Abdorrahman Boroumand Center

for Human Rights in Iran

https://www.iranrights.org
Library
Promoting tolerance and justice through knowledge and understanding
Official Documents

Verdict in the Case of the Double Assassination of Dariush Foruhar and Parvaneh Eskandari

Islamic Republic of Iran Judiciary/Judiciary Organization of the Armed Forces/Translated by Abdorrahman Boroumand Center
January 24, 2001
Court document

In the Name of God

Court Decision

Judiciary Organization of the Armed Forces

Military Tribunal

Certified Copy

Judgment Number: 437  

Date of Issue: January 24, 2001  

Case Number: 79/335/45/7

Court of Jurisdiction: Branch Five of the Military Tribunal, Tehran

Chief Judge: Mr. Mohammad Reza Aqiqi  

Prosecution: Tehran Military Prosecutor's Office

Plaintiffs:

A. The next of kin of Mr. Dariush Foruhar:

Mrs. Parastu

Mr. Arash

Both with the surname Foruhar (children of the victim)

B. Ms. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari's next of kin

Mrs. Parastu

Mr. Arash

Both with the surname Foruhar (children of the victim)

Mrs. Nosrat-ol-Zaman Darabian (the victim's mother)

C. The next of kin of Mr. Mohammad Ali Mokhtari Neishaburi

Mrs. Maryam Hoseinzadeh Tanbaku'i (Victim's wife and legal guardian of Victim's child, Sohrab Mokhtari Neishaburi)

Mr. Siavash Mokhtari Neishaburi (the victim's son)

D. Next of kin of Mr. Mohammad Jafar Puyandeh

Mrs. Sediqeh Sahebi (Victim's wife)

Mr. Mirza Hassan Akhundi Ashkezari (father of the victim)

Ms. Nazanin Puyandeh (Victim's daughter)

Defendants:

Eighteen individuals listed in Section A of the Judgment, represented by Mr. Mansur Soltani Rad and Mr. Seyed Morteza Alizadeh Tabataba'i.

Charges:

Depending on the case, the charges include ordering the four murders of the victims mentioned above, direct participation in the murders, or aiding and abetting, as specified in Section A of the Judgment.

Proceedings:

This court registered the case under the above case number as required. After following the legal procedures, issuing an order to remedy the deficiencies, and returning the case to the Tehran Military Prosecutor's Office, the court held twelve sessions of the trial. On January 18, 2001, after the defendants' attorneys submitted their final defense briefs within the allotted time, the court announced the end of the trial. Having reconsidered the case within the legal timeframe and relying on Almighty God and with a clear conscience, the Court now issues its decision as follows.

Court Decision

A - Defendants and Charges: The defendants in this case and their respective charges are as follows, according to the indictment issued by the Military Prosecutor of Tehran on July 18, 2000, as amended on January 11, 2001:

1- Mr. Seyed Mostafa Kazemi, son of Ali, detained under a temporary detention order, accused of ordering the murders of Mr. Dariush Foruhar, Mr. Mohammad Ali Mokhtari Neishaburi, Mr. Mohammad Jafar Puyandeh, and Mrs. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari.

2- Mr. Mehrdad Alikhani, son of Ali Asqar, who is being held under a temporary detention order and is accused of ordering the murders of the aforementioned victims.

3- Mr. (Ali) Reza Roshani, son of Mohammad Ali, detained under a temporary detention order, accused of directly committing the murders of Mr. Mohammad Ali Mokhtari Neishaburi and Mr. Mohammad Jafar Puyandeh.

4- Mr. Mahmud Jafarzadeh, son of Mohammad, detained under a temporary detention order, accused of directly carrying out the murder of Mr. Dariush Foruhar.

5- Mr. Ali (Mostafa) Mohseni, son of Abbas, detained under a temporary detention order, accused of murdering Mrs. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari.

6- Mr. Hamid Rasuli, son of Hossein, released on bail, charged with participating in the murders of Mr. Dariush Foruhar and Mrs. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari.

7- Mr. Morteza Haqani, son of Abolqasem, released on bail, charged with participating in the murders of Mr. Mohammad Ali Mokhtari Neishaburi and Mr. Mohammad Jafar Puyandeh.

8- Mr. Mohammad Azizi, son of Esma'il, released on bail, charged with participating in the murders of Mr. Dariush Foruhar and Mrs. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari.

9- Mr. Iraj Amuzegar, son of Mohammad Hossein, released on bail, charged with participating in the murders of Mr. Dariush Foruhar, Mrs. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari, and Mr. Mohammad Jafar Puyandeh.

10- Mr. Abolfazl Moslemi, son of Abbas, released on bail, charged with participating in the murders of Mr. Dariush Foruhar and Mrs. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari.

11- Mr. Mohammad Hossein Asna Ashar, son of Nazar Ali, released on bail, charged with participating in the murder of Mr. Dariush Foruhar.

12- Mr. Ali Safa'ipur, son of Nematollah, released on bail, charged with participating in the murder of Mrs. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari.

13- Mr. Alireza Akbarian, son of Ahmad, released on bail, charged with participating in the murder of Mr. Dariush Foruhar and Mrs. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari.

14- Mr. Morteza Falah, son of Ebrahim, released on bail, charged with participating in the murders of Mr. Dariush Foruhar and Mrs. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari.

15- Mr. Mostafa Hashemi, son of Esma'il, released on bail, charged with participating in the murders of Mr. Dariush Foruhar and Mrs. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari.

16- Mr. Ali Nazeri, son of Kheir Ali, released on bail, charged with participating in the murders of Mr. Mohammad Ali Mokhtari Neishaburi and Mr. Mohammad Jafar Puyandeh.

17- Mr. Asqar Sayyah, son of Musa, released on bail, charged with participating in the murders of Mr. Dariush Foruhar, Mrs. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari, and Mr. Mohammad Jafar Puyandeh.

18- Mr. Khosro Barati, son of Lotfollah, released on bail, charged with participating in the murders of Mr. Dariush Foruhar, Mr. Mohammad Ali Mokhtari Neishaburi, Mr. Mohammad Jafar Puyandeh, and Mrs. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari.

(Note: The full information about the defendants is provided in the issued indictment).

