Abdorrahman Boroumand Center

for Human Rights in Iran

https://www.iranrights.org
Memorial
Omid, a memorial in defense of human rights in Iran
One Person’s Story

Akhtar Sabet Sarvestani

About

Age: 25
Nationality: Iran
Religion: Baha'i
Civil Status: Single

Case

Date of Killing: June 18, 1983
Location of Killing: Abdollah Mesgar Garrison (Chogan Square), Shiraz, Fars Province, Iran
Mode of Killing: Hanging
Charges: Religious offense
Age at time of alleged offense: 24
Memorial Home

Human rights violations in this case

The Legal Context

The Courts

 

Islamic Revolutionary Courts, 11 February 1979-1994

 

In the immediate aftermath of the 11 February 1979 Revolution, an ad hoc tribunal, initially referred to as the Extraordinary Revolutionary Tribunal, was set up to try the officials of the previous regime, for which no specific procedures were devised. In a decree dated 24 February 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini, the revolutionary religious leader, appointed a cleric as Shari’a Judge and instructed him “to issue Shari’a-based rulings,” thereby establishing the foundation of a system of special courts.

 

Initially, the revolutionary courts’ jurisdiction was determined by the religious judge’s interpretation of the Shari’a (Islamic law based on the teachings of the Qur’an, the traditions of the Prophet, the 12 imams, and the teachings of Shi’a scholars. On 17 June 1979, the Revolutionary Courts and the Prosecutor’s Office Rules of Procedure, which was only selectively observed, established the latter’s jurisdiction and make-up.

 

The Courts’ jurisdiction encompassed a wide array of offenses including moharebeh (“waging war with God”), efsad e fel arz (“spreading corruption on Earth”), crimes against national and international security, economic crimes, murder, profiteering, prostitution, rape, and narcotic drugs-related crimes. The law required that two of the three principal members of the Revolutionary Courts be Shari’a judges.

 

 

Islamic Revolutionary Courts, 1994-2002

 

With the adoption of the Law for the Establishment of General and Revolutionary Courts of 14 June 1994, and the Code of Criminal Procedure for General and Revolutionary Courts of 19 September 1999, a uniform code of procedure was applied to both revolutionary and general courts. The jurisdiction of the Revolutionary Courts was limited to 6 categories of offenses:

1. Crimes against national and international security,“moharebeh” (enmity with god) and “efsad e fel arz” (corruption on earth;)

2. defaming Ayatollah Khomeini and the Supreme Leader;

3. plotting against the Islamic Republic of Iran, armed action, terrorism, and sabotage;

4. espionage;

5. smuggling and drug-related crimes; 6. claims under Principle 49 (economic crimes) of the Constitution.

 6. Furthermore, pursuant to the Law on the Manner of Punishing Individuals Engaged in Unauthorized Audio and Visual Activities, Article 11, the revolutionary courts have jurisdiction over crimes that fall within the purview of said Law, including production and distribution of obscene materials and misuse and abuse thereof.

These courts continued, however, to try cases falling outside their jurisdiction, such as theft and sexual offenses. Further, the vagueness of laws regarding national security allowed the revolutionary courts to try political and media crimes whenever they wished to do so.

 

The new law eliminated the Prosecutor’s Office and gave the judges inthe Revolutionary Courts the power to perform the duties of the prosecutor, as well as their own, in any case brought before them.

 

Islamic Revolutionary Courts, 2002-Present

 

The Amended Law for the Establishment of General and Revolutionary Courts of 2002 reinstated the Prosecutor’s Office in both revolutionary and general courts. In cases involving political and media crimes, revolutionary courts’ jurisdiction overlaps with that of Province Criminal Courts.

 

With the passage of the new Rules of Criminal Procedure in 2014, and its coming into force in June 2015, the jurisdiction of the revolutionary courts remains unchanged, with slight modifications in procedural aspects of adjudication. For instance, the new law provides that for crimes subject to the death penalty, life imprisonment, amputation, third degree, or higher, the revolutionary court shall convene with three judges, whereas, prior to the passage of this law, adjudication of all crimes within the jurisdiction of revolutionary courts took place with only a single judge.

The Appellate System of Revolutionary Courts, 1979-Present

 

From their inception until 1994, the rulings of the Revolutionary Courts were not subject to appeal. In the early 1980s a court entitled the Supreme Court of Qom was established in the city of Qom and which reviewed cases of execution and confiscation of properties, thereby forming a first tier form of appeal. The exact date of the creation of the court is not clear, but, based on available information, the court became operational in the early 1980s, even though Ayatollah Khomeini's official order for its creation is dated 1985. The court’s procedure was not systematic and did not meet the international standards for a court of appeals; there was no official record of its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Qom was dissolved in 1989.

 

The Law of 14 June 1994 subjected the Courts’ decisions to appeal. An appellate court was established at each provincial capital, called the Province Court of Appeals, composed of a three-judge panel, to review decisions made by the Revolutionary Courts. The Supreme Court was designated as the appellate authority for particular decisions, including those involving capital punishment.

 

Narcotic drugs-related crimes constitute a significant exception to the appeals process. Governed by the Anti-Narcotic Drugs Law of 1988, as Amended on 8 November 1997 and 31 July 3 2010, these crimes are within the jurisdiction of, and are adjudicated on a regular basis by, Revolutionary Courts whose decisions are final. After being handed down by the judge, death sentences are sent to the Prosecutor General or the Head of the Supreme Court as a matter of administrative approval.

