadegh Khalkhali, an infamous psychopath, did not hesitate to demand the execution of intellectuals such as Chamlou, a famous Iranian author who was well-known for his non-adherence to any political party and his non-involvement in any political activity. Khalkhali was responsible for many arbitrary executions. According to Judge Abdolkarim Ardibili, President of the Supreme Court, many defence lawyers were arrested, imprisoned and in at least one case, executed;
–those who faced firing squads included women and youths. It was reported in times magazine on 20, September 1981 that 150 youngsters were shot in a mass execution on 4 September (3). In a statement , Tehran’s revolutionary prosecutor, Assadollah Lajevardi declared: “Of course, even a 9- year old can be executed if it was proved to the court that he or she is grown enough”(4). It was reported that 13-year-old children had been shot (5);
–“counter-revolutionary activities” included the distribution of leaflets, incitement of innocents youths to subversion, and participation in demonstrations (charges often leading to death sentences). In a campaign to muzzle dissent in the schools, the IRI arrested teenagers. The number of students barred from school was estimated over 70,000 in the first two years after the revolution”;
–cases of torture and ill-treatment had been regularly reported. The IRI sought to justify these measures as necessary to repress attacks made by terrorists. Undoubtedly, the attack against the Islamic Republic Party (IRP) on 28, June, 1981 (killing 74 of the party’s officials and leading Ayatollah Beheshti) and the bombing on 30, August 1981 (killing President Mohammad Ali Radjai and the Prime Minister Mohammad Bahonar) were turning points in the escalation of violence and IRI’s increasing repression. The regime demanded people to help the Judicial Body for arrest of anti-revolutionaries, even if they belong to their relatives;
–IRI’s Foreign Ministry on 12, August, 1981 ordered Iranian embassies and missions to draw up a list of Baha’is, counter-revolutionaries and “so-called students” living in their jurisdiction. It also prohibited the renewal of their passport and ordered instead to delivery of a “transit-paper” which is valid only for a return journey to Iran (6);
–practicing lawyers for political prisoners were difficult and after the two mentioned terrors of IRP’s officials, President and Prime Minister became impossible. Indeed, according to statements by higher judicial officials, the defence of offenders would be contrary to Islamic laws, in that the defender is thereby an accessory to the accused person’s crimes. This was borne out by a report that a qualified lawyer, Mr. Mohsen Jahandar, had been accused of defending prisoners before Revolutionary Committees, condemned to death and shot before a firing squad about the end of August, 1981;
–the Revolutionary Tribunals turned to trying cases which were not within their jurisdiction as defined in the regulation (7). These include charges of homosexuality, prostitution, adultery, simple theft and drinking alcohol. Sentences of death by firing squad or by stoning were imposed for homosexuality, prostitution and adultery, the cutting off h a hand for simple theft.
The IRI not only discarded its own jurisdiction, but on the highest authority justified violence in the streets. On 19, September, 1981, in an address broadcasted on radio and television, Ayatollah Moussavi, the Revolutionary Procurator General, stated that “to kill the people who stand against this regime and its just Imam (Khomeini) is a prescribed duty according to Islamic laws. If they are captured, our men will not let them eat and sleep for a few months. The trial of these people is in the streets. I also order the city prosecutors to do the same; otherwise they themselves will be punished” (8).
On the same day, Ayatollah Mohammadi Gillani, the Ghazi Shara’ of Tehran (Tehran’s Islamic Judge), stated at a press conference in Evin prison, “Islam permits people engaged in armed demonstrations in the streets to be captured, stood against the wall of the street and shot”.
The highlight of repression starts with the Bill of Retribution, a series of articles degrading the worth of a man’s life to100 camels or 200 cows and that of a woman to half of the man’s, 50 camels or 100 cows. It was the beginning of judicial violation to all values of Human Rights, ethnical groups, women and other thinkers
In January, 198.1, the Bill of Retribution was submitted to parliament which mandated stoning, the amputation of limbs and the gouging out of eyes as punishment. It is called the Bill of Retribution was developed by the Supreme Leader Judicial Council.
In some cities, the clergy did not wait for legal sanction but had already begun to practice Islamic Justice on their own.
Public response was initially muted by disbelief, which gave way to a horrified outcry. Progressive analyses of the Bill were circulated Organisations of religious minorities, women and other democratic people demonstrated at the department of Justice and at the Parliament responded with silence, then, in September, 1981, the Bill was passed.