B - The process of case establishment and discovery of the victims' bodies, as cited in the indictment, is as follows:

  1. The indictment states that on October 23, 1998, Police Station No. 109 received information about a potential break-in at Residential Building No. 22, located on Hedayat Street, Moradpur Alley. Upon arriving at the scene, the police officers immediately discovered the body of Mr. Dariush Foruhar on the first floor of the building. Their search continued, and they found the body of Mrs. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari on the upper floor. The police station chief immediately responded and arrived at the scene with his deputy. They secured the area and preserved potential evidence, reporting the incident to the murder investigation judge. The judge immediately went to the scene, took a detailed crime scene sketch, made a full record of his observations, and issued clear instructions for identifying the perpetrators and conducting a full investigation into the case. The forensic team, police officers, and identification unit began their examination of the scene, collecting and preserving evidence while working to identify the perpetrators. The initial investigations revealed several tissues soaked with an anesthetic substance, as well as stab wounds, were found on the chests of both Mr. Dariush Foruhar and Mrs. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari. The victims' bodies were transferred to the Tehran Forensic Medical Office as ordered by the judge. There, the necessary examinations and tests were carried out. The forensic results rejected the use of poisonous substances and determined the cause of death to be multiple stab wounds to the chest and abdomen, which led to heart and lung perforations. In a detailed report dated November 29, 1998, the investigating law enforcement officials described the measures taken and expressed their inability to identify the perpetrators, explaining their difficulties. They also suggested that the political side of the case needed to be examined to reveal the truth and solve the case.

  2. Regarding the discovery of the body of Mr. Mohammad Ali Mokhtari Neishaburi, according to the case filed with the Shahr-e-Rey General Court: On December 3, 1998, while on patrol near the Rey Cement Factory on the road leading to Firuzabad Township, officers of Aminabad Police Station found the body of a man, approximately 40 years old, lying face down. After securing the scene and reporting the matter to the on-duty judge of Rey County Judiciary and obtaining judicial instructions and approval, they sketched the scene. Initial examination of the body revealed no identifying documents, so the body was sent to the Forensic Medicine Office as an unknown person. The efforts of the police and the Forensic Medical Office to identify the body were not successful until December 19, 1998, when Mr. Siavash Mokhtari Neishaburi, the victim's son, who had not seen his father since he left home to go shopping at 5:00 p.m. on December 3, 1998, identified his father's body at the Forensic Medical Office. In addition, the Tehran Forensic Medical Office conducted the necessary examinations, tests, and autopsy. The toxicology report was negative, and the cause of death was determined to be asphyxia caused by pressure on the vital areas of the neck with a hard, rope-like object (strangulation) and the resulting injuries.

  3. A similar case was filed at the General Court of Shahriar regarding the discovery of Mr. Mohammad Jafar Puyandeh's body. The case details state that on December 10, 1998, at approximately 9:45 AM, officers from the Dehmaviz Police Station in Shahriar received an anonymous phone call reporting a dead body under the Badamak Railway Bridge. Upon arriving at the scene, they found the body of a man, approximately 32 years old. Once the scene was secured and the matter was reported to the judicial authorities, authorization was promptly obtained from the judge of Branch 6 of the General Court of Shahriar. The body was examined initially, and after recording their observations and sketching the location, it was transferred to the Beheshte Rezvan morgue in Shahriar as an unidentified person. On December 12, 1998, the judge, accompanied by the head of the police station and a forensic doctor, examined the body at the morgue. They documented their observations and sent the body to the Tehran Forensic Medical Center for an autopsy, further examinations, and toxicology tests. On December 12, 1998, the Iran newspaper published a photo of a man identified as 45-year-old Mohammad Jafar Puyandeh, stating that he had been missing since December 9, 1998. The police confirmed that the published photo matched the unidentified body and informed the family. Mrs. Sediqeh Sahebi, the victim's wife, identified her husband's body at the forensic medicine office. After conducting the necessary examinations, autopsy, and tests, the forensic doctors of Tehran determined and announced that the cause of death was strangulation caused by pressure applied to the vital areas of the neck with a hard, rope-like object, resulting in complications.

  4. The cases were transferred to the Tehran Military Prosecutor's Office following a written agreement between the then-head of the Tehran Military Prosecutor's Office, the former head of the Judicial Organization of the Armed Forces, the former head of the Judiciary, and the head of the Tehran Judicial Department. Following the issuance of rulings of non-jurisdiction by the general courts, the cases were received by the Tehran Military Prosecutor's Office. After a series of actions as detailed in the integrated case files, the process resulted in the issuance of an indictment dated April 16, 2000, which was transmitted to the court by the esteemed Deputy Military Prosecutor of Tehran on November 28, 2000. On November 29, 2000, the cases were assigned to this branch for further review based on the referral by the Deputy of the Judicial Organization of the Armed Forces.