 

With the passage of the new Rules of Criminal Procedure in 2014 (and its coming into force in June 2015), however, drug related crimes became subject to appeal as well.

General Courts, 1979-1982

 

In cases not falling under the jurisdiction of the Revolutionary Courts, the system devised under the previous regime continued to function in parallel with new systems devised by laws passed by the Judicial Council, one of which, entitled The Legal Bill for the Establishment of General Courts of 11 September 1979, radically changed the entire structure and categorization of the courts. It divided the courts in three branches: Criminal, Civil, and Peace (a sort of arbitration court dealing with minor financial and other disputes). Specialized courts such as family courts were eliminated.

 

General Courts, 1982-1994

 

The Law of the Amendments to the Rules of Criminal Procedure of 1982 established a new criminal courts system, Criminal Courts I and II. Criminal Court I, established only in provincial capitals, had jurisdiction over more serious offenses, including those punishable by death, and Criminal Court II heard less serious crimes.

 

General Courts, 1994-2002

 

The Law for the Establishment of General and Revolutionary Courts of 14 June 1994 established umbrella courts called General Courts, which replaced and dissolved pre-existing civil and criminal courts. The law dissolved the Prosecutor’s offices and tasked a single person with the roles of judge, prosecutor, and investigator.

 

General Courts, 2002-2015

 

In 2002, the 1994 Law was amended, reviving the role of the Prosecutor’s Office in General Courts. The prosecution offices were re-established in a gradual process over several years. The amended law also re-established specialized branches within general courts dealing separately with criminal and civil matters. In addition, this law allocated a number of branches of the Province Court of Appeals to have original jurisdiction over a number of cases including the most serious offenses, as well as political and media crimes. In these cases, the branches are called the Province Criminal Court.

 

General Courts, 2015 to Today

 

With the passage of the new Rules of Criminal Procedure in 2014 and its coming into force in June 2015, general courts underwent certain changes as well. Criminal courts were divided into Criminal Court One, Criminal Court Two, Military Court, Juvenile Court, and Revolutionary Court. Criminal Court One has jurisdiction over serious crimes such as those subject to the death penalty, life imprisonment, amputation, third degree, and higher, as well as political and media crimes. Criminal Court Two has jurisdiction over other crimes. Another change consists of the establishment of juvenile courts, which adjudicates crimes committed by individuals less than 18 years of age. In cases where the individuals less than 18 commit serious crimes such as those subject to the death penalty, however, Criminal Court One will have jurisdiction, observing rules of juvenile criminal procedure.

 

The Appellate System of General Courts, 1979-Present

 

The Legal Bill for the Establishment of General Courts of 11 September 1979, abolished appeal of most criminal courts’ decisions. The law of 1982 restricted the appeal possibility even further. According to the Islamic Republic authorities’ interpretation of Islamic Law, a qualified jurist’s decisions were not subject to appeal except under special circumstances, such as when the judge realized his own mistake, or another judge advised him so, or when he did not have jurisdiction over the case. Even in such situations, the case would not go to a higher court but would be subject to review by the same judge or another judge at his level. The judges were even urged to call their verdicts “opinions,” so that the possible change in the verdict would not be “haram” (“sinful,” the highest level of prohibition in Islam, disobedience of which would result in a sin).

 

In October 1988, the Majles (Iranian parliament) passed a law regarding review of court judgments. This law provided for an appeal if the conviction was claimed to be based on invalid documentation or false testimony. The defendant could also base an appeal on a point of law or a procedural violation.

 

The appellate system was expanded in other laws in the late 1980s and in 1993. The Law for the Establishment of Criminal Courts I and II of 11 July 1989 created the Branches of the Supreme Court. Crimes of less importance, tried in Criminal Court II, were subject to review by Criminal Court I.

 

For the most important crimes involving death punishment, which were under the jurisdiction of Criminal Court I, the law allowed limited appeal to the Branches of the Supreme Court. Defendants had the right to petition the Supreme Court for appeal in certain cases involving false testimony or procedural violations, and if granted, the case would be remanded to either another criminal court or the original one.

 

Finally, the Law for the Establishment of General and Revolutionary Courts of 1994, as amended in 2002, established an appellate court at each provincial capital, called Province Court of Appeals, composed of a three-judge panel, to review decisions made by both general and revolutionary courts. The Supreme Court was designated as the appellate authority for particular decisions, including those carrying the death penalty, as well as decisions made by the Province Criminal Court.

 

The amended law of 2002, continued the appellate procedure to the Branches of the Supreme Court established by the afore-mentioned law of 11 July 1989

 

The Supreme Court continues to be the competent authority to rule on new trials, which have been provided for in limited circumstances.

With the passage of the new Rules of Criminal Procedure in 2014 and its coming into force in June 2015, the Court of Appeals shall be the competent authority to hear appeals from Criminal Court Two decisions, and the Supreme Court shall hear appeals from Criminal Court One decisions.

Special Courts for the Clergy

 

These courts are rooted in a 1979 decree, issued by Ayatollah Khomeini, which established a committee of religious and noble figures in every region to purge the clergy of anti-revolutionary elements under the supervision of the Revolutionary Courts. Between late 1981 and 1984, a special court in the city of Qom handled, though not systematically, the trial of clerics.

