Omid, a memorial in defense of human rights in Iran
One Person’s Story

Mohammad Ja'far Puyandeh


Age: 44
Nationality: Iran
Religion: Non-Believer
Civil Status: Married


Date of Execution: December 9, 1998
Location: Tehran, Iran
Mode of Execution: Unspecified extrajudicial execution

Human rights violations in this case

Extrajudicial killings

Since the inception of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, national and international human rights organizations have blamed the Islamic Republic authorities for the extrajudicial killing of their opponents, both within and outside of Iran's borders. Although over two hundred cases have been reported, the exact number of victims remains unknown.

Extrajudicial executions carried out in Iran are rarely investigated; the few cases that have been investigated have indicated that the Iranian state security apparatus has been involved. Agents of the Islamic Republic have also targeted dissidents outside the country, assassinating opposition members in Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and in the United States,.

In many assassination cases outside Iran, local authorities have made no arrests. However, investigations, when they have taken place and been made public, have led to the single hypothesis of State ordered crimes. The organization and execution of these crimes constitute a pattern that Swiss prosecutor Roland Chatelain describes as “common parameters” following a “meticulous preparation.” Similarities between different cases in different countries have created a coherent set of presumptions designating the Islamic Republic as the instigator of these assassinations.


In cases involving prominent Iranians assassinated in France, Germany, and Switzerland, local prosecutors have provided evidence linking Iranian authorities to the crimes in question.


In France, for example, the Iranian Deputy Minister of Telecommunications has been sentenced to life imprisonment for his involvement in the 1991 murder of two dissidents. In Germany, agents of Iran's secret services and Lebanese Hezbollah have been convicted for the 1992 murder of four dissidents in Berlin. Currently, the Islamic Republic's Minister of Information and Security at the time of this murder is under an International arrest Warrant launched by German judicial authorities for his involvement.


The German court in Berlin found that Iran's political leadership ordered the murder through a "Committee for Special Operations," whose members reportedly include the Leader of the Islamic Republic, the President, the Minister of Information and Security, and other security officials.

The Islamic Republic’s officials have claimed responsibility for some of these assassinations while denying involvement in others. In the 1980s, Iranian authorities justified extrajudicial executions of dissidents and members of the former regime and actively worked for the release of Iranians and non-Iranian agents who were detained or convicted in the West for their involvement in those killings. During the 1990s, they systematically denied any involvement in extrajudicial killings and often credited the killings to infighting amongst the opposition.


Still, the rationale supporting these killings was articulated as early as in the spring of 1979 when the First Revolutionary religious judge publicly announced the regime's intention to carry out extrajudicial executions. He said:


“no state has the right to try as a terrorist the person who kills [exiles] in foreign lands, for this person is implementing the verdict issued by the Islamic Revolutionary tribunal.”


More than a decade later, in August, 1992, the Minister of Intelligence and Security publicly boasted about the success of Iran's security forces, alluding to the elimination of dissidents:


"We have been able to deal blows to many of the mini-groups outside the country and on the borders...."

Human rights violations

Based on the available information, some or all of the following human rights may 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 one’s 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 to freedom of opinion and expression, including the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas.

    UDHR, Article 19; ICCPR, Article 19.1 and ICCPR, Article 19.2.

  • The right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade union for the protection of one’s interests.

    UDHR, Article 20; ICCPR, Article 22.1.

The right to due process

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 one’s own choosing or legal aid and the right to meet with one’s attorney in confidence

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

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

    ICCPR, Article 14.3.b; Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, Article 8

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

    UDHR, Article 5; 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 9.3, Article 14.1, Article 14.3.c.

    • The right to examine, or have examined the witnesses against one and to obtain the attendance and examination of defense witnesses under the same conditions as witnesses for the prosecution.

ICCPR, Article 14.3.e.

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

To help his family, he began taking jobs as a 10-year-old, while working harder at his studies. A sociologist and a translator, he translated human rights texts to make them accessible to Iranians.The release of his last translation, on Human Rights Day, coincided with his murder.

