Testimony of Abbas Hakimzadeh
Abbas Hakimzadeh, a student activist, shares his experiences with the challenges and pressures he confronted between 2002 and 2009 while participating in student activities within official institutions.
My name is Abbas Hakimzadeh. I was born on October 14, 1982, in Mashhad, where I attended school. I later graduated from Amirkabir University of Technology in Tehran with a degree in Computer Science. During my college years, I was active in the Islamic Student Association. I was also chosen as the Political Secretary of the Central Council of the Office for Strengthening Unity, the nationwide union of Islamic student organizations.
Due to my activities, I was imprisoned several times. In 2010, I left Iran and moved to the United States. I currently live in California.
I started college in 2002, but due to repeated academic setbacks, I did not graduate until 2009. I had already finished my coursework; however, my diploma was withheld. Specifically, I was not allowed to take the last four or five exams.
The Process of Issuing Permits for Gatherings During the Reform Era and Beyond
As a student activist, I was involved during both Mohammad Khatami's presidency (often called the Reform Era) and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's. During the reformist government, requests for gatherings were typically approved, and permits were granted if a university president aligned politically with the administration. However, if the president was opposed to the reformist government or faced pressure from outside the university, especially from the Ministry of Intelligence, our requests were denied.
In practice, gatherings organized by the Islamic Association were rarely granted permits. When a university president was a Reformist, they sometimes privately told students, "Go ahead and hold your gathering. I won't interfere. But if you are confronted from outside the university, there is nothing I can do." In other words, if the Ministry of Intelligence or Ansar-e Hezbollah intervened, the university president couldn't help. At the same time, in their official capacity, they assured us that they would not refer participants to the university’s disciplinary committee.
Our student gatherings usually followed the same process. We would send a request to the Supervisory Committee for Student Organizations. This committee includes the university president, the cultural affairs deputy, several other officials, and one student. Remarkably, the student representative was almost always an older doctoral student closely linked with the Basij. In most cases, the Supervisory Committee simply ignored our requests.
Overall, there was limited cooperation with Islamic Association programs during the Reform era. At the very least, invited guests were not usually turned away at the university entrance. However, we were often warned not to invite certain individuals, such as those affiliated with the Freedom Movement or National-Religious groups. We were also cautioned against making "radical" statements or saying anything critical about Ali Khamenei.
When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became president in 2005, pressure on student associations grew. From that point, any hope of cooperation vanished, as the authorities made it clear they wouldn't let us participate in any activities. Every initiative we started was met with obstacles. Even for events held inside the university, we sometimes had to secretly bring in sound equipment from outside, hidden in backpacks.
The restrictions imposed on us took many forms. For officially registered student organizations, bureaucratic procedures were intentionally extended and made more complicated. If the authorities doubted that an organization would operate strictly within their designated framework, obtaining a permit was nearly impossible. In fact, during Ahmadinejad’s presidency, we stopped trying to hold "legal" gatherings or apply for permits entirely. Even before that, 99 percent of our requests went unanswered. The law did not set a deadline for the Supervisory Committee to respond. On the few occasions when they did reply, they usually rejected our request and declared the gathering illegal.
The Monitoring Committee typically granted permits for gatherings that were not protests against the Islamic Republic, such as events commemorating December 7 (Student Day). However, no permits were ever issued for events with an explicitly critical or protest-oriented nature, like July 9, the anniversary of the security forces’ attack on university dormitories, even during the Reform era. Approval for gatherings concerning student welfare issues, such as dormitory conditions or food quality, was uncertain and about equally likely or unlikely. This mostly depended on how securitized the environment was at the time, how sensitive the issue was perceived, how angry the students were, and what kinds of statements might be made during the event. Overall, though, obtaining permits gradually became harder and eventually nearly impossible.
If a program was held despite the denial of a permit, the response toward the students depended on the perceived impact of the event. If the gathering was deemed insignificant, there might be no consequences. However, if it was considered influential, the repercussions escalated—from verbal warnings and phone calls to students’ families to suspension from studies by the disciplinary committee, bans from entering the university, arrest, summons to the Revolutionary Court, torture, forced confessions, and other abuses.
Ban on New Student Organizations' Formation
For example, our organization has been officially recognized since the early years after the 1979 Revolution. The Islamic Associations were initially formed by the Basij organization within universities, schools, and other institutions. Over time, however, these associations gradually changed, slipping out of the authorities’ control and developing into pro-democracy and freedom-seeking groups.
During periods when reformists were in power, they aligned with students' demands and preserved and strengthened student associations as pressure groups within universities. At other times, figures like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power with the explicit goal of dismantling these associations—and that is exactly what they did.