 

On 29 July 1987, Ayatollah Khomeini officially appointed a prosecutor and a member of the clergy as Shari’a judge for Special Courts for the Clergy. On 6 August 1990, a directive was issued regulating the conduct of these courts, the jurisdictional ambiguity of which is such that it effectively extends to “anyone where one of the parties is a cleric” and to “all matters in which the Court is designated as competent by the Supreme Leader.”

 

The court, which was not mentioned in the Islamic Republic's constitution, was mandated to try “pseudo clerics, those related to/connected with the clergy, for public and/or anti-revolutionary crimes, and violations of the prestige of the clergy,” and where the principal suspect is a member of the clergy, “any co-conspirator or assistant, whether a cleric or not.”

 

These courts are generally not open to the public and can issue sentences for all acts and omissions punishable under codified Iranian laws or Shari’a or for any other acts or omissions which can bring dishonor to the clergy or to the Islamic Revolution. Further, in certain particular cases – which have not been defined – where no punishment has been devised by either the Penal Code or even the Shari’a, the Court “can rule as it deems fit.” 

 

The Appellate System of the Special Court for the Clergy, 1979-Present

 

There is no information on any appeal process for the Special Court for the Clergy prior to the 1990 directive. Article 49 of said directive set up, however, an appeals court called Special Appellate Court for the Clergy, the head of which is appointed by the Supreme Leader, to which the decisions of the lower court can be appealed.

 

Military Courts

 

The military court system, independent from the judiciary under the previous regime, became a part of it on 1 December 1981. The Judiciary Organization of the Armed Forces, established in 1986, replaced and merged other military courts and tribunals in existence at the time, namely the pre-revolution Judiciary Organization of the Army, the Revolutionary Tribunal of the Army (established on 8 December 1979), and the Revolutionary and General Court for the Revolutionary Guards (established on 15 July 1979.) The Judiciary Organization of the Armed Forces has its own Criminal Code and follows the country’s general rules of criminal procedure.

 

The Law of the Criminal Procedure of the Armed Forces of 15 May 1985 created Military Courts I and II. Military Court I has jurisdiction over more serious offenses, including those punishable by death, and Military Court II hears less serious crimes.

 

The Appellate System of Military Courts, 1979-Present

 

The law of 8 December 1979, establishing the Revolutionary Military Court, did not provide for any appeals. The Law of 15 May 1985 created a system of appeals through the creation of a two-tier system of courts. The decisions of Military Court II were subject to review by Military Court I. This law also provided that multiple Branches of the Supreme Court be designated as the appellate court to review decisions of Military Court I.

 

The judges

 

1979-1997: Prosecutors and judges are not necessarily law graduates and jurists. Shortly after the Islamic Revolution, a five-member Committee was established to purge the judicial system of undesirable elements, pursuant to the Legal Bill for the Modification of the Judiciary and the Law for Hiring Judges of 8 March 1979. The power of the committee was absolute and its decisions, resulting in a widespread purge of the judiciary, final.

 

The Law for the Conditions of Selection of Judges of 4 May 1981 established the conditions of eligibility for judges. The latter were to be hired among men who were legitimate children and had practical commitment to Islam and allegiance to the Islamic Republic. The law, which led to the hiring of clerics and Islamic legal scholars, also allowed hiring practically anyone as a judge who could “obtain the Judicial High Council’s permission.” Moreover, Note 2 of the Amendments of 4 October 1982 to this law allowed widespread employment of seminary students “who ha[d] general knowledge equivalent to a high school diploma” as judges at prosecutor’s offices in general as well as Revolutionary Courts.  

 

By 1989, the judiciary counted about 2,000 new judges trained in theological seminaries (graduates and students) and political appointees, many having replaced judges trained in law schools.

 

1997-Present: As of this writing (2013) the Law for Hiring Judges and its amendments of 4 October 1982, 7 February 1987, and 9 May 1988 are in full force and form the basis for hiring judges. The Executive Rules of Procedure of 22 December 1997 subjected such hiring to passing an entrance examination and successful completion of an apprenticeship program, the duration of which ranges between one and two years. The law does not limit hiring to men only but does not specify in what capacity women will be functioning, other than an advisory one.

Currently, judges are selected in accordance with the Guidelines on the Recruitment, Selection, and Internship for Judicial Candidates and the Hiring of Judges.

 

Dismissal of Judges: From 1979 to 1989, the judiciary was run by the Supreme Judicial Council which was composed of the head of the Supreme Court, the Prosecutor General (both of whom were appointed by the Supreme Leader), and three judges elected by the entire body of judges in the country. The Council had the power to hire and dismiss judges in accordance with the law.

 

The constitutional reforms of 1989 substituted the Supreme Judicial Council with one person, the Head of the Judiciary. The Supreme Leader, whose mandate is not subject to popular vote, appoints the Head of the Judiciary for a 5-year term. The latter has significant power to influence the dismissal of judges. Dismissal cases are referred to three types of disciplinary courts, presided over by judges appointed by the Head of the Judiciary, who has veto power over any decisions made by the relevant courts.