Mr. Mohammad Ja’far Puyandeh, writer, translator, and sociologist, is among the victims named in the 2000 Report of the United Nation’s Special Representative. The report included his assassination in the “string of disappearances and suspicious deaths in the second half of 1998 of intellectuals and dissident political figures.”*

“Popular reaction”, the Special Representative noted, “was strong and immediate and became more so as it became clear that the killings were part of what became known as serial killings** committed by officials in or close to the Ministry of Information (Security).” The information about this case has been drawn from several sources (see endnote).

Mr. Mohammad Ja’far Puyandeh was born in 1954 in Ashkazar (Yazd Province) in a disadvantaged family. When he was 10 years old, he started working in addition to studying. He graduated from high school in 1970. He passed the national university entrance exam the same year and enrolled in Tehran University, majoring in judicial law. He was also politically active and opposed the previous regime. In 1974, he enrolled in Sorbonne University (Paris) to study sociology and graduated with a master’s degree three years later. While pursuing his degree in France, he continued his political activism, along with other Iranian students outside Iran. He returned to Iran in August or September 1978 (the introduction to Human Rights: Questions and Answers).

Since age 25, Mr. Puyandeh translated various writings from French to Farsi; he had translated more than 20 such works. His colleagues remember him as a hard-working and thorough translator. Some days, he worked for twenty hours at his old desk (the introduction to Human Rights: Questions and Answers).

Mr. Puyandeh’s focus in translation has been on women’s rights and fighting discrimination based on sex; human rights; and Marxism. He dedicated his translation of Leah Levin’s Human Rights: Questions and Answers to “women and men who fight for the promotion and implementation of human rights. The enforcement of these rights is a prerequisite to the advancement and progress of human kind.” This book, which was released on Human Rights Day, the same day Mr. Puyandeh was murdered, includes the Articles of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and explains their meaning (Journalists Without Borders).

Mr. Mohammad Ja’far Puyandeh played a key role in the re-opening of the Iranian Writers’ Association,** * and can be described as one of the founding members of the Third Association. Almost one month before his death, he said in an interview: “Any legal restraint on the freedom of expression leads to the repression of thoughts and ideas. Limiting freedom of expression should be beyond the reach of political regimes. Repression and censorship will bring about dire consequences, even if the state attempts to use them as tools to protect its people from corruption and perversion” (Peyvand).

Mr. Puyandeh also played a vital part in the writing and publication of a letter, dated October 15, 1994, consisting of objections of 134 writers to censorship and restraints on freedom of expression. This letter reads as follows:

“…We are writers; that is, we write about and publish our feelings, thoughts, and research in various forms. It is our natural, social, and civil right to see our work – be it poetry or fiction, plays or screenplays, criticism or research work, and even translation[s] of other writers’ work… – reach our readers freely and without restriction. No person or institution, under any pretext, should be allowed to hamper the publication of these works. Needless to say, any published work is open to free criticism and judgment by all. While obstacles which face us in our thinking and writing far exceed our individual means and power, we have no alternative but to confront them through collective professional channels, i.e. to unite in order to achieve freedom of thought and expression and to fight against censorship… We reiterate that we are writers and expect to be seen as such, and that our collective presence [is] to be understood as the professional representation of Iranian writers” (website of the Iranian Writers Association).

In late September 1998, a few weeks prior to Mr. Puyandeh’s murder, the Islamic Revolutionary Prosecution Office had summoned him and five other writers (including Mr. Mohammad Mokhtari, another victim of the “serial murders”), all of whom were members of the organizational committee of the Writers Association (Amnesty International, 1998).


In the afternoon of December 9, 1998, Mr. Mohammad Ja’far Puyandeh left his house to attend a publishers meeting, and never returned. According to the testimony of his wife, agents of the Ministry of Intelligence kidnapped Mr. Puyandeh on Iranshahr Street. He was beaten and then strangled. His body was found on December 10, in Badamak village in the Shahriar area near Karaj (his wife’s letter; Melli Mazhabi).

