Open Letter of Lawyers of Three November 2019 Protesters Sentenced to Death to Judiciary Spokesman
Jamaran News and Information Website
July 1, 2020
In an open letter to the Judiciary Branch Spokesman, the attorneys for three of the defendants of last November’s [Events] have requested access to their files and asked to submit a brief in their defense.
In an open letter to the Judiciary Branch Spokesman, the attorneys for three of the defendants of last November’s [Events], while criticizing the fact that the contents of the case file have been made public before a final ruling has been issued in the case and served on the defendants and their attorneys, requested that they be allowed to access and read the case file so that they can draft a brief and properly defend their clients.
According to a Jamaran report, the full text of the letter is as follows:
“To The Honorable Spokesman for the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Judiciary Branch,
Respectfully, reference is made to your Excellency’s remarks on a live program broadcast on the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting’s Channel One Television. We, the attorneys for the defendants sentenced to death in connection with the events of last November, would like to inform your Excellency of the following:
First, you stated on that program that the attorneys in the case have announced that the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the trial court’s ruling has been issued, and proudly added that [as a matter of course,] attorneys are promptly apprised of a judicial decision through the [Judiciary’s] online electronic system as soon as the [relevant] Branch judges have issued their ruling. If you, as the Judiciary Branch’s spokesman, had looked at the news published in the media and in various news agencies in the last few days, however, you would have noticed that the attorneys in this case had repeatedly stated that they had not been given the authorization to enter their clients’ case and had no information about the course of the proceedings and whether the trial court’s ruling had been upheld by the Supreme Court or not! Furthermore, we would like to inform you that it is the Revolutionary Court Branch 15’s inhabitual and illegal policy not to “register certain cases in the system,” and not allow the parties to the case, even their attorneys, any access to the case. And the Judge calls the attorneys and the defendants on the phone to summon them to appear in court! Unfortunately, these cases are not recorded in the Supreme Court’s system either, and [therefore,] regarding what you stated about sending a text message to attorneys, and their being informed of judicial decisions, the subject becomes completely moot in those certain cases. It would be interesting for you to know that even if we, the attorneys, go to the Supreme Court’s General Secretariat right now, we will be told that the case has not been registered with the Supreme Court yet, whereas the case has been under consideration by the Court for a long time, and it is highly possible that a decision has already been rendered at the time of this writing!
Secondly, you have made certain allegations against the defendants, including Mr. Amir Hossein Moradi, which completely took us by surprise when we heard them. First of all, a final ruling has not been issued in their case, and it is not clear to us, therefore, on the basis of what law your Excellency makes such a firm and definitive statement about the defendant or the defendants’ connection to specific [anti-Revolutionary] groups active outside the country!! Secondly, the defendants and their families have repeatedly denied any connection to any groups active outside the country, and the defendants have stated that their confessions were obtained under abnormal circumstances. Now, without wanting to opine on the substance of the case, admitting or denying anything, we propose that you allow us, the defendants’ chosen attorneys, to enter the case so that we can look into the manner in which the proceedings were conducted at the Prosecutor’s Office and how it was heard at trial, and present a defense of our clients. Is such a request a violation of the law?
Thirdly, according to Amir Hossein Moradi’s statements, he was never stationed at the camps belonging to anti-regime groups when he was residing in Germany, and he was living in residential quarters. Even the Defendant’s mother states that her son had repeatedly distanced himself from and denounced the people who had intended to support him! And in the meantime, things were said on that television program, the evidence and basis of which is not clear to us attorneys, and unfortunately, what is [a shame] is that the family’s reputation and good name is being sullied with such statements even before a final ruling is issued in the case! What law permits the expression of such statements prior to a final decision being made in the case?!
Fourthly, we suggest that you attend the trial court that issued the ruling in this case and see for yourself what regulations and processes form the basis for the hearing of cases adjudicated at said Branch! On the basis of what law do they not permit the case to be registered in the system? Based on what argument does that trial court branch believe the Note to Article 48 of the Law on the Rules of Criminal Procedure to be applicable at the trial court phase?!
In closing, we request the following of the Judicial System:
a) Attorneys whose representation of their clients in the case has not been registered, be allowed to so register;
b) The defendants’ attorneys of choice be allowed to have access to and carefully read and analyze the contents of the case file;
c) The attorneys be given time and opportunity to submit an additional brief in defense of the defendants and thereby mount an appropriate defense of their rights.
We thank your Excellency for your attention to this writing.
Attorneys for Amir Hossein Moradi, Sa’eed Tamjidi, and Mohammad Rajabi”