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 Five Activists who Had Protested the Drying Up of Lake Orumieh

Judge Hamlbar
Tabriz Revolutionary Court, Branch 1/ Translated by ABC
April 30, 2011
Court document

Islamic Republic of Iran Judiciary

Court Decision

City of Tabriz Revolutionary Court, Branch One

Court Decision Number: 9009974124100186

Case Number: 9009984116000090

Branch Archive Number: 900068

Date Drafted: April 30, 2011

____________________________________________________________________________

Defendants: 1. Ali Salimi Adl, whose address is Tikmeh Dash, Motahari Street, Number 410 (currently in Tabriz Prison); 2. Mr. Sa’eed Siami, Bostanabad, Tikmeh Dash, Shahid Beheshti Street, Number 6 (currently in Tabriz Prison); 3. Mr. Jalil Alamdar Milani (currently in Tabriz Prison); 4. Habib Purvali (currently in Tabriz Prison); 5. Hojjat Mokhtarzadeh (currently in Tabriz Prison). Defendants numbers three, four, and five are represented by Mr. Mussa Barzin whose address is Tabriz Abressani Four-way Intersection, Number 110, First Floor, Unit 2, Shoarian Law Office.

Charges: 1. Assembly and conspiracy to commit crime(s) against national security; 2. Disrupting public order. 

The Court, having examined the case file, hereby declares the close of the proceedings and issues its decision as follows:

Court Decision

Regarding the charge of Assembly and conspiracy to commit crime(s) against national security brought against Messrs. 1. Ali Salimi Adl, child of Karim; 2. Sa’eed Siami Tikmeh Dash, Child of Ma’sum; 3. Jalil Alamdar Milani, child of Asghar; 4. Habib Purvali, child of Azizollah; 5. Hojjat Mokhtarzadeh, child of Adishirin; Mr. Mussa Barzin Khalifelu intervened in the course of the proceedings on behalf of Defendants Numbers three, four, and five. 

By way of explanation, the defendants, most of whom have a record of prior ethnic-nationalist activities, following a call by foreign separatist networks and the distribution of pamphlets at the Yadegar-e Imam Sports Arena inviting people to participate in the April 2 demonstrations, assembled at Tabriz’ Azerbaijan Square on the aforementioned date and began chanting slogans against the Islamic Republic. 

Given the preceding, the Information General Administration’s report, the defendant’s unfounded and unjustifiable defense, and the indictment issued by the Prosecutor’s Office, the Court considers the charges to have been proven, and, pursuant to Islamic Penal Code Article 610, as well as Article 22 of the same law, given the defendants’ special circumstances, sentences each defendant to six months in prison, taking into account time served.

As for the charge of disrupting public order against the defendants, regardless of the applicability of Islamic Penal Code Article 46, the Court, in accordance with Article 5 of the Law on the Establishment of General and Revolutionary Courts, declares the honorable general courts of [the city of] Tabriz not competent to hear the case.

This Court Decision is considered to have been issued with the defendants either present or having submitted briefs, and can be appealed to the honorable Appeals Courts of East Azerbaijan Province within 20 days from the date of service.

Tabriz Revolutionary Court Branch One Presiding Judge, Hamlbar

[Signed; Seal of Tabriz Revolutionary Court Branch One]

ABF Note

 

Findings of guilt in the Islamic Republic of Iran's Judicial Proceedings

The Islamic Republic of Iran's criminal justice system regularly falls short of the standards for due process necessary for impartiality, fairness, and efficacy. Suspects are often held incommunicado and not told of the reason for their detainment. Defendants are frequently prohibited from examining the evidence used against them. Defendants are sometimes prohibited from having their lawyers present in court. Additionally, confessions, made under duress or torture, are commonly admitted as proof of guilt. Because Iran's courts regularly disregard principles essential to the proper administration of justice, findings of guilt may not be evaluated with certainty.

Corporal Punishment: the Legal context in the Islamic Republic of Iran

The Islamic Republic's criminal code recognizes corporal punishment for a wide range of offenses: consumption of alcohol, theft, adultery, "flouting" of public morals, and mixing of the sexes in public. Judges have the latitude to mete out corporal punishment for those sentenced to death. In such cases, the flogging is carried out before death to maximize the suffering of defendant. Aside from flogging, the Islamic Republic also employs amputations as a punishment for theft. In such cases, the defendant is taken to a hospital and put under anesthesia as his hand or foot is amputated. In some cases the left foot and right hand are cut off, making it difficult for the condemned to walk, even with the assistance of a cane or crutches.

The Islamic Republic's Systematic Violation of its International Obligations under International Law

The use of corporal punishment is contrary to international law and is addressed in several international agreements. Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Iran has ratified, states that, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Identical language is also used in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Iran is also a party to. The strongest expression of international disapproval is contained in the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). This treaty defines torture as, "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as ... punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed." Although the Islamic Republic of Iran has yet to sign the CAT, the prohibition on torture is now considered jus cogens and, therefore, part of customary international law. Furthermore, even though the norm against corporal punishment is not yet a jus cogens, there is increasing evidence that it is illegal under international human rights law.[1] In Osbourne v. Jamaica, the Committee Against Torture (a body of experts responsible for monitoring compliance with the Convention) held that "corporal punishment constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment contrary to Article 7 of the Convention." The Islamic Republic of Iran's systematic violations of its obligations under international law have been addressed by the UN General Assembly multiple times, most recently in December 2007. In Resolution 62/168, the UN expressed deep concern with Iran's continued flouting of international human rights law, particularly, "confirmed instances of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including flogging and amputations."