Meanwhile, universities rarely grant permits to register new political student organizations unless there is a hidden agenda or the organization supports a project aligned with the system. For example, the Center for Muslim Students’ Thought was authorized at Amirkabir University of Technology. The reason behind creating this group was that the Basij could not attract everyone at a university like Amirkabir. As a result, students who were not interested in the Basij gradually joined the Islamic Association, which either aligned with reformist views or had moved beyond reformism toward an openly oppositional stance.
The members of the Center for Muslim Students’ Thought were Basij affiliates who were somewhat different—perhaps more intellectual—but never Reformist. This organization was created as part of a deliberate project. Therefore, the idea that "if we want to form a new organization, we can simply apply for a permit" is completely unrealistic and absurd. For forty years, no new student organization has been allowed to operate at Amirkabir University.
Various individuals have tried to do so over the years, but all such applications were simply archived, with officials claiming they were "under review." In one case, an application stayed under review for ten years. However, a student's time at university is, at most, four or six years. Most of these examples are from before we were students because, by then, students had become so discouraged that they no longer tried to form new organizations.
The Islamic Association's Dissolution at Amirkabir University
After Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took office in 2005, the government launched a systematic crackdown on all independent institutions and their activists. The pressure was so intense that many individuals were forced to abandon their activities, shut down their organizations, and return to everyday life.
This happened despite the fact that none of our actions went beyond the legal limits outlined in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic. For instance, no one was advocating for an armed uprising. Even when the idea of holding a referendum was brought up, the Constitution explicitly allows for referendums. However, the authoritarian government interprets the Constitution to serve its own interests.
The disqualification of Reformist candidates in parliamentary elections during Mohammad Khatami’s presidency led to a dead end for the Reform movement. At first, we believed that the Reformists had solid plans, but we gradually understood that they were entirely aligned with the Islamic Republic.
Following those disqualifications, the Office for Strengthening Unity, Islamic associations, and several national-religious figures, such as Mohammad Maleki and Mohsen Sazegara, issued a statement calling for a referendum. They referred to the 2004 "Sixty Million Signatures" referendum proposal, arguing that, given the current conditions and framework, it was no longer feasible to move forward. I don't recall if the referendum was meant to address specific policies or the entire Islamic Republic system. What was clear, however, was that these discussions provoked a harsh response. Prominent student activists from that period, including Ali Afshari, were imprisoned, tortured, and forced to make false confessions. Clearly, the idea of a referendum angered the authorities deeply, even though they never officially said that these reprisals were because of raising the referendum issue.
For us, the next generation of student activists, the result was that the authorities concentrated all their efforts on shutting down student groups, declaring them illegal, and ultimately imprisoning active students.
One strategy used by the authorities was obstructing the internal elections of student organizations. Consider, for example, an organization like the Islamic Association. Such an association must operate under an approved charter and follow existing regulations. There is also a university Supervisory Committee for student organizations. This committee would repeatedly raise unfounded objections. For example, they would insist that elections be held every year. After announcing the election results, we would be told that the elections did not follow the charter. We responded that, according to the charter, the internal regulations for elections must be approved by the association's members, not the committee. They would counter by saying that, unless they approved the process, elections could not take place.
This was a deliberate stalling tactic: if elections were not held, the Central Council would become "illegal" the following year. The Supervisory Committee aimed to delay the elections long enough for this to happen. Since universities are closed during the summer, if elections were not held by late June, the authorities could claim at the start of the new academic year that the organization was illegal. We set deadlines for the committee, such as requesting a response by June 10, and told them half-jokingly, "You're not splitting atoms here." In reality, both sides understood the game being played.
If the Supervisory Committee failed to respond by the deadline, we would proceed with holding the elections ourselves, believing them to be legal. At that point, university security intervened, declaring that the elections lacked authorization and ordering the vote boxes to be removed. This back-and-forth continued until the authorities ultimately argued that, since no elections had been officially approved, the Central Council was illegal and the organization itself lacked legal standing.
They did not always dissolve the entire organization outright but instead claimed that its activities were "suspended" pending further determination. However, we continued our activities. In response, they declared all of our gatherings illegal and stated that as long as the organization was suspended, we could not apply for permits. Consequently, none of our permit requests would be answered.
Another major incident took place on July 28, 2006. The nationwide university entrance exam was being held at that time, and the campus was under such strict security that faculty and staff were prevented from entering to safeguard the exam materials. During that period, the office used by the Islamic Association for its activities was demolished overnight by a bulldozer. When we returned to campus, we found that we no longer had a space, and all of our belongings had been removed. The university president carried out this action.
Later on, a group of Basij members started collecting signatures and submitting a letter calling for the "revival" of the Islamic Association at the university. Before this, there had been other independent student organizations on campus besides the Basij Student Association. However, this time the Supervisory Committee officially approved the Basij members and provided them with a new office. These Basij-affiliated individuals then operated under the name Islamic Association. An organization that, just three months earlier, had been issuing statements on referendums and human rights, began praising the "Supreme Leader" within three or four months.