C - Case Proceedings at This Court

Upon receipt of the case file, consisting of six volumes and 1,357 pages, on November 29, 2000, the court immediately issued the necessary legal instructions to the court's office. According to Article 11 of the Military Tribunals Procedure Act of 1985, as well as Article 9 of the Criminal Courts Establishment Act of 1958, notices were sent to the defendants, requiring them to appoint defense attorneys within the legal timeframe. After most defendants introduced their chosen lawyers, and for those who did not appoint their own attorneys, the court appointed public defenders. However, upon the subsequent appointment of defense attorneys by those defendants (except for the second defendant, for whom the public defender remained), the role of the public defender was revoked under Article 12 of the aforementioned law. Furthermore, the victims' families appointed attorneys as well. For example, Ms. Nosrat al-Zaman Darabian, the mother of Mrs. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari, introduced three attorneys to the court. Some other family members had appointed two lawyers, and a few had chosen one. The victims' families were all represented by legal counsel. The defense attorneys were informed that they must review the case file and raise any objections they may have within the legal deadline. After the ten-day deadline, the victims' legal representatives filed objections and appeals challenging the court's jurisdiction and pointing out deficiencies in the investigation. Additionally, after the extended deadline (a total of twenty days), the defendants' attorneys submitted one objection concerning the court's jurisdiction and some deficiencies, which was filed by the attorney appointed for the first defendant. Following Article 14 of the aforementioned law, a preliminary administrative session was held on Monday, October 30, 2000, at an extraordinary time to review the objections listed in the appeals filed by the parties' attorneys. As detailed in the ruling, the court rejected the objection to its jurisdiction. The ruling, dated October 30, 2000, reasoned that the objection was invalid under Article 201 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which refers to Article 26 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1999, which replaced Article 46 of the repealed Civil Procedure Code of 1939. The court declared its competence and authority to adjudicate the merits of the accusations against all defendants. The court also issued a ruling to address and complete the investigation regarding certain deficiencies noted in the appeals received from the parties' attorneys. The court identified certain investigative deficiencies and deemed them relevant and significant. These included the necessity to clarify and investigate the accuracy or inaccuracy of the statements. The court ordered the appropriate judicial opinion to be issued on the accusation made by the first and second defendants, who had attributed the issuance of the fatal orders to the former Minister of Intelligence. Furthermore, the court ordered the necessary investigations to be completed to rectify the identified deficiencies. The other deficiencies raised by the parties' attorneys were dismissed because they were outside the scope of the charges listed in the indictment. The court had no obligation or right to review them, according to the explicit text of Article 1 of the supplementary provisions to the Criminal Procedure Code. If they were related to the four murder cases mentioned in the indictment, they were not significant enough to affect the court's judgment. The seven-volume file, comprising 1,491 pages, was sent to the Tehran Military Prosecutor's Office to address the deficiencies as ordered. The honorable investigating judge of that office, who had a special mandate for this case, took all necessary actions. This included a decision on the accusation against Mr. Qorban Ali Dori Najafabadi, the former Minister of Intelligence, regarding the alleged issuance of the fatal orders mentioned in the indictment. On November 14, 2000, the judge issued an acquittal decision due to insufficient evidence. As this decision was not approved by the Deputy Military Prosecutor of Tehran on the same date, the file was sent on November 15, 2000, by the investigating judge to the honorable Military Prosecutor of Tehran, and with a note dated November 16, 2000, to another one of his deputies for referral to the relevant department of this organization. On November 18, 2000, it was referred to Branch 3 of the Tehran Military Tribunal for adjudication. The court, in its capacity as the Military Court of Appeal, conducted an investigation with Mr. Qorban Ali Dori Najafabadi, who swore to deny issuing any fatal orders and categorically rejected the claims of defendants 1 and 2. Furthermore, an investigation was conducted with Hujjat al-Islam Niazi, the esteemed head of the Armed Forces Judicial Organization. He categorically denied the claim made by defendant 2 about quoting Mr. Dori Najafabadi during his tenure as the head of the Tehran Military Prosecutor's Office. In its ruling No. 839 dated November 18, 2000, the court upheld the investigating judge's decision to acquit Mr. Dori Najafabadi, resolved the dispute, and returned the file. On November 21, 2000, the file, consisting of eight volumes with 1,581 pages, was returned to this court. On November 22, 2000, the ninth volume was formed, and an order was immediately issued to schedule a court hearing, summon the defendants, and invite the victims' families, their attorneys, and the Deputy Prosecutor. Based on this order, the court hearing was set for Saturday, December 23, 2000, at 8:30 a.m. Before the hearing, the families of the victims submitted a petition to the court on Wednesday, December 20, 2000. This petition was submitted collectively and coordinated. In this petition, they dismissed all their attorneys, who had up until the day before been present in the court's office to review the case and take notes. They also announced that, since their concerns had not been addressed, they would refrain from participating in the court sessions. This court has reviewed the complaint of Ms. Parastu Foruhar (on page 79 of the case file), the complaint of Mr. Arash Foruhar and his explicit request for Qisas (retribution) for the murderers of his parents and the harshest punishment for others involved (on page 175), as well as the complaint and request of Ms. Nosrat al-Zaman Darabian for the punishment of The murderers of her daughter, Parvaneh Majd Eskandari (on pages 18 and 699), and the complaint of Mr. Siavash Mokhtari and his explicit request for retribution for those directly involved in the murder of his father, and the harshest punishment for those who ordered the killing (on pages 479, 482, 483, and 523), and Furthermore, Ms. Maryam Hosseinzadeh Tanbaku'i (wife of Mr. Mohammad Ali Mokhtari Neishaburi, as the guardian of Mr. Sohrab Mokhtari Neishaburi, the underage son of the victim) has made an explicit request for retribution for the killers of her husband and the harshest punishment for those who ordered the killing and the other accused (on pages 490 and 524), as well as the complaint of Ms. Nazanin Puyandeh and her explicit request for retribution for all those involved in the murder of her father (on page 569), the complaint and explicit request of Mr. Mirza Hassan Akhundi Ashkezari (father of Mr. Mohammad Jafar Puyandeh, who had later changed his last name), for retribution of his son's killers. (On page 684), and finally, the complaint of Ms. Sediqeh Sahebi (wife of Mr. Mohammad Jafar Puyandeh), who, despite Article 261 of the Islamic Penal Code, demanded retribution for her husband's murderers (on pages 568, 546, and 545 of the case file). These individuals' absence from the trial session did not constitute a withdrawal of their previously filed complaints concerning the private aspects of the case. The court did not consider the absence of the plaintiffs at the hearing on December 23, 2000, an obstacle or reason to delay the trial. This was because the plaintiffs' earlier complaints remained valid. The session commenced at the scheduled time. However, Mr. Habib Arabi, the court-appointed attorney for the second defendant, failed to appear despite a legally issued summons and a precautionary phone call made by the court's office manager to his colleague's law office. The court appointed Mr. Mansur Soltani Rad, the appointed attorney for the first defendant, as the defense attorney for the second defendant as well, without providing any legitimate reason for recusal or a justifiable excuse for his absence. This was done to avoid delaying the proceedings. After hearing the opinion and arguments of the Deputy Military Prosecutor of Tehran, the court ordered a closed-door hearing based on Clause 3 of Article 327 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 165 of the Constitution, determining that holding a public trial would disrupt public security and order. The court then proceeded with the trial under Article 20 and beyond of the Law on the Formation of Criminal Courts. Throughout twelve sessions, on the dates reflected in the case file, the court prepared a total of 28 pages of trial minutes, spending more than 45 hours on the trial. With 164 pages of defense submissions and the final defense statements from some of the defendants and their attorneys, the court concluded the proceedings on January 18, 2001, and is now issuing its decision within the legal timeframe.