Following Mr. Puyandeh’s disappearance, his wife searched for him in the police station, hospitals, and the houses of relatives and friends. In a letter to the President, she petitioned him to help locate Mr. Puyandeh. On December 11, police officers of the Shahriar area contacted Mr. Puyandeh’s family and stated that they had found a body. The same day, Mr. Puyandeh’s body was identified by his brother-in-law (his wife’s testimony).

State Investigation

Prior to Mr. Puyandeh’s murder, Mr. and Ms. Foruhar, leaders of the Iran Nation Party, had been brutally murdered in their house, and the body of Mohammad Mokhtari, another writer, had been found in the outskirts of Tehran city. The case of these four individuals became known as “the serial murders”. The state investigation and prosecution of the case lasted several years, during which state authorities made various contradictory announcements, resulting in much confusion surrounding the circumstances of the murders. The Iranian President, Mohammad Khatami, condemned the killings, calling them “repulsive crimes” and called for an investigation.

On December 14, the President created a special committee to investigate the case of the serial murders (Moshiri on the Melli Mazhabi website). The Ministry of Intelligence announced, on January 5, 1999, that some of the Ministry’s officials were involved in the murders of the four dissidents. The announcement stated: “With the cooperation of the specially appointed Investigatory Committee of the President, the Ministry has succeeded in identifying the group responsible for the killings, has arrested them, and processed their cases through the judicial system.” The announcement blamed a few “irresponsible, misguided, and rogue elements, under the influence of foreign powers” (in Hamshahri 1999). The Minister of Intelligence resigned on February 9, 1999 (Shahbazi).

The case of the serial murders was referred to the Judicial Complex for the Armed Forces. On June 20, the Prosecutor of this entity stated that the mastermind behind the murders was a high-ranking official of the Ministry of Intelligence, named Sa’id Emami (arrested on Jan. 25, 1999; Shahbazi), who had committed suicide while in custody. Mr. Emami was the advisor to the Minister of Intelligence at the time (Radio Farda, 2008).

On August 4, 1999, the military prosecutor’s office issued a communiqué stating that the perpetrators of “the serial murders” intended not to “strike at the opposition, but at the government itself in order to internationally damage the reputation of the Islamic Republic” (Parastu Foruhar’s blog). On January 15, 1999, the Supreme Leader condemned the killings during the Friday sermon, attributing them to foreign powers (Shahbazi). Footage of the interrogation of the suspects, which was leaked to the media and partially released on January 21, 2002 (Indy Media), and was posted on-line, indicated that suspects were under pressure to confess that they had links with foreign entities. The footage included 300 hours of filmed interrogations.

In September 2000, with the completion of the investigation, the victims’ family and lawyers were given ten days to review the files of “over a thousand pages,” learn about the findings, and take notes (Parastu Foruhar’s blog). In response to a list of grievances presented by the family, the authorities undertook some revisions, which they declared complete by November 2000. The trial of the 18 individuals****, who were arrested between November 22 and January 5, 1999, and accused of ordering or participating in the murder of the Foruhars and the two other victims, was held behind closed doors and lasted about a month (12 sessions). The families, who objected to the investigation’s inadequacies and inconsistencies, refused to attend (see section below).

On January 27, 2001, the Fifth Branch of the Tehran Military Court condemned three individuals to death (by retribution), sentenced 12 individuals to prison terms (from two and a half years to life imprisonment) and acquitted 3 individuals. The verdict also stated that the murders have harmed the reputation of the regime, since tolerating the victims, with oppositional political beliefs, was a sign of state benevolence; and that even if these victims were enemies of the state, nevertheless they were harmless enemies (Hamshahri 2001).

In the Islamic Republic Penal Code, the family of a murdered victim determines whether or not the death penalty is enforced. In the case of the “serial murders,” the Foruhars and the two other families involved announced their opposition to the death penalty. Therefore, the defendants sentenced to death were not executed. Instead, the verdicts were referred to the court of appeals. On May 27, 2002, the sentences were commuted to between three to ten years imprisonment (Ms. Foruhar’s blog).