The Bill assumes that the human body and its parts are convertible into money. The idea of receiving blood money is based on this kind of assumption. Here the class nature of this bill is revealed; it serves only the rich. Only they can afford to pay fines for their crimes in lieu of physical punishment. The following descriptions show how this barbaric bill can turn our society into the dark ages:
–the Bill ignores the fact that the essence of punishment is the rehabilitation of the individual and the society. It defines punishment as individual retaliation. The social aspect of crimes is completely neglected so that punishment becomes a right of the next of kin, or the private plaintiff. This symbolises a return to a tribal age when feuds were the custom; (ARTICLE 7)
–in this bill, the value of a woman is assumed to be half that of a man. In a case of voluntary man slaughter, her testimony has no value. In the case of the murder of a woman by a man, the family of the woman must pay the murderer half of his blood money before retaliating. Otherwise there will be no punishment; he merely has to pay the blood money of the woman, which is half that of a man; (ARTICLE 5)
– “Dieh” (the cash value of the fine for killing a person) for a woman intentionally or not is half as much as for a man. However, if a man intentionally murders a woman and the guardian of the woman himself is not able to pay half of the Dieh (the value of 50 camels or 100 cows, the difference between the value of a man to that of a woman’s life) to the murderer the murderer will be exempted from retribution; (CLAUSE 6)
–murder committed in the line of duty still demands retaliation, thus, if a commander orders his soldier or police to kill someone, the one who was compelled to follow the orders of their commander can be sentenced to death, while the commander will be only sentenced to imprisonment; (ARTICLE 4)
–according to the Bill, it is permissible to kill one’s child. In other words, if the father or paternal grandfather murders his child, even if the child is fifty years old, he will be exempt from retaliation; (ARTICLE 6)
–according to the Bill, people can be killed for insulting the prophet or the saints and the murderer will be exempt from the punishment. (ARTICLE23)–this Article is a tool for the suppression of all those who politically or ideologically oppose the IRI;
–according to the Bill, if a person is sentenced to several penalties, all the penalties will be carried out. This is contrary to the laws of the rest of the world, where only the highest penalty is implemented. For example, if the penalty includes whipping and stoning to death, the assailant will be whipped first and then stoned to death; (ARTICLE 110)
–the Bill, in many of its articles, discriminates against the non-Muslim citizen of Iran and his rights to half or even less than those of Muslim citizen. (ARTICLES 100, 151) in other Articles of the Bill, in order to avoid public condemnation, the principle of discrimination against non-Muslims is stated implicitly;
–according to the Bill, a man can murder his wife and her companion in the case of adultery. He will not be punished;
–the code does not provide any punishment in case of the murder of an individual who is mentally ill;
–the sentence for consuming alcohol for the first time is whipping. However, the third time that a person is accused of drinking alcohol; he will be sentenced to death;
The Bill of Retribution states that all the penalties should be implemented in public. The Islamic Judge should notify the public of the time of the event. It is necessary that at least three Muslims be present during the ceremonies;
–in all the cases, guilt is proven through confession or the testimony of witness. It is enough for two Islamic Committee members or Revolutionary Guards to falsely testify against a person to endanger his life;
–by emphasising confession as a means of proving guilt, the Bill paves the way for torturing individuals in order to force them to confess;
–according to the Bill, married men and women will be stoned to death for adultery. The sentence will be implemented with full medieval ceremony. (ARTICLE 100)
The Bill describes the penalty as follows: “The man up to his waist and the woman up to her chest will be placed in a ditch and then stoned. The stones should neither be too big nor too small. ”Big stones kill too quickly.
It is important to note that the Bill, in many cases, is in conflict with the Constitution that was ratified by the same ruling organs! The Bill explicitly violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which obliges the government and its Muslim citizens to deal fairly with non-Muslims citizens and to observe their Constitutional rights; Article 19, which states that Iranian people of any tribe or sect have equal rights, and that colour, race, language, gender, will not be reasons for withholding privileges; and Article 20 which guarantees all Iranian citizens, both men and women, equality under the Constitution.
References:
1) Human Rights Violations in the Republic of Iran, Chicago, 11, May 1980.
2) Imam Khomeini,”The revolutionary line”, Great Islamic Library.