D - Information Underlying the Court's Decision

  1. The Preservation of the Islamic Republic of Iran is of the utmost importance, and this is only possible through maintaining order in all aspects of society. The only way to preserve this order, which is deemed a necessary prerequisite, is the comprehensive adherence to and enforcement of the law by all individuals and officials within the system. This includes the Constitution, which is the foundational law and akin to a national covenant, as well as all ordinary and statutory laws of the country (as Article 4 of the Constitution explicitly requires that they not contradict the principles of Islamic Sharia). Therefore, any action that contradicts the law, whether intentional or unintentional, leads to disorder in society and results in chaos, weakening, and undermining the nation’s system.

  2. Premeditated murder is one of the most serious crimes and is considered a violation of both legal and religious norms. It is classified as a great sin. Almighty God has given the families of the victims the authority to exact retribution (Qisas) from the murderer, and in addition, the murderer is responsible for paying compensation (Kaffara). It is clear that murders committed in self-defense (under the conditions of legitimate defense) and murders of individuals who are sentenced to Qisas by a legally competent court (with full observance of all rights, including the right to a defense attorney, the application of regular and extraordinary appeal methods to the Supreme Court, and the prohibition of issuing a default judgment when the accusation involves the rights of God) are exceptions to this general rule.

  3. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the judiciary and judges, even if they are absolute jurists, must be appointed to a judicial position by the esteemed head of the judiciary on behalf of the Supreme Leader to perform judicial duties within the framework of the law. Only a competent judge has the authority to issue a death sentence for anyone who has committed a crime punishable by retribution (Qisas) or execution. Once the sentence is finalized, it is officially carried out. No authority other than the competent judge of the relevant court, even if he has a degree in jurisprudence, can issue a death sentence. This is because determining whether the legal and religious requirements for a crime that warrants death have been met is a factual matter that requires judicial assessment, including examining the nature of the case, hearing the defendant's defenses, and adhering to all relevant conditions and regulations. A jurist or scholar issuing a legal opinion does not have the authority to make these factual determinations.

  4. Based on the above considerations, the provisions found in jurisprudential texts regarding the lack of requirement for certain punishments to be carried out by the ruling Islamic authority and the obligation of listeners do not apply in contexts where an Islamic government has full authority and presence. In regions where the government is firmly based on Islamic principles, the implementation of any legal punishment (like any other punishment) must follow legal procedures. In this regard, it should be noted that in one of his speeches, the Supreme Leader referred to an incident reported in a student publication (called "Wave") in which a police commander mentioned the execution of an Islamic punishment. He specifically stated that the determination and judgment of such matters and the imposition of punishments are the responsibility of the judiciary. The Supreme Leader's concern for maintaining public order and preventing illegal violence is so great that he has even limited the act of enjoining good and forbidding wrong- an obligation for all Muslims at various levels - to a verbal warning, reserving higher levels of intervention for the relevant judicial authorities. Obviously, the basis of this perspective is to maintain public order and prevent personal revenge under the guise of enjoining good and forbidding wrong.

  5. The late founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, as stated in Issue 29 on page 229 of the book Judicial Standards from the Perspective of Imam Khomeini, responded to the following question: "If non-Muslims residing in Iran, whether from the People of the Book or others, commit crimes punishable by hudud or tazir, such as theft, Zina (unlawful sexual intercourse), espionage, corruption, enmity (moharabeh), or rebellion against the government, should they be punished as Muslims?" He issued the following order: "The non-believers as mentioned earlier in God in Islam are under the protection of Islam, and the laws of Islam apply to them in the same way as they apply to Muslims. Their blood is protected, and their property is respected. Given this, if Imam Khomeini considered non-Muslims residing in this country to have protected blood, it follows with even greater certainty that the blood of Muslims in this nation has a special status. The blood of a Muslim cannot be invalidated or deemed worthless except by the judgment of a competent judge in a court of competent jurisdiction as mentioned in point 3 above.

  6. Since Islamic law considers the outward appearance of individuals in determining religious consequences, and since all four victims in this case were Muslims based on their outward appearance, and therefore their blood should be respected, there is no doubt that if anyone claims otherwise, they must prove it according to legal standards. Alternatively, they must provide a valid judgment from a competent court of law sentencing them to execution based on the crime they committed. In this case, no such proof or legal ruling has been established or presented regarding any of the victims.

  7. The murder of the victims mentioned in the indictment has been condemned not only by the Supreme Leader, the President, and other high-ranking officials of our country but also by the public. In addition to the injustice done to the families of the victims, it has damaged the reputation of the system and the country's security institutions. The tolerance shown to the victims, regardless of their thoughts, beliefs, or actions, was considered a sign of the Islamic Republic of Iran's broad-mindedness. Even if they were considered enemies, as the Supreme Leader stated, they were "harmless enemies". Moreover, no enemy can be eliminated without proving a crime worthy of the death penalty in a competent court, while protecting their legitimate legal rights.

E. The reasons behind the verdict are as follows:

In light of the principles mentioned above and knowledge, and in consideration of the complaints filed by the victims' next of kin, reports from local law enforcement authorities where the bodies were found, investigations conducted by the public courts of Tehran, Shahre Rey, and Shahriar, as well as investigations by the Tehran Military Prosecutor's Office, and upon review of The autopsy reports of the victims by three forensic doctors at the National Forensic Medicine Organization determined the cause of death for each individual. These findings are detailed on pages 81 to 85, 300, 301, 508, 509, 510, and 731 In addition, the confessions, admissions, and statements of the defendants, as outlined below during the preliminary investigation at the Tehran Military Prosecutor's Office, and as compared and aligned with the confessions and statements of the defendants during the court hearings, were taken into consideration. Some of these statements are mentioned below:

  1. In the third trial session, held on December 30, 2000, the first defendant made a clear and unequivocal statement. "I held a position of legal authority" (p. 1697). Accordingly, the subsequent assertion made in his final defense brief, dated January 9, 2001, wherein he states, "I did not have a position to give orders for elimination" (page 2880), is regarded as a denial after admission and, as a result, inadmissible.

  2. On page 973, under the order to extend his temporary detention, he wrote, "The authority does not end with me; as I have previously explained, it extends back to Sa'id Eslami." Considering the evidence, the assertion made by the defendant in his final defense brief, wherein he states, "The authority lies solely with Mr. Dori, and I only see myself as an accomplice in these eliminations" (page 1881), is inadmissible and unacceptable. This is particularly the case given that the Third Branch of the Tehran Military Court had already finalized the acquittal order for Mr. Dori.