 

Two of these courts, established in 1991 and 2011, are charged with examining the judges’ conduct from a religious and ideological standpoint. The process does not necessarily involve the defendant and the final decision, left to the Head of the Judiciary, is not subject to appeal.

 

Detentions, interrogations, and trials: 1981-1988

Pre-trial detentions

The accused were held, sometimes without being charged, for months or years in overcrowded prisons. During their detention, prisoners of conscience, and in particular supporters of political opposition groups or members of religious or ethnic minorities, were routinely subject to physical and psychological torture. Interrogators used torture, authorized by the post-revolutionary law of Ta’zir (Discretionary Punishment Law), to obtain confessions of guilt or to induce repentance. The line between trial and interrogation was often blurred by the fact that the same individual would function as prosecutor, interrogator and judge.

Trials

Executed detainees may or may not have been tried formally. Prisoners of conscience were often tried through a summary process that might have lasted only a few minutes. When disclosed, charges facing the defendants were often vague or based on coerced confessions. Defendants had no access to attorneys, and they might not have been allowed to defend themselves.

Appeal processes

Convicts could not appeal their sentence and were often executed shortly after their conviction. Their execution was not necessarily announced.

Human rights violations

Based on the available information, the following human rights have been violated in this case:

  • The right to liberty and security of the person. The right not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention.

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 3; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 9.1.

  • The right not to be punished for any crime on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time it was committed.

    UDHR, Article 11.2; ICCPR, Article 15, Article 6.2.

  • The right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, including the right to change and manifest his or her religion or belief.

    UDHR, Article 18; ICCPR, Article 18.1, ICCPR, Article 18.2; Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, Article 1 and Article 6.

    In its general comment 22 (48) of 20 July 1993, the United Nation’s Human Rights Committee observed that the freedom to "have or to adopt" a religion or belief necessarily entailed the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views, as well as the right to retain one's religion or belief. Article 18, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights bars coercion that would impair the right to have or adopt a religion or belief, including the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers to adhere to religious beliefs and congregations, to recant their religion or belief or to convert.

  • The right, as a member of a religious or ethnic minority, to enjoy his or her own culture or to profess and practice his or her own religion.

    UDHR, Article 18; ICCPR, Article 27.

  • The right to equality before the law and the right to equal protection of the law.

    UDHR, Article 7; ICCPR, Article 26.

The right to due process

  • The right to be presumed innocent until found guilty by a competent and impartial tribunal in accordance with law.

    ICCPR, Article 14.1 and Article 14.2.

Pre-trial detention rights

  • The right to know promptly and in detail the nature and cause of the charges against one.

    UDHR, Article 9(2); ICCPR, Article 9.2 and Article 14.3.a

  • The right to counsel of his or her own choosing or the right to legal aid. The right to communicate with his or her attorney in confidence

    ICCPR, Article 14.3.b and Article 14.3.d; Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, Article 1, Article 2, Article 5, Article 6, Article 8.

  • The right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defense case.

    ICCPR, Article 14.3.b.

  • The right not to be compelled to testify against oneself or to confess to guilt.

    ICCPR, Article 14.3.g.

  • The right not to be subjected to torture and to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

    ICCPR, Article 7; Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment, Article 1 and Article 2.

Trial rights

  • The right to a fair and public trial without undue delay.

    ICCPR, Article 14.1 and Article 14.3.c.

  • The right to defense through an attorney or legal aid. The right to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against one and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on one’s behalf under the same conditions as prosecution witnesses.

    ICCPR, Article 14.3.d and Article 14.3.e.

  • The right to have the decision rendered in public.

    ICCPR, Article 14.1.

Judgment rights

  • The right to appeal to a court of higher jurisdiction.

    ICCPR, Article 14.5.

  • The right to seek pardon or commutation of sentence.

    ICCPR, Article 6.4.

Capital punishment

  • The inherent right to life, of which no one shall be arbitrarily deprived.

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 3; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 6.1; Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, Article 1.1, Article 1.2.

  • The right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.

    ICCPR, Article 7; Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment, Article 1 and Article 2.

About this Case

Correct/ Complete This Entry

Ms. Sabet Sarvestani was a happy, intelligent, devoted, and selfless individual. In high school and college, she would spend time to make sure his fellow students were making progress in their academic studies. At work, she would work as a replacement for her colleagues who were on leave.

News of the execution of Ms. Akhtar Sabet Sarvestani (also spelled "Thabit"), daughter of Hossein and Havva, and that of 9 other Baha’i women was published in the Baha’i News Monthly, run by the United States National Spiritual Assembly (June 18, 1983), Baha’is Office of Public Relations (June 20, 1983), and the Times newspaper (June 21, 1983). She was one of the 206 individuals whose name was published in the Worldwide Baha’i Community’s 1999 report. This report, entitled “The Baha’i Question: Iran’s Secret Blueprint for the Destruction of a Religious Community”, dealt with the persecution of members of the Baha’i faith in Iran by the Islamic Republic, and contained a list of Baha’is who were killed in Iran since 1979. Additional information was obtained from Khabar-e Jonoob newspaper (February 12, and February 22, 1983); The New York Times (May 22, 1983); Sahifeye Imam (“The Imam’s Book”), Volume 17 (May 28, 1983); Baha’i World Almanac, Volume 18, 1979-1983 (Haifa, 1986); Shiraz’ Adelabad Prison’s visitation card (1983); an account of events as published in “A Tribute to the Faithful” by Mah Mehr Golestaneh (1992); the book “Olya’s Story” written by Olya Ruhizadegan, Andalib Magazine (Winter 1988); the Archives of Baha’i Persecution in Iran (undated); Morteza Esmailipur’s YouTube Channel (January 26, 2016; June 15, and July 6, 2016); Martyrs of the Baha’i Religion website (undated); Dar Gozar-e Tarikh (“Throughout History”) Telegram Channel (June18, 2019); and the Report of the United States Congressional Hearing published in the World Order Magazine (Winter 1983-1984); Baha’i Instruction website (June 12, 2017); Payam-e Haq website, the Baha’i faith’s messenger service, library, and information provider (21 July 2018).