3) Time Magazine, 20, September 1981.
4) International Herald Tribune, 30, September 1981
5) Giam Iran newspaper, Tehran, 28, June 1981.
6) ICJ Review No.26, p.23.
7) See ICJ Review No.25, at p.21.
Kyhan newspaper, Tehran, 20, September 1981.
Loading ...
Loading...
Sigh
Mr Jahanshah, that was a wonderful article. Do you think there is a way to improve the state of human rights in Iran? and if yes, how?
Walid !!!!
What is wrong is wrong with this Ashraf?? he is being mean. I mean he is not joking like you do, he is being mean.
R: Elinor
As long as the IRI exists, unfortunately every human catastrophe can happen in Iran. This regime is inherited from the most archaic and undemocratic religious traditions and can never be adapted to the norms of Human Rights. Their teaching is intolerance, violent, martyrdom, jihad, and other irrational behaviours, as seen in the past 3 decades. Human Rihgts may be tactically discussed by some of IRI’s factions but cannot be accepted as a tradition because it contradicts the whole regime.
Isn’t it interesting that they will never admit that they are not interested in human rights? I find it odd that a country such as the IRI still pitifully tries to pretend to care. But they know they don’t…why don’t they just say it?
Omid,
Perhaps they get interested when it comes to their kins, but for the society, the society should be contolled according to the legislated laws.
If you see how a person in charge deals with his own family and how he deals with people as his object, you find out even regarding the very rigid rules he is being very lenient with his own family, alas the same could not apply to the society,
We need a fresh set of rules.
Jahanshah,
I think the rate of change is too slow to meet the demands of this expanding developing country, with too many of people being under30, under 20, and the kids.
lets suppose that IRI is finished in one second and people are to select a new regime. do you think that after 20 years, the situation will be much different from what we experience right now in Iran?
Iranians dont have any idea what a democracy is… yeah, I do admit that providing a sample democracy (for example: a sudden regime change) might enable them to practice and ‘practice makes better’, but such a thing is not risk-free.
people should try to get used to democractic principles in the depth of the society, and then direct the flow step by step towards the regime… not a sudden change may help us, I think.
Konrad:
(1)
with regards to current status of Ahmadinejad: he is a famous man, even notorious, both inside and outside of Iran. but those things which make a notorious figure of this man in western dominated media, are not those things which make him a popular person in Iran.
that is true that many bloggers and etc are strongly criticizing him and his administration, but pay attention that you hear some voices in cyber world over and over which belong to the minority of Iran’s population: they usually fail to portray an average picture of this country.
to get a better understanding of his current status in Iran, read this article: Local promises in Iran: Ahmadinejad’s election trump card?… the author refers to “Ahmadinejad’s undeniable charisma”
(2)
regardless of those causes which might ultimately show a butterfly effect, I think that a revolution is not imminent at all. and, also, I think that a ‘revolution’ is more likely to loose to a reform, in a cost-benefit analysis.
Thanks for all commentators! Here are my answer to your comments:
–During the Iranian revolution, Iranians were not enough aware of a newborn dictatorship. As in 1979, most Iranians still believed that Ayatollah Khomeini could assume freedom and justice; it turned short after the revolution into an illusionary vision.
–The revolution was not the problem; the problem was the whole period of after-revolution, from 1980 until now.
–A number of religious intellectuals, Soroush, Banisadr, Ayat…reinterpreted Islam and reinvest it with meanings appropriate to the current situation, diverting people with false hopes. Furthermore, Iranian secular intelligentsia could not play an important role because of the Phalavi’s long dictatorship. For mass of angry Iranians, the choice between despair and hope was very difficult, especially with no experience and milestone of democracy.
–I think Iranians, despite repression and brainwashing, still have a great will for rehabilitation, once this regime is gone, millions of active Iranians from inside or outside can rebuild the devastated country.
–Application of democracy in a new Iran will take time and needs preconditions, but it is vital, the only model to guarantee justice, progress and human rights.
–Let’s first achieve the main job—to get rid of the criminal and an anti Iranian regime which has taken people in hostage —nothing will worse after IRI’s fall.
Jahanshah:
How are you going to change this regime? “lets replace it with a swiss model” … good in theory, but not practical at all. the regime will resist any regime change, for sure.
what about a military option? in that case, tell “nothing will worse after IRI’s fall” to Iraqis who were promissed the same before US inavsion… and latest statistics (I read somewhere) show that more than 1.200.000 Iraqis died after that damned invasion, a better part of their infrastructure turned into dust, and it will take many years of peace to rebuild what US cracked.