  3. In the third trial session before this court, the individual made an explicit admission that he had instructed Sadeq to "kill his wife" (Mr. Foruhar's wife). While Sadeq did possess a list of names, it was my decision and instruction as to whom to eliminate, and Sadeq followed my orders (page 1699). Additionally, he asserted and admitted that, despite the position of the President and under the insistence of Mr. Dori (this claim has not been proven due to a lack of sufficient evidence, and Mr. Dori's dismissal order was issued), he gave the order to continue the physical eliminations. Furthermore, he stated, "I had selected Mokhtari and Puyandeh for elimination" (page 1706). Accordingly, the assertion in his final defense brief that the physical eliminations of Mr. Foruhar, Ms. Parvaneh Eskandari, Mr. Mohammad Mokhtari, and Mohammad Jafar Puyandeh were carried out based on Mr. Dori's orders and Mr. Sadeq's prioritization, with his agreement (page 1879), is incompatible with his earlier statements. Furthermore, his assertion of being unaware of the list of 40 to 45 names in Sadeq Mahdavi's possession (the second defendant) is also unsubstantiated (page 1878).

  4. The defendant's admission during the third trial session of this court, in which he acknowledged that Mr. Sadeq Mahdavi was aware of his role as Deputy of Security, calls into question the earlier statement he made during the second trial session. In that statement, the defendant claimed that "at the time of his arrest, no one knew that he was the Deputy of Security" (page 1684).

  5. Despite the defendant's admission, as outlined on page 1705, that he was aware of the statement made by the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran on November 26, 1998, condemning the murders, his further admission on page 1706 reveals that on November 30, 1998 (four days after the President's statement), he ordered the continuing of physical eliminations, targeting Mr. Mokhtari and Mr. Puyandeh for the second defendant. This clearly shows that he does not support the President. Despite the explicit condemnation of the murders related to this case by the Supreme Leader in his December 14, 1998 speech, as evidenced by page 1734, the first and second defendants were still engaged in planning the assassination of members of the Writers' Association as late as On Thursday, December 17, 1998—a mere three days after the Supreme Leader's condemnation of the murders—the defendants were actively planning the assassination of certain members of the Writers' Association in the provinces of Gilan and Fars. This indicates a clear lack of practical commitment to following the authority of the Supreme Leader.

  6. In his testimony on page 1679, the first defendant asserted that the question of hierarchy is irrelevant concerning the murders mentioned in the indictment, which he referred to as the "eliminations." Additionally, the second defendant admitted during the court session, as detailed in pages 1739 and 1740, that neither the intelligence mission nor the elimination of the four victims in question had any organizational connection to him, given his role as the head of the New Left department. This confession, when considered alongside the lack of awareness of the Director of the New Left Department (his superior), the Deputy of Security, and the arrangement of meetings with the head of Security Operations outside of the office, as well as other evidence, is sufficient to prove the illegal and unorganized nature of the murders outlined in the indictment. In particular, the second defendant acknowledged in document 1743, in response to a court inquiry, that he had not observed any provision within the Ministry of Intelligence's statutes or relevant legislation that explicitly designated the physical elimination of individuals as part of the Ministry's duties.

  7. In document 1745, the second defendant states that Musavi told the eighth defendant to carry out the instructions of Mehrdad Ali Khani. It is evident that in this context, "instructs" means "gives orders."

  8. The confession of the aforementioned defendant in document 1725, that he always laughed out loud in front of Mr. Niazi, the then Military Prosecutor of Tehran, indicates that the murders mentioned in the indictment had no impact on his conscience or sense of responsibility.

  9. His confession regarding his significant role in the intelligence surveillance of secular opposition subjects, his connection to the eighth defendant through the first defendant, his active presence at the scene of all four murders, and his immediate reporting of each murder to the first defendant, as well as his admission that if he had given the order to stop the operations before the murders, they would not have occurred at that time (page 1910), and his clear attempt in his last defense statement to mitigate the impact of his confession (page 1910), along with his explicit acknowledgment of his own will and authority in the actions related to the murders described in the Indictment.

  10. The third defendant admitted in document 1768 that "the reason for my involvement in the two murders of Mokhtari and Puyandeh was Mr. Musavi's verbal order... He put me in contact with Sadeq Mahdavi and told me to follow any instructions given by Sadeq. I acted accordingly. Regarding these two victims, Mr. Musavi did not mention any names and Mr. Sadeq named them and introduced them to me. I knew that Mr. Sadeq also had orders from Mr. Musavi. When Mr. Sadeq ordered me to eliminate Mokhtari and Puyandeh, it was obvious that the only means we had was a rope.

  11. The fourth defendant admitted on page 1771 that, following verbal orders from my superior (the eighth defendant) communicated through the hierarchy, I proceeded to eliminate Dariush Foruhar by stabbing him. I am certain that Mr. Rasuli, the Director General of Operational and Intelligence Support in the Security Deputy's office, gave orders to the head of the Operations Department. However, I do not know the details of whether Mr. Musavi's orders were coordinated with the Minister. On page 1774, he answered that Mr. Fallah gave him the order when asked who instructed him to use a knife.

  12. The fifth defendant openly confessed to murdering Ms. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari, stating that he carried out the act in compliance with the orders of his superior (i.e., the eighth defendant) (page 1773). He also stated: "Before we entered Foruhar's home, the eighth defendant ordered us to eliminate him with the knife. "I had no motivation other than following the orders of my superior (i.e., the eighth defendant)" (page 1774).

  13. The sixth defendant admitted on page 1776 that he had ordered the eighth defendant to carry out the elimination operation under Mr. Musavi's command. "I accept my involvement in the Foruhar and his wife's murder case. I issued orders to the head of the Operations Department to carry out Mr. Musavi's orders, believing that Mr. Dori's orders were also behind it. [This part remains an unproven claim.] The morning after the elimination of Foruhar and his wife, the eighth defendant verbally reported to me at the office that we had attacked Foruhar and his wife and stabbed them the previous night. In his final defense, he confessed again, admitting that he had ordered the head of the Operations Department to cooperate with Mr. Musavi in the elimination of the victims and to follow any orders he gave them. (page 1884).