Ms. Sabet Sarvestani was born in 1958-59 in the town of Sarvestan in the south of Fars Province. She went to school in Sarvestan until 9th grade and subsequently moved to Shiraz where she obtained her high school diploma. Ms. Sabet Sarvestani was single and had an associate degree from Shiraz’ Nursing Education Center. In December 1978, Sarvestan’s Baha’is were attacked by a group of Sarvestan residents, who had been instigated by revolutionary religious clerics to put pressure on Baha’is to reject their faith. The Sabet Sarvestani family’s home and business were set on fire and their possessions were pillaged. This attack caused Baha’i families, including Ms. Sabet Sarvestani’s, to move from Sarvestan to Shiraz. She spent her childhood in poverty; she also worked in the last two years of high school in order to make money and help out in the family’s expenses. Ms. Sabet Sarvestani worked as a nurse at the children’s wing of Sa’di Hospital. She also taught ethics classes for Baha’i children (Archives of Baha’i Persecution in Iran; Iran Wire; Morteza Esmailipur’s YouTube Channel, June 15, and July 6, 2016; Dar Gozar-e Tarikh (“Throughout History”) Telegram Channel; Payam-e Haq website; Baha’i Instruction website).

Ms. Sabet Sarvestani was a happy, intelligent, selfless, devoted, disciplined and committed person who lived a simple life. She was a woman with a strong personality and a rich social education. In high school and college, she would spend time to make sure her fellow students were making progress in their academic studies. She liked the nursing profession and she would work at the hospital as a replacement for her colleagues who were on leave. (Iran Wire; Morteza Esmailipur’s YouTube Channel, July 6, 2016; Payam-e Haq website).

Ms. Sabet Sarvestani’s case is related to the issuance of a death sentence for 22 Baha’is, and the execution of 6 men and 10 women in June 1983 in Shiraz.

Extensive international efforts were made in order to save the imprisoned Baha’is. About a month prior to the implementation of the death sentences, then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan asked the Islamic Republic of Iran’s authorities to stop the executions. A week after the American President’s message, Ayatollah Khomeini, then-Leader of the Islamic Republic, addressing the U.S. government at a gathering of Iranian officials stated: “We wouldn’t have heard a peep out of you if these people were not spies. [You’re speaking up now] because these are a bunch of people who are on your side and [protect] your interests…And now [you] are making all this noise for 22 Baha’is, who, they claim, ‘have gotten entangled and been entrapped’ in Iran, and now all of a sudden [you] are humanitarians and are crying foul and pleading with the whole world to come to these people’s rescue. [But] people know you [better]…” (The New York Times, May 22, 1983; Sahifeye Imam, Volume 17, May 28, 1983).

The Baha’is in the Islamic Republic of Iran: Background

The Baha’i religious community is the largest minority group in Iran, with approximately 300,000 members in 1979 (more current figures are not available).*  The authorities of the Islamic Republic have subjected Baha’is religious  to systematic harassment and persecution, depriving them of their most fundamental human rights. The Baha’i religion is not recognized under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic, and Iranian authorities refer to it as a heresy. As a result, the Baha’is have been denied the rights associated with the status of a religious minority; they cannot profess and practice their faith and are banned from public functions. Discrimination under the law and in practice has subjected them to abuse and violence. **

Arrest and detention

Ms. Sabet Sarvestani was arrested at her family’s home in Shiraz on the night of October 22, or 23, 1982, and was detained at the city’s Revolutionary Guards detention center. Forty other Baha’is were also arrested at the same time in Shiraz, five of whom were members of Shiraz’ [Baha’i] Spiritual Assembly. According to one of her ward mates, Ms. Sabet Sarvestani endured severe physical and psychological torture during her detention because she was a member of the Baha’i organizational structure. Ms. Sabet Sarvestani had told her ward mates that during interrogations, one of the interrogators who had read her account of her life and had been deeply affected by it had told her: “Why don’t you just say you’re not a Baha’i and get it over with and free yourself?” To which she had replied: “How can I reject the righteousness of [the Baha’i] faith?” she was transferred to Shiraz’ Adelabad Prison after more than a month in detention, and was cellmates with two other Baha’i women until the time of her execution. Ms. Sabet Sarvestani and her cellmates were considered “unclean” because they were Baha’i, and were treated in a demeaning manner. For instance, she and 25 of her ward mates were given only a single small wash tub to wash their clothes. Furthermore, the section of the Prison where they lived was humid and moldy. Ms. Sabet Sarvestani had a good voice and would recite Monajat (Baha’i prayer) every morning and would prepare the necessities for her ward mates’ breakfast. In addition to providing [medical] treatment to her ward mates, she helped them in washing their clothes or performing their daily tasks while in prison. Starting at least in early April until June 18, 1983, she visited weekly with certain members of her family. Prison officials had set restrictions on her visiting with all the members of her family. (Archives of Baha’i Persecution; Adelabad Prison’s visitation card; the book “Olya’s Story”; Andalib Magazine; Morteza Esmailipur’s YouTube Channel, July 6, 2016; Payam-e Haq website).