I think that a simple SWOT analysis would rank the rapid regime change as the last desirable option, espicially as long as the people tend to remain the same.
by the way, Iran is a closer thing to Democracy compared with most of mideast countries, as Omid once said. you, sit there, and call us to do this and that, and probably provide a red carpet for you to arrive… world does not work that way.
R: Mohammad
I have already condemned the Bush’s administration for its unchained liberalism, for its Iraqi invasion, for its world hegemony and lack of respect for democracy and sovereignty of other nations.
I have also rejected any military attack or sanctions on basics of Iranian people—see my previous posts on MEY and GOOGLE.
What I proposed in many articles is a series of political and judicial sanctions towards IRI’ seniors, as the only perpetrators, by the highest international political and judicial bodies—The U.N / The Hague Court/ EU Council…
You might be more concerned about religioin than politics. In a democracy, people can have their faith in privacy, but not imposed on the institutions. This is another reason a multiethnical nation like Iran needs secularismo as a guarantee for religion freedom.
I personally do not believe in the accuracy, morality, divinity, and necessity of any religion, especially of Islam, but accept as democrat coexistence as long as a religion does not call for violence.
I know, the IRI will not give over the power to people, it violently resists, but having this regime for anther three decade is more harmful than having a-three- year of popular revolts.
I have been for the past three decades in France and Germany and live as a German citizen a normal life.
I am not a political activist and have no ambition for it, but, as a freelance writer, what is wrong if I share my ideas with others? Tell please Omid, I like to visit Iran anythe “red carpet”!
as long as they do effect just those seniors and do not interfere with everyday life of ordinary citizens, I might be approving of them. but, let me emphasize on the fact that any sanction (repeat after me: any sanction) which might worsen the life-condition of common citizens, it will happen to be a counter-productive strategy to ur own cause.
Hurray. the core idea of this system is a great thing: “nobody should impose his/her preferred lifestyle (especially religious ones) on others”… I buy it… but what if this system makes a new religion out of atheism and imposes it on others? most noticably: Hijab Ban is such an impose… by the way, this idea is great, as long as it is not going to force me to give up on my personal lifestyle: I want to pray 5 times a day, my wife is passionaely advocating Hijab, etc.
1- I think that no popular revolt is likely to happen. IRI will be the last dictatorship of the world to fall, if all of them are supposed to fall.
2- let me know ur idea about Chinese Government. I asked you this question one more time, and you probably didnt see it: if IRI was making a good thing in economic era (like that of China), was it morally acceptable to topple it? topple it to bring more freedom in expense of worse economic situation? its not very easy to say ‘yes’ to this question, I think.
Mohammad Memarian
“This system” as you call it does not make a new religion out of atheism. The religion in “this system” is private, that means that you can go to mosque, church or wherever to practice your religion and do whatever you want in private as long as you do not do that in public. That means no religious symbols in schools. You probably do not know that wearing cross is also prohibited in French schools.
That is the rule in france, in other countries for example in UK, USA, Canada or in Russia you can wear hijab, or anything you want up to and including the sikh knives (religious symbols), in some countries you can wear hijab but not chador. The last one has nothing to do with religion but everything to do with terrorism. But overall it is wrong to say that atheism is a “new religion”, you should better say that there is the distinction between sacrum and profanum i.e. between religious and secular spheres.
As for praying 5 times a day - you can do it at home, not problem, although your wife would have problem in France, though not in other EU or American countries. That would be then your choice - stay in France or move somwhere else. In Iran non-muslims have to wear strict hijab everywhere, in France muslims are not allowed to wear it only in school or if working in governmental offices, you can wear it on the street any time. That is a major difference, don’t you agree?
As for PRC - the PRC today and PRC under Mao are quite different things. Nevertheless muslims in Xinjiang are still put into prison thought in lower numbers then before and IRI does nothing about it.
If IRI will have improved its economy as well as China did I would be all for leaving IRI and Iranians to their own devices, with improvement of economy usually comes improvement in the human rights. However there is no signs of improvement of IRI economy and no improvement of inflation in Iran. The biggest revenue IRI has comes from oil and IRI products can not compete on the international market with products from other countries. PRC improved its economy through opening its economy to co-operation with european, US and other western businesses, IRI does not want to change its rules and regulations like chinese did.