  14. The eighth defendant has admitted to the court on pages 1784 and 1785 that: "In the case of the elimination of Foruhar and his wife, I was connected to Mr. Musavi on the orders of my superior, Mr. Rasuli. Mr. Musavi told me that I should coordinate with Mr. Sadeq Mahdavi for these eliminations and follow his instructions, including any orders he gives me to eliminate specific targets. A few days later, Mr. Sadeq contacted me and we met elsewhere (in Ekhtiyariyeh Square). He said Foruhar must be eliminated and didn't mention his wife. After getting the address from Sadeq, we went to locate the address. When I told Sadeq that Foruhar rarely leaves his house, I believe it was on Saturday, November 21, 1998, that he said, "You must enter Foruhar's house at any cost and eliminate both him and his wife with a knife." After organizing the team, they entered Forouhar's house and eliminated him and his wife. I gave the team leaders the necessary instructions, and the team members were to follow the leader's instructions on the scene. "My superior, Mr. Hamid Rasouli, was my guiding principle." In response to the question of whether Mr. Sadeq Mahdavi's orders were necessary for the execution of the eliminations, he stated, "Yes, his orders were necessary and influential for me, and if he had instructed me to stop the operation, I would not have proceeded with it." When asked again, "So, you considered Mr. Sadeq's direct orders necessary before the operation?" The defendant confirmed this (the same documents).

  15. The tenth defendant gave a clear and detailed confession regarding his involvement in entering Mr. Foruhar's house under the pretext of being a police officer, taking Foruhar's wife upstairs, and holding her hands to help the fifteenth defendant render her unconscious. He further stated that after taking Mr. Foruhar's wife upstairs, a few minutes later, Mr. Fallah, the team leader inside the house (the fourteenth defendant), came upstairs and gave the order to start the operation on behalf of Mr. Sadeq. In his defense statement, the defendant referred to the victims (Mr. Foruhar and his wife) as "Madhur al-dam", [which is an Arabic word meaning "those whose blood can be legally shed]. However, when questioned by the Court, he admitted that he did not know them personally and could not say with certainty that they were indeed Mahdur al-dam (page 1787). In addition, he submitted a written statement to the Court on page 1802, in which he stated, "On the afternoon of Saturday, November 21, 1998, I was informed by my superior (the eighth defendant), and instructed to proceed with the mission, along with several other members of the operational team. He further stated that the orders came from Mr. Rasuli, the Director General, who had received them from Haji Aqa Musavi, the Deputy Head of Security, and that Mr. Musavi had received them from the then Minister, Mr. Dori.

  16. The eleventh defendant openly admitted his involvement in holding one of Mr. Foruhar's hands as the fifteenth defendant rendered him unconscious. He also provided a detailed explanation of how the fourth defendant stabbed him. On page 1806, he confessed that his direct superior was the eighth defendant, who had given the general order to carry out the eliminations. "After that, the team was formed, and during the operation, specifically at Foruhar's house, they acted on Mr. Fallah's orders. The eighth defendant received the order from the sixth defendant, Mr. Rasuli, and Mr. Musavi gave the order to Mr. Rasuli. Meanwhile, Mr. Sadeq Mahdavi provided the necessary coordination instructions as the link between Mr. Musavi and the team.

  17. The twelfth defendant, on page 1809, admitted to being present at Mrs. Foruhar's murder at the direct orders of his superior, the eighth defendant. Mr. Fallah, our team leader, instructed me and the tenth defendant to go upstairs when we entered the house. Together, we went upstairs with Mrs. Foruhar under the guise of a house search. After a few minutes, Mr. Fallah (the fourteenth defendant) arrived. I asked whether we should start, and he said, "Start." I grabbed her by the back of her neck and mouth, while the tenth defendant held her hands, and the fifteenth defendant held a tissue soaked in anesthetic over her mouth and nose, rendering her unconscious.

  18. On page 1814, The fourteenth defendant admitted to his crimes, stating: "In these two operations (the elimination of Dariush Foruhar and his wife), I was the team leader inside the house. I divided the tasks among the operations specialists and ensured the necessary coordination. I was ordered by my direct superior (the eighth defendant) to be involved. After finishing with Foruhar, I went upstairs and told Mr. Safa'ipur to start."

  19. The fifteenth defendant, on page 1817, admitted to holding the anesthetic tissue over the mouths and noses of Dariush Foruhar and his wife. He stated, "What was important to me was the order from my direct superior (the eighth defendant)."

  20. On page 1832, The sixteenth defendant admitted to his charges, stating: "I received direct orders from Mr. Musavi… I was under Mr. Haqani's (the seventh defendant) supervision... I had been assigned to the Security Deputy's department a long time ago...and Mr. Haqani did not give me any orders in this matter."

  21. The seventeenth defendant confessed to following Mr. Mohammad Jafar Puyandeh on a motorcycle and informing Sadeq Mahdavi via a passerby's mobile phone to carry out his abduction. He confirmed that he acted on the direct orders of Sadeq Mahdavi. When the court asked if he had also received orders from Musavi, he replied, "No, only Sadeq gave me the orders." (page 1834)