Ms. Sabet Sarvestani’s interrogator was overwhelmed after reading her life’s story, and asked her: “Why don’t you just say you’re not Baha’i and get it over with and free yourself?” To which she replied: “How can I reject the righteousness of [the Baha’i] faith?”

Trial

The Shiraz Islamic Revolutionary Court tried Ms. Sabet Sarvestani. (Andalib Magazine).

According to available reports, the authorities gave Ms. Sabet Sarvestani numerous opportunities to reject her religion and convert to Islam. According to one of her ward mates, the Judge and the Revolutionary prosecutor both gave Ms. Sabet Sarvestani an ultimatum that she would be executed if she did not “repent”. It is not clear whether these conversations and ultimatums were entirely given in the course of trial sessions or they had replaced the hearings. (Khabar-e Jonoob newspaper, February 12, 1983; the book “Olya’s Story”; Iran Wire; Morteza Esmailipur’s YouTube Channel, July 6, 2016).

Ms. Sabet Sarvestani was not represented by an attorney at trial.

Charges

According to the statements of the Shiraz Revolutionary Court Judge, Ms. Sabet Sarvestani’s charges were related to her religious beliefs and her activities, such as “being a Baha’i”, “membership in the Baha’i organization”, and “being single” (which is not a crime in Iranian law). When the chief of the hospital where Ms. Sabet Sarvestani was employed contacted the prosecutor to follow up on her case, he was told that Ms. Sabet Sarvestani’s crime, which was membership in Baha’ism, had already been proven. (the book “Olya’s Story”; Payam-e Haq website; Baha’i Instruction website).

Ms. Arjomandi had been interrogated and put under pressure to deny her faith during her detention. Furthermore, according to an interview published in Khabar-e Jonoob newspaper, the Shari’a judge adjudicating the case who was the head of the Shiraz Islamic Revolutionary Court, had warned Baha’is “to take refuge in the arms of dearest Islam… and to reject Baha’ism which is intellectually and logically damned [and void].” (Andalib Magazine; Khabar-e Jonoob newspaper, February 22, 1983). 

In explaining the charges brought against the defendants, the Shari’a judge stated that they were arrested because they were active members of the Baha’i organization, and that they were also [charged with and] being tried for their “direct or indirect” contact with [the Baha’i] “Beit-ol-Adl” (“The House of Justice”) headquartered in Israel which follows [the dictates of] the State of Israel. The Shari’a judge emphasized that the religious activities of the defendants were “criminal” activities, and that “pursuant to Principle Thirteen of the Constitution, any activity by the Baha’is is unconstitutional, and organizing and establishing Assemblies, “Lajne” (“committees”), Parties, and the like, are all crimes.” (Khabar-e Jonoob newspaper, February 12, and 22, 1983).

The Shari’a Judge dismissed the claim that Baha’is do not interfere with or engage in politics and that they abide by the government’s rule, and noted that they had not supported the Islamic Republic and that they had their own organizational structure: “ … They say ‘we did not participate in any of the demonstrations against Taghut (“the Devil”; derogatory term to refer to the former Shah) … that we have not taken part in any elections in the Islamic Republic … because these all constitute politics and we condemn interfering or taking part in politics … We have our own various elections and the Baha’I organizational structure is an independent one …’ Therefore, we can fully see that these sources of corruption and children of the Devil, and mercenaries of Israel’s Beit-ol-Adl, have created an organization, albeit a ridiculous one, in opposition to the organization and rule of Islam. What is funny is that they say they obey the government and that they will follow whatever the government dictates. This, however, is a ploy to hide their actions, actions that are not in line with the actions of the people.” (Khabar-e Jonoob newspaper, February 22, 1983).

In the interview, the Shari’a judge called on all Baha’is (and not just Baha’i activists) to either reject their faith, or accept and suffer the consequences, “otherwise, in a not too distant future, there will come a day where the Ummah (“people”, “adherents”) of Islam will act in accordance with their Islamic duties toward Baha’is just like with the Monafqin (derogatory term meaning the “hypocrites” used to describe menbers of the MOjahedeen Khalq Organizatio) …who adhere to [the dictates of] a Satanic religion. And a word of warning to Baha’is… the Ummah of Hezbollah (“the Party of Allah”) will be perfectly capable of eradicating them [once and for all].” (Khabar-e Jonoob newspaper, February 22, 1983).

In a speech given in late May 1982, Ayatollah Khomeini alluded to the 22 Baha’is put on trial and expressly called them “spies”, stating: “Baha’is are not a religion, they’re a political party, a political party that Britain used to support in the past, and now America is supporting … [We would not have tried and sentenced them] if they were not spies. There are many other people who also have misguided and deviant beliefs, who are communist, [for example,] or other things; but our courts did not arrest and imprison them just because they were communist or had deviant beliefs.” (Sahifeye Imam, Volume 17, May 28, 1983; The Times newspaper, June 21, 1983).