In practice, these actions only reinforced our resolve. In response to our protests, the university used various forms of repression. Any gathering we organized, any statement we made, and any publication we issued were considered illegal, and we faced disciplinary sanctions. Sometimes, students were suspended from their studies for one or two semesters. In other cases, pressure was applied through their families. Additional measures followed, including arrests by the Ministry of Intelligence, cases brought before the Revolutionary Court, and prison sentences. All these actions aimed to halt our activities.
Fabricated Lawsuit Against Amirkabir University Students
When the university declared our organization illegal and officially notified us of the decision, we responded by ramping up our efforts to reclaim the association. We maintained that the university's actions were illegal.
Some time later, a new plot was devised against us. In May 2007, fake publications were issued in the name of the Islamic Association. The authorities claimed that students had questioned Islamic authorities and Islam itself in a student publication and had insulted religious sanctities. They fabricated statements and attributed them to us. Between May 4 and May 10, 2007, several students were arrested, and under pressure from the Ministry of Intelligence, they were forced to confess.
At that time, they could not arrest me. I turned off my phone and stayed away from home for a while. By the time I was arrested on June 7, 2007, the project was essentially complete: roles had been assigned, and a narrative had already been constructed about who had done what. As I put it, my first arrest was “touristic”: I was taken to Ward 209, the Ministry of Intelligence’s security ward in Evin Prison. I mainly observed the atmosphere and saw what had been done to the other students. They had been tortured and subjected to intense pressure to extract forced confessions. In my case, however, nothing happened. They were already out of time, and the operation had run its course.
I was released on bail on August 11, 2007. After observing the conditions during the interrogations, I started speaking out about what had been done to the detained students. Those who had been forced to confess were kept in isolation so that the authorities could manipulate the media and present them to regime supporters and the public as having genuinely committed those acts. But during the weeks I spent there, I learned the truth about what really happened.
The security agents believed that those they released would stay quiet. I did not. After my release, I spoke openly. Along with the families of the detained students, I met with the Judiciary spokesperson and the head of the Judiciary at the time, Mr. Agha'i. I detailed everything that had happened behind the scenes of the case. The story was first published on the Amirkabir University News website and later covered by other media outlets, including the BBC and Radio Farda. Revealing these facts angered the authorities.
The Amirkabir News Website
Our disclosures and activities on the Amirkabir News website were highly effective. We established an email address and urged students to send any news they had, explaining that a group of students would publish the information. No one knew who was actually running the website, and even those managing it were unaware of each other's identities. Essentially, we had created a network. At that time, the security systems were not advanced enough to identify individuals through IP tracking and similar methods.
Among ourselves, we expected that the authorities might eventually try to identify those responsible for the website. We thought they might suddenly arrest twenty or thirty people to see if the publication of information would stop, or they might gather evidence through interrogations. For this reason, we assigned one person as a backup. He was an Amirkabir University student studying abroad in Sweden. We knew he was beyond their reach, so he took care of certain tasks.
When we were arrested on February 23, 2009, the website remained fully operational 24/7 thanks to him. Once the authorities realized the site was still active, they hacked it and took its servers offline. However, that same student restored the site using backup files. At that point, they understood that the situation was serious.
They asked who was running the website. We said it was a friend in Sweden. After that, they struggled to figure out what to do next. They investigated the student and found out that his aunt had been executed in the early years after the revolution for alleged ties to the MEK. Based on this information, they decided to connect our case to the MEK.
They fabricated a story claiming that the website was connected to the MEK and that we students were members of the organization. To make us confess, they tortured us.
Heavy prison sentences awaited us all. However, with the outbreak of the Green Movement protests in 2009, our case mostly faded from view. The security forces were so overwhelmed that earlier cases were effectively set aside. In that sense, we were lucky because otherwise, we might have faced sentences of up to twenty years. During the Green Movement, prisons became so overcrowded that officials suggested anyone imprisoned before the protests should be released on bail temporarily to lessen the prison population. As a result, we were released on July 8, 2009.
After that, I was arrested again on November 19, 2009, during a wave of mass arrests, when I was taken from my home. I asked the interrogator why I had been arrested again, pointing out that I had been there just two months earlier and had already spent four months being interrogated about every aspect of my life. I also said that during the two months I had been free, I had not engaged in any activities. He paused for a moment and said, "You're right. I have nothing to ask you." The investigating judge set bail for me once again, and I was released.
Fleeing Iran
The security agents never left me alone. They would periodically arrest me and issue new rulings against me. Because of this, I eventually left Iran. For a year or two, I didn't have a stable or peaceful life. I was constantly on the run, moving from one place to another. This continued until I finally managed to leave the country.
Even after leaving Iran, I continued some activities, including work related to the website. When the authorities found out, they confiscated the 300 million tomans bail I had posted, which was about 300,000 U.S. dollars at the time, and took it from my family.
----------