So I think that if Iranians themselves want to topple the government good luck to them, if they do not want to do it then they will have more presidents like Ahmadinejad and IRI economy will not improve.
another anonymous:
I do admit that there is a big difference. personally I would prefer to live in France even if they do not let my wife wear her hijab in public universities. and I think, it would be the choice of any rationale creature
indeed, as u noted above, france just bans hijab in public universities, but Iran systematically persecutes Bahais, and there is a big difference, for sure.
BUT I was just trying to point out a big inherent problem of such democracies, a problem which might be called a kind of Paradox. let me elaborate the case with a simple example: suppose that I make a new religion, and say that “all of those who are eager to follow me and become Memarians, they should uncover their hair (frankly: head’s hair, not else!) and let it be seen by everybody anywhere. and they must only wear T-Shirts.” that is a religiuos symbol by definition, yeah? then, given that I gather enough followers, is France going to ban this religious symbol in public universities? I can add to my religion several other features: “all Memarians should use contact lenses, female Memarians should color their nails, etc.” is french government likely to ban my religion’s very symbols?
think a bit about the above question. my asnwer is: “No. They cant.” then, it shows the deficiency of that principle which is trying to ‘ban every religious symbol’.
suppose that a religion requires a certain behavior and another religion requires exactly the opposit. for example, Memarians should wear Tshirts, and Konradians should never wear Tshirts. these are both ’symbols’ by definition: wearing a certain thing, and not-wearing it. then, how are you going to ban “both symbols” in the same time? another example might be growing a beard and mustache for Memarians, and shaving it for Konradians. is it possible to ban ‘both’ of them in the same time?
one might ask what is the solution proposed by secular regimes… here is the solution: we just consider those religions which are now available in the market and enjoy a considerable amount of support, and ban them. (a pragmatic view it is, but paradoxical in depth.) and, since all of these religions believe in God, secular regimes in practice ban god-oriented symbols, therefore enjoining and enforcing a style of life which doesnt believe in God, and this is what I call “making a new religion out of Atheism“.
[quote]all of those who are eager to follow me and become Memarians, they should uncover their hair (frankly: head’s hair, not else!) and let it be seen by everybody anywhere. and they must only wear T-Shirts.” that is a religiuos symbol by definition, [/quote]
Uh…………………….., no.
Religious symbol, by definition, is something [b]specific[/b] to that religion.
If you say that Memarians should uncover their hair it would not be specific to that religion, majority of people are doing that. You should say uncover left side and cover the right side of your head. Same with T-shirts. Many people wear T-shirts. If you say wear only T-shirts, it would be nothing special and it wouldn’t be a symbol of that religion. If you say wear the T-shirts only with image of sun on it, than that would be specific to Memarianism. Religious symbols are specific, what you propose is nothing specific to Memarianism. Hijab, in case you have not noticed, is a specific covering of head. It is not any covering but a detailed, different from others, covering. At least that’s what majority of muslims understand by word “hijab”
One of major symbol of christianity is cross (or a fish)
One of major symbol of of islam is crescent and concerning the dress - hijab
One of major symbol of judaism is specific covering of man’s head - a kippah
symbol of buddism is yellow safron robe
What would be specific symbol of Memarianism?
What is specific symbol of atheism?
Of course some [i]people[/i] do make an atheism somewhat of a religion. They tend to put down all religions (Christianity in the first place ); they are against manifestation of any religion, even in private; they want to change the name “christmass” into meaningless, politically correct “winter holidays” and so on and so forth. . But if you know history of France, the beginning of modern France has been based on anti-clerical movement so one should not be supprised that France bans both hijab and the cross. But banning the signs of religion in governmental offices is not the same as making an atheism a new religion. That was strictly Soviet Union proposal.
[quote]secular regimes in practice ban god-oriented symbols, therefore enjoining and enforcing a style of life which doesnt believe in God, and this is what I call “making a new religion out of Atheism“[/quote]
Wrong.
Russia is secular, Poland is secular, Serbia is secular, US is secular……….do they prohibit any religion there? Do they enforce a style of life which doesn’t believe in God?
Go to Russia, go to US, go to Serbia and see for yourself if you think it true.