  22. On page 1837, the eighteenth defendant openly admitted his role in the murders of Mohammad Ali Mokhtari and Mohammad Jafar Puyandeh. He stated that he was the driver of the vehicle that transported the kidnapped targets to the murder site and later transported their bodies in the trunk of the car to the designated disposal locations. He stated that he was acting on orders from Mr. Sadeq Mahdavi.  In light of the above (as outlined in the 22 points mentioned) and given that the defense presented by the lawyers of the aforementioned defendants was ineffective and unfavorable to their clients, the main argument of the defense attorneys attributing the orders for the murders listed in the indictment to the former Minister of Intelligence is inadmissible. This is because the investigative judge's decision to acquit him is final and cannot be appealed. Furthermore, the second defendant's extensive objections to this exemption order are invalid. Once confirmed by the aforementioned court, the decision is not subject to appeal under Article 171 (Clause 2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even if it were appealable, the families of the victims would have had the right to object, and the second defendant had no legal standing to challenge the order. This court has reasonably established that the orders for the murders mentioned in the indictment were given by defendants No. 1, 2, 6, 8, and 14. It therefore rejects the characterization of the actions of defendants No. 6, 8, and 14 as outlined in the indictment. Instead, it considers their acts to be issuing murder orders. Even if the former Minister of Intelligence had confessed to issuing the orders for the murders and an indictment had been issued against him, this court would have sentenced him to life imprisonment upon confirming his command over the murders. However, this hypothetical verdict would have had no bearing on the other defendants involved in the chain of illegal orders allegedly passed down by the minister to the murderers. The issuance of murder orders by any authority (except a competent judge in a court of law) is illegal. This is a separate issue from the legal debate on "cause and perpetrator" on the grounds of liability in Islamic Penal Law. That law states that the stronger cause absolves the direct perpetrator of responsibility. The court finds the defendants mentioned in the 22 points above, including defendants No. 3, 4, and 5, as well as the other defendants whose case numbers were mentioned, to be guilty of the crimes charged against them. This includes the specific charges against defendants No. 17 and 18. The court finds the defendant's reliance on the argument of a stronger cause in the murders outlined in the indictment to be wholly unfounded and dismisses their claim that their actions were lawful and under religious law. The strongest refutation of this claim is the fact that the execution of a death sentence follows a specific legal protocol, which was even revised during the tenure of the former head of the judiciary. How can it be imagined that the defendants did not act officially and openly to carry out a lawful and religiously sanctioned execution? Instead, they resorted to deception and fraud, entering the house of the first and second victims under pretenses, using forged documents, kidnapping the third and fourth victims under a false warrant, blindfolding them, and then committing the brutal and horrific murders described in the indictment. Based on the above findings and the proven guilt of each of the aforementioned defendants, the court will issue a verdict in the following section, citing the relevant legal provisions for each. However, the court finds that Defendant No. 7 did not carry out any act that would fall under Article 43 of the Islamic Penal Code. His statements in his final defense, as well as the arguments made by his attorney, are valid. Furthermore, the court finds that the charge of murdering Mr. Dariush Foruhar and his wife against Defendants No. 9, 10, 17, and 18 is baseless. The court accepts their defenses and those of their attorney. Specifically, after examining the location where they were positioned on the night of the incident near Amir Alam Hospital and measuring the distance from that location to the street where the victims' home was located (which, contrary to the defendant's claim, is not two kilometers away but approximately 800 meters), and noting that The court has determined that there are five additional side streets between Saadi Street and the alley where the victims' home is situated. This information is clearly stated in the court's record dated January 18, 2001 (page 1982). Therefore, the possibility of surveillance or lookout by the defendants has been definitively ruled out. To Summarize, their actions are not covered by any of the provisions of Article 43 of the Islamic Penal Code. Furthermore, the charge of aiding in the murder of Mr. Mohammad Jafar Puyandeh against Defendant No. 9 is dismissed. His defense is valid, and there is no evidence that he committed any act that could be classified as aiding in the murder. Therefore, this court finds the mentioned defendants not guilty and will issue the appropriate ruling in the following section.

F – The court decision and its legal basis

In consideration of the aforementioned arguments, the court hereby issues the following rulings for each of the defendants individually:

  1. Defendant No. 1, Mr. Seyed Mostafa Kazemi, is sentenced to four life sentences under the provisions of Article 211 of the Islamic Penal Code for ordering and directing the murder of four individuals as outlined in the indictment. 

  2. Defendant No. 2, Mr. Mehrdad Alikhani, is sentenced to four life sentences under the provisions of Article 211 of the Islamic Penal Code for ordering and directing the murder of four individuals as outlined in the indictment.

  3. Defendant No. 3, Mr. Ali (Reza) Roshani, has been convicted of direct involvement in the murder of Mr. Mohammad Ali Mokhtari Neishaburi and Mr. Mohammad Jafar Puyandeh. He has been sentenced to two counts of Qisas (retributive punishment) under the initial part of Article 57 of the Islamic Penal Code. In rejecting the prosecutor's reliance on the latter part of the aforementioned article, the initial part of Article 206, Section A of Article 207, Clauses 1 and 4 of Article 231, the initial part of Article 264, and Article 265 of the Islamic Penal Code are applicable. The sentence shall be carried out after the issuance of authorization by the esteemed Head of the Judiciary, acting on behalf of the Supreme Leader, and contingent upon the deposit or guarantee of diyya (blood money) for Mr. Sohrab Mokhtari Neishabouri. The minor son of the victim is to be executed by the eligible and capable heir, Mr. Siavash Mokhtari Neishaburi, who is seeking qisas following the binding ruling of 31, dated November 11, 1986.

  4. Defendant No. 4, Mr. Mahmud Jafarzadeh, has been sentenced to Qisas (retributive punishment) for his direct involvement in the murder of Mr. Dariush Foruhar. This sentence is based on the aforementioned articles of the Islamic Penal Code. The children of the victim have the right to execute the sentence on the convicted person, after obtaining permission from the head of the judiciary.

  5. Defendant No. 5, Mr. Ali (Mostafa) Mohseni, has been sentenced to Qisas, following the articles cited in Clause 3 above, in addition to Article 209 of the Islamic Penal Code, for his direct involvement in the murder of Mrs. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari. Once authorization has been obtained from the Head of the Judiciary, the heirs of the victim are entitled to execute the sentence against the convicted individual, provided that they pay half of the full diyya (Blood money) to the murderer.

  6. Defendant No. 6, Mr. Hamid Rasuli, was sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment on charges of commanding and ordering the murders of Mr. Dariush Foruhar and Mrs. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari. This sentence was handed down under the lower part of Article 211 of the Islamic Penal Code, despite the rejection of the charges and the cited article by the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Tehran Military tribunal.

  7. Defendant No. 7, Mr. Morteza Haqani, was found not guilty of involvement in the murders of Mr. Mohammad Ali Mokhtari and Mr. Mohammad Jafar Puyandeh due to a lack of evidence and insufficient legal grounds. This acquittal was based on Article 27 of the Constitution.

  8. Defendant No. 8, Mr. Mohammad Azizi, has been sentenced to two life imprisonments for the charge of commanding and issuing orders concerning the murders of Mr. Dariush Foruhar and Mrs. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari. This sentence was handed down following the lower part of Article 211 of the Islamic Penal Code, despite the rejection of the charges and the cited article by the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Tehran Military tribunal.

  9. Defendant No. 9, Mr. Iraj Amuzgar, was acquitted of the charges of participation in the murders of Mr. Dariush Foruhar, Mr. Mohammad Jafar Puyandeh, and Mrs. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari due to the absence of sufficient and compelling evidence against him, following Article 27 of the Constitution law.