The validity of the criminal charges brought against this defendant cannot be ascertained in the absence of the basic guarantees of a fair trial.  International human rights organizations have drawn attention to reports indicating that the Islamic Republic authorities have brought trumped-up charges, including drug trafficking, sexual, and other criminal offences, against their opponents (including political, civil society activists, as well as unionists and ethnic and religious minorities). Each year Iranian authorities sentence to death hundreds of alleged common criminals, following judicial processes that fail to meet international standards. The exact number of people convicted and executed based on trumped-up charges is unknown. 

Evidence of guilt 

The report of this execution does not contain information regarding the evidence provided against Ms. Sabet Sarvestani and her connection with Israel or espionage. In his interview with Khabar-e Jonoob, the Head of the Revolutionary Court and Shari’a Judge stated the evidence of the crime as being the activities beliefs of Baha’is. The Shari’a Judge dismissed the claim that Baha’is do not interfere with or engage in politics and that they abide by the government’s rule, and noted that [the evidence indicates] that they do not abide by the rule of the Islamic Republic government and that that they are traitors. Furthermore, the fact that the Dar-ol-Adl (the Baha’i headquarters) is in Israel, which is independent from that State, was definitive evidence of the [Baha’i] Organization’s and the Baha’is allegiance and obedience of the government of Israel. (Khabar-e Jonoob newspaper, February 22, 1983).

According to the Shari’a Judge, the fact that the Baha’is’ organization structure is separate and independent from that of Islam is itself proof of the follower of this cult’s treason and sin: “Therefore, we can fully see that these sources of corruption and children of the Devil, and mercenaries of Israel’s Beit-ol-Adl, have created an organization, albeit a ridiculous one, in opposition to the organization and rule of Islam. What is funny is that they say they obey the government and that they will follow whatever the government dictates. This, however, is a ploy to hide their actions, actions that are not in line with the actions of the people.” (Khabar-e Jonoob newspaper, February 22, 1983).

Defense

According to the statements of the Baha’i community’s representatives and to available information and evidence existing in Ms. Sabet Sarvestani’s file, the principal reason for the arrest and prosecution of Baha’is is their religious beliefs. The information these representatives have obtained regarding their fellow adherents indicates that the defendants’ requests for access to their file is customarily denied, and although they are allowed to have a defense lawyer, attorneys at law have been pressured into not accepting Baha’i clients since the 1990’s.

Ms. Sabet Sarvestani did not have access to an attorney and there is no information regarding her defense at trial.

A Summary of the Legal Defects in the Adjudication of Ms. Akhtar Sabet Sarvestani’s Case

According to available information, Ms. Akhtar Sabet Sarvestani was executed on charges of membership in Baha’i assemblies and connections to foreign [entities] including Israel. One can surmise from the statements made by judicial authorities that she was also charged with espionage. Ultimately, she was most probably tried on the charge of Moharebeh (“waging war against God”) and Efsad fel-Arz (“spreading corruption on Earth”). The fact is that the crime of Moharebeh and Efsad fel-Arz was not defined in the laws at the time, and judges, who had been handpicked from among clerics or individuals loyal to the Islamic regime, derived such a charge from religious (Shari’a) texts. Even in religious texts, however, Moharebeh consists of an act where an individual takes up arms within a group, and deprives a large segment of the populace of their safety and security. There was no sign or evidence of any use of weapons in this case. Furthermore, the defendants’ actions did not result in the people being deprived of security in any way whatsoever. Another charge leveled against the Defendant was spying for Israel, whereas the crime of espionage consists of an individual putting classified information [at the disposal of or] turning the same over to people without standing or authorization. The Defendant in this case was simply a nurse and was never in a position where she could have had access to classified information. Judicial authorities do not specify at all in their statements what connection the Defendant had with Beit-ol Adl in Israel and what type of cooperation she had with said Assembly. It is not clear how the Defendant engaged in espionage. In other words, none of the charges brought against Ms. Sabet Sarvestani were proven.

In an interview conducted regarding the execution of 22 Bahai’is, including Ms. Sabet Sarvestani, the Shiraz Revolutionary Court Judge alluded to Principle Thirteen of the Constitution and considered Baha’is’ activities to be criminal. Although said Principle officially recognizes Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Judaism, that does not mean, however, that it is prohibited to hold any other religions or that the activities of adherents of other religions is prohibited. Principle Thirteen is solely concerned with [private law and] personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc. In order for an act to constitute a crime, it must be defined as such in criminal laws, the commission of which carries a specified penalty, whereas nowhere in Iranian laws has holding a particular belief or religion, or promoting the same, has been criminalized.

The aforementioned Shari’a judge also advised Baha’is to accept and convert to Islam, or suffer the consequences; he also threatened that Moslems would otherwise annihilate Baha’is. These statements demonstrate that the judicial officials simply had a problem with the fact that the defendants were Baha’i, and had tried and convicted them solely on the basis of their beliefs. [Such thinking] was not based on or reflected in the laws in force at the time. 

Judgment

In mid-February 1983, the Shiraz Islamic Revolutionary Court sentenced Ms. Akhtar Sabet Sarvestani and 21 other individuals to death. The sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court.