The Islamic Republic authorities have shown little tolerance towards criticism regarding their handling of the investigation and, in particular, the fact that no high official was investigated and the murders were attributed to rogue elements. On December 10, 2000, Dr. Naser Zarafshan, the lawyer of the Puyandeh and Foruhar families, was summoned before a court “in connection with comments that he made about the case” (Amnesty International 2003 Report, Iran Mania). In March 2002, the court, which Amnesty International called “unfair and closed,” sentenced him to 5 years imprisonment and 70 lashes (Ms. Foruhar’s blog).

Publications, which investigated the “serial murders” and attempted to expose the high ranking officials involved in the murders, were closed down and their journalists silenced. One such newspaper was Khordad, which covered the “serial murders” and criticized the investigation of the case. The editor-in-chief of Khordad was tried in a special clergy court, which on December 27, 1999, condemned the editor to 5 years imprisonment and ordered Khordad to be closed for five years (Nehzat-e Azadi). Similarly, the Salam newspaper was closed on July 6, 1999 (BBC, 2004), reportedly based on a news story that Emami had initiated a new law on mass media to limit press freedom (Iran Mania; the closure of Salam led to the events of Tehran University, two days later). Additionally, the publication of Gam-e No, a student periodical, was suspended for two months, starting on May 7, 2001, in part in connection with an article on “the serial murders” (ISNA).

Family’s Objections and Statements

The families of the victims of the “serial murders,” who tried to pursue justice through the Iranian justice system, believe they have been denied justice in Iran. They have thus taken their case to the United Nations. They have repeatedly called attention to fundamental inconsistencies in the investigation of the murders, their lack of access to key testimonies and documents, the reported loss of evidence, and to the flawed judicial process, which did not investigate those responsible for ordering the murders. They also objected to the referral of the case to the Judicial Complex for the Armed Forces.

Since the first anniversary of the “serial murders,” the authorities warned the Puyandeh and Mokhtari families against holding public memorial services, and delivering speeches. The son of Mr. Mokhtari, Sohrab, has said: “It’s a tradition to go to the cemetery and pay respects to the loved ones, and mourn their loss. As far as I know, no official permission is necessary for holding such memorial services. However, since the first few years [after the murders, the authorities] have attempted, through various means, to obstruct memorial services at the cemetery… For example, some people were assigned to use loudspeakers and read the Quran or chant the call to prayer during the memorial ceremonies of my father and Mohammad Ja’far Puyandeh…” (Radio Farda, 2007).

The Puyandeh family has not been publicly vocal about the case of “the serial murders.” We refer to the statements of Ms. Parastu Foruhar, the daughter of two of the victims in the case, who has given numerous interviews and written extensively on the serial murders, including the investigation and prosecution of the defendants. (The “serial murder” case includes Mr. Puyandeh, Mr. Mokhtari, and the Foruhars.) Parastu Foruhar has contended that the “serial murders” were politically motivated and ordered by high ranking state officials, rather than an act carried out by a few “rogue elements” within the Ministry of Intelligence. She noted that the most of the accused continued their work in the Ministry of Intelligence while they were under investigation (her blog).

Ms. Foruhar further questioned the thoroughness and the reliability of the interrogation. For example, the interrogators ignored important statements by the accused, who testified that the physical elimination of political opponents was one of their duties, and had been carried out on the order of the Minister of Intelligence many times prior to the fall of 1998 (Melliun Iran). According to the report of the Hamshahri newspaper (2001), the military Prosecutor decided against the prosecution of the Minister of Intelligence stating that the defendants’ claim was not backed by sufficient evidence. According to Amnesty International, in March 2002, “new video evidence indicated that those interrogated were not permitted to refer to [the Minister of Intelligence] or his alleged role in the killings.” Further, the investigators failed to challenge contradictions in testimonies of the accused and allowed the defendants to conceal their identity (Melliun Iran).

In September 2000, the authorities gave the victims’ families and their lawyers an un-extendable ten-day period to read the files but did not allow them to make copies (Ms. Foruhar’s blog). The files were missing crucial information, including the events and circumstances of the murders, as well as the statements of three defendants, including Sa’id Emami, the leader of the assassination team, who reportedly committed suicide in prison. The authorities had initially reassured the family after the death of Emami that his testimony was available in the file. However the file presented to the family did not contain Emami’s testimony, which, according to the authorities, was “not relevant” to the case. The authorities also claimed that tapes of other defendants’ statements and pictures of the victims had been lost.