  10. Defendant No. 10, Mr. Abolfazl Moslemi, has been sentenced to eight years imprisonment for his role in the murders of Mr. Dariush Foruhar and Mrs. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari. The defendant is sentenced to eight years of imprisonment based on the following provisions of the Islamic Penal Code: Article 43, sections 1 and 3, the second part of Article 47, the beginning of Article 57, and the lower part of Article 207.

  11. Defendant No. 11, Mr. Mohammad Hossein Asnaashar, has been sentenced to seven years of imprisonment for his role in the murder of Mr. Dariush Foruhar. This sentence was handed down based on Section 3 of Article 43, the beginning of Article 57, and the lower part of Article 207 of the Islamic Penal Code.

  12. Defendant No. 12, Mr. Ali Safa'ipur, has been sentenced to seven years of imprisonment for his role in the murder of Mrs. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari, following the provisions outlined in section 11 above.

  13. Defendant No. 13, Mr. Alireza Akbarian, has been acquitted of the charges of participation in the murders of Mr. Dariush Foruhar and Mrs. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari due to the absence of sufficient evidence against him, following Article 27 of the Constitution law.

  14. Defendant No. 14, Mr. Morteza Fallah, has been sentenced to two life imprisonments for the charge of commanding and issuing orders for the murders of Mr. Dariush Foruhar and Mrs. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari, following the lower part of Article 211 of the Islamic Penal Code. This is despite the rejection of the charges and the cited article by the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Tehran Military tribunal.

  15. Defendant No. 15, Mr. Mostafa Hashemi, is sentenced to eight years and six months of imprisonment for his role in the murders of Mr. Dariush Foruhar and Mrs. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari. The sentence is based on Section 2 of Article 43, the second part of Article 47, the beginning of Article 57, and the lower part of Article 207 of the Islamic Penal Code.

  16. Defendant No. 16, Mr. Ali Nazeri, is sentenced to two and a half years of imprisonment for his role in the murders of Mr. Mohammad Ali Mokhtari and Mr. Mohammad Jafar Puyandeh. This sentence is based on Section 3. Following Article 43, the second part of Article 47, the beginning of Article 57, and the lower part of Article 207 of the Islamic Penal Code, and following Section 5 of Article 22 of the same code due to his specific circumstances.

  17. Defendant No. 17, Mr. Asqar Sayyah, has been acquitted of the charges of participation in the murders of Mr. Dariush Foruhar and Mrs. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari due to the absence of sufficient evidence to prove his involvement and the insufficiency of the evidence presented against him. This decision was made following Article 37 of the Constitution law. Nevertheless, he has been sentenced to six years of imprisonment for his role in the murder of Mr. Mohammad Jafar Puyandeh, following Section 3 of Article 43, the opening clauses of Article 57, and the latter part of Article 207 of the Islamic Penal Code.

  18. Defendant No. 18, Mr. Khosro Barati, was acquitted of the charges of participation in the murders of Mr. Dariush Foruhar and Mrs. Parvaneh Majd Eskandari following Article 37 of the Constitution law. This decision was reached due to the absence of sufficient evidence and the inability to persuade the court of his involvement. However, he is sentenced to ten years of imprisonment for involvement in the murders of Mr. Mohammad Ali Mokhtari Neishaburi and Mr. Mohammad Jafar Puyandeh, following Sections 2 and 3 of Article 43, the second part of Article 47, the beginning of Article 57, and the lower part of Article 207 of the Islamic Penal Code.

It is clear that for those sentenced to imprisonment (i.e., mandatory sentences) who have been previously detained, the time spent in detention before this sentence will be deducted from their current sentence. This is following the provisions of Article 18 of the Islamic Penal Code. In addition, the sentences of retaliation (Qisas) and life imprisonment imposed on the accused (numbers 1 to 5, 6, 8, and 14) are considered the rights of the victims' families (heirs). These sentences can be forgiven or pardoned by the families of the victims. If all the heirs of the victims decide to forgive the perpetrators (for retribution) and pardon those who ordered or commanded the acts (for life imprisonment), this must be formally considered. In such cases, the file must be sent back to the court to apply Article 208 of the Islamic Penal Code and its note. This article deals with the effects of crimes on public order and is applied in assessing the public disorder caused by the crimes. The verdict of the court must be clear and final and not dependent on future events. Therefore, it's not feasible to set punishments based on the potential for future forgiveness by all heirs, since this situation is uncertain. This ruling, which has been issued individually for each of the eighteen individuals mentioned, is presented in person and under the regulations of the Court of Appeals Law of 1993. An appeal may be filed within twenty days from the date of notification for those residing in Iran and within two months from the date of notification for those residing abroad, provided that the relevant court fees have been paid. Appeals may be filed by the convicted individuals, the victims' heirs, and the esteemed Military Prosecutor of Tehran, as applicable, following Article 23, Section 2 of the aforementioned law. The competent authority to review or uphold the decision will be the esteemed Supreme Court of the country. In conclusion, the evidence indicates that Mr. Seyed Mostafa Kazemi and Mr. Mehrdad Alikhani attempted to ascribe responsibility for the chain murders to the former Minister of Intelligence. They did so by presenting detailed information about the opposition groups operating within the country. In a courtroom setting, Mr. Kazemi acknowledged that he and Mr. Alikhani had convened at the former minister's house on November 13, 1998, to deliberate upon this plan. The presence of Mr. Alikhani prompted speculation that the members of the Iranian Writers' Association could be assembled and killed. The case must be further examined concerning the charges of conspiracy and collusion to commit crimes against the internal security of the country, as outlined in Article 610 of the Islamic Penal Code. It is also necessary to consider the applicability of charges such as "Mmoharebeh" (waging war against God) and "efsad fel arz" (corruption on earth). However, this court lacks jurisdiction over charges not specified in the indictment, as explicitly stated in Article 1 of the Addendum to the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, this court is unable to consider new charges against the aforementioned individuals.  It is ordered that the verdict be immediately registered and typed so that it can be announced during the session scheduled for January 28, 2001, to those present in court, including the convicted individuals, acquitted defendants, their defense attorneys, and the Deputy Military Prosecutor of Tehran. Furthermore, a copy of the verdict will be provided to the heirs of the victims, and the case will be concluded upon completion of the page numbering and the stamping of the documents with the court's seal. Thereafter, the case will be transmitted to the Executive Department of the Tehran Military Prosecutor's Office for further legal proceedings.

Head of the 5th Branch of the Tehran Military Tribunal

Mohammad Reza Aqiqi