The authorities did not inform Ms. Sabet Sarvestani’s family of the Court’s decision. In justifying the sentence, however, the Head of the Shiraz Islamic Revolutionary Court stated in an interview with Khabar-e Jonoob newspaper:

“It is a clear and unquestionable fact that there is not the slightest room for Baha’ism and Baha’is in the Islamic Republic of Iran.” He labelled the individuals sentenced to death as “Koffar Herabi” (meaning atheists who live outside the boundaries set by Islamic rule and have no rights, even the right to life. [The terms literally mean “atheists or infidels with whom Moslems must wage war”]), and added: “These people who have been sentenced to death were active members of Baha’ism, from whom naïve people were not safe, and whose affiliation [and allegiance] to domestic and foreign devils was unquestionable, and their enmity toward Islam and Moslems was self-evident to a great extent.” He also cited Koran’s Nooh Surah, Verse 26, and promised the prompt execution of the convicted Baha’is. In this Verse [and in Verse 27 that follows], Noah calls upon God and says: “My Lord! Leave not a single one of the disbelievers on Earth. Indeed, if You leave them, they will mislead Your servants and will beget none except [ingrate] sinners and disbelievers.” (Khabar-e Jonoob newspaper, February 22, 1983).

As a result of the publication of this interview, the families of the prisoners went to see the Fars Province Friday Prayer Imam and the Province Governor, as well as the authorities in the capital, to make sure the news was accurate. At the same time, international efforts to save the Baha’is from execution also began, but they bore no fruit.

On June 18, 1983, Ms. Akhtar Sabet Sarvestani, along with the other Baha’i women, was transferred to Shiraz’ Abdollah Mesgar military base, better known as Chogan (“Polo”) Square and forced to witness the hanging of the other women. When it was her turn, she was given one last chance to reject her religion. She refused, and she too was hanged. (The Times newspaper, June 21, 1983; Archives of Baha’i Persecution in Iran).

Two days prior to the execution of the Baha’is, government authorities told people who worked at Shiraz’ Golestan-e Javid Cemetery to prepare a number of graves. The families of Ms. Sabet Sarvestani and the other executed individuals gathered in front of the Judiciary Morgue when they were informed of their loved ones’ demise. Ms. Sabet Sarvestani’s family was able to see their child’s body but the authorities did not turn her body and the bodies of other executed Baha’is over to the families, and buried them in the graves prepared at Shiraz’ Golestan-e Javid Cemetery, without washing and cleansing and observing any of the customary burial rites. Shiraz’ Golestan-e Javid Cemetery was in the possession of the Islamic Republic Revolutionary Guards Corps at the time, and the families of those executed were not able to enter the Cemetery even if only to see their loved ones’ graves and say a prayer. (Andalib Magazine; Baha’is in the Media; Morteza Esmailipur’s YouTube Channel, January 24, 2016; Iran Wire). 

-----------------------------------

* ‘Slow Death for Iran’s Baha’is’ by Richard N. Ostling, Time Magazine,20 February 1984. Also see ‘The Persecution of the Baha’is of Iran, 1844-1984, by Douglas Martin, Baha’i Studies,volume 12/13, 1984, p. 3. There is no information about the current number of Baha’is in Iran.
** The Islamic Republic Penal Code grants no rights to Baha’is, and the courts have denied them the right to redress or to protection against assault, murder, and other forms of persecution and abuse. In so doing, the courts have treated Baha’is as unprotected citizens or “apostates,” citing eminent religious authorities whose edicts are considered a source of law equal to acts of Parliament. The Founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini, made execution a punishment for the crime of apostasy and decreed that a Muslim would not be punished for killing an apostate.
Banishment from public functions has seriously damaged the Baha’is’ professional, economic, and social lives. Soon after the revolution, a Ministry of Labor directive called for the dismissal from public office and all governmental organizations and associations of those “who belong to any of the misguided sects recognized by all Muslims as heretical deviations from Islam, or to organizations whose doctrine and constitution are based on rejection of the divinely-revealed religions.” Finally, the mandatory requirement of specifying religion in application forms and official documents (lifted recently in some areas under international pressure) has seriously limited Baha’is’ freedoms and opportunities in all areas of their lives including divorce, inheritance, access to universities and travel.
In practice, since 1980, thousands of Baha’is have lost their jobs, pensions, businesses, properties and educational opportunities. By banning the Baha’i administration including Spiritual Assemblies -  the elected bodies that lead and administer the affairs of Baha’i communities at both local and national levels -  the Islamic Republic has denied Baha’is the right to meet, elect, and operate their religious institutions. Further, the Iranian government has executed at least 200 Baha’is and has imprisoned, tortured, and pressured to convert to Islam scores more.
Because of the unanimous international condemnation of the persecution of this quietist, apolitical religious community, Iranian authorities do not always admit that the Baha’is are being punished for their religious beliefs. Therefore, judicial authorities have often charged Baha’is with offenses such as “being involved in counter-revolutionary activities,” “having supported the former regime,” “being agents of Zionism,” or “being involved with prostitution, adultery, and immorality.”

Correct/ Complete This Entry ❯

Copyright © 2024, Abdorrahman Boroumand Center
What we do Who we are Contact us