Further, Parastu Foruhar noted that the authorities never qualified the claim that foreign powers were involved in the murders. When Ms. Foruhar questioned whether there was hard evidence to support this claim, the authorities told her that this was an analytical, yet accurate, conclusion, without providing any further details (Melliun Iran).

In order to protest against the authorities’ indifference to the objections of the victims’ families, on December 20, 2000, the latter decided to file a complaint with a Parliamentary Commission (empowered under Article 90 of the Constitution to oversee the work of any of the three branches of the government). The Commission met on December 24. The head of the Commission later stated: “Our investigations led to certain people whom we did not have the power to deal with. That’s why the investigations stopped” (ISNA, November 2004, in Human Rights Watch, 2005).

In the face of the Islamic Republic authorities’ refusal to address the grievances of the victims’ families, as well as the irregularities in the investigation of the case, the latter rejected the competence of the court, which prosecuted the accused, and did not attend the trial. They referred the murders of their loved ones to the United Nations’ Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights.

*The information about Mr. Mohammad Ja’far Puyandeh and his extrajudicial killing has been drawn from the following sources: the report of Amnesty International (Dec. 11, 1998), Human Rights Watch (Dec. 15, 1998), Wikipedia, his wife’s letter, published on the fourth anniversary of his death (published on Iranian website, Dec. 12, 2002), his biography in the introduction to the book he translated into Farsi Human Rights: Questions and Answers (published the same day he was murdered), Radio Farda (Dec. 7, 2006; Nov. 29, 2007), BBC (Apr. 11, 2006), the Peyvand website (Dec. 8, 2003), the Melli Mazhabi website, and the website of Journalists Without Borders.

**The information about “the serial murders” and the prosecution of a number of individuals accused of having carried out the assassinations has been drawn from, among others, the interviews and writings of Parastu Foruhar, the daughter of Dariush and Parvaneh Foruhar (her blog; the Melliun Iran website, Nov. 19, 2002). Additional sources include Human Rights Watch report (Dec. 2005), Amnesty International (2003 Report), UN Special Representative Report (E/CN.4/2000/35, Jan. 18, 2000), Arman Mostofi’s article (Radio Farda website, May, 21, 2008), the Hamshahri newspaper (Jan. 6, 1999; Jan. 28, 2001), the special report by Iran Mania, Farzad Moshiri (Melli Mazhabi website, Sep. 25, 2005), the website of Abdollah Shahbazi, Iranian Students News Agency (May 7, 2001), the website of Nehzat-e Azadi (Dec. 1, 1999), Mas’ud Behnud’s article on the website of the British Broadcasting Corporation (Jul. 6, 2004), the website of UK Indy Media (Mar. 19, 2002), and the Iran newspaper (May 15, 2002).

Although the official legal process of “the serial murders” followed the killing of four individuals, “[t]here were demands that the investigation be broadened to include many other suspicious deaths going back to 1994… [involving] 50 or more unexplained deaths in recent years. Included were the 1994 deaths of three Christian ministers which had been officially attributed to the Mujahedin, the deaths of Sunni community leaders, and the deaths of dissidents in bombings in Europe” (UN Special Representative).

*** The Iranian Writers Association has had three periods, during each of which its members were pressured and harassed until its activities were stopped. The First Association started its work in April/May of 1968, but its members, despite great insistence, did not succeed in its registration. The Second Association was formed in 1977 and worked for the promotion of democracy and change. In 1981, subsequent to the beginning of the Cultural Revolution, the Association halted its work. The Third Association resumed its activities in 1988-89, and its members held its sessions, despite various problems, as a consultancy group. Despite threats and intimidations, the Association still continues its work [as of April 2013].

**** Two individuals accused of ordering murder (initially condemned to life imprisonment), three individuals accused of murder (initially condemned to death), and thirteen individuals accused of conspiracy to murder (initially either acquitted or condemned to imprisonment). 


Correct This Entry