Kianush Asa: One Person’s Story

Human rights violations in this case

The Courts

Islamic Revolutionary Courts, 11 February 1979-1994

In the immediate aftermath of the 11 February 1979 Revolution, an ad hoc tribunal, initially referred to as the Extraordinary Revolutionary Tribunal, was set up to try the officials of the previous regime, for which no specific procedures were devised. In a decree dated 24 February 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini, the revolutionary religious leader, appointed a cleric as Shari’a Judge and instructed him “to issue Shari’a-based rulings,” thereby establishing the foundation of a system of special courts.

Initially, the revolutionary courts’ jurisdiction was determined by the religious judge’s interpretation of the Shari’a (Islamic law based on the teachings of the Qur’an, the traditions of the Prophet, the 12 imams, and the teachings of Shi’a scholars. On 17 June 1979, the Revolutionary Courts and the Prosecutor’s Office Rules of Procedure, which was only selectively observed, established the latter’s jurisdiction and make-up.

The Courts’ jurisdiction encompassed a wide array of offenses including moharebeh (“waging war with God”), efsad e fel arz (“spreading corruption on Earth”), crimes against national and international security, economic crimes, murder, profiteering, prostitution, rape, and narcotic drugs-related crimes. The law required that two of the three principal members of the Revolutionary Courts be Shari’a judges.

Islamic Revolutionary Courts, 1994-2002

With the adoption of the Law for the Establishment of General and Revolutionary Courts of 14 June 1994, and the Code of Criminal Procedure for General and Revolutionary Courts of 19 September 1999, a uniform code of procedure was applied to both revolutionary and general courts. The jurisdiction of the Revolutionary Courts was limited to 6 categories of offenses:

1. Crimes against national and international security,“moharebeh” (enmity with god) and “efsad e fel arz” (corruption on earth;)

2. defaming Ayatollah Khomeini and the Supreme Leader;

3. plotting against the Islamic Republic of Iran, armed action, terrorism, and sabotage;

4. espionage;

5. smuggling and drug-related crimes; 6. claims under Principle 49 (economic crimes) of the Constitution.

6. Furthermore, pursuant to the Law on the Manner of Punishing Individuals Engaged in Unauthorized Audio and Visual Activities, Article 11, the revolutionary courts have jurisdiction over crimes that fall within the purview of said Law, including production and distribution of obscene materials and misuse and abuse thereof.

These courts continued, however, to try cases falling outside their jurisdiction, such as theft and sexual offenses. Further, the vagueness of laws regarding national security allowed the revolutionary courts to try political and media crimes whenever they wished to do so.

The new law eliminated the Prosecutor’s Office and gave the judges inthe Revolutionary Courts the power to perform the duties of the prosecutor, as well as their own, in any case brought before them.

Islamic Revolutionary Courts, 2002-Present

The Amended Law for the Establishment of General and Revolutionary Courts of 2002 reinstated the Prosecutor’s Office in both revolutionary and general courts. In cases involving political and media crimes, revolutionary courts’ jurisdiction overlaps with that of Province Criminal Courts.

With the passage of the new Rules of Criminal Procedure in 2014, and its coming into force in June 2015, the jurisdiction of the revolutionary courts remains unchanged, with slight modifications in procedural aspects of adjudication. For instance, the new law provides that for crimes subject to the death penalty, life imprisonment, amputation, third degree, or higher, the revolutionary court shall convene with three judges, whereas, prior to the passage of this law, adjudication of all crimes within the jurisdiction of revolutionary courts took place with only a single judge.

The Appellate System of Revolutionary Courts, 1979-Present

From their inception until 1994, the rulings of the Revolutionary Courts were not subject to appeal. In the early 1980s a court entitled the Supreme Court of Qom was established in the city of Qom and which reviewed cases of execution and confiscation of properties, thereby forming a first tier form of appeal. The exact date of the creation of the court is not clear, but, based on available information, the court became operational in the early 1980s, even though Ayatollah Khomeini's official order for its creation is dated 1985. The court’s procedure was not systematic and did not meet the international standards for a court of appeals; there was no official record of its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Qom was dissolved in 1989.

The Law of 14 June 1994 subjected the Courts’ decisions to appeal. An appellate court was established at each provincial capital, called the Province Court of Appeals, composed of a three-judge panel, to review decisions made by the Revolutionary Courts. The Supreme Court was designated as the appellate authority for particular decisions, including those involving capital punishment.

Narcotic drugs-related crimes constitute a significant exception to the appeals process. Governed by the Anti-Narcotic Drugs Law of 1988, as Amended on 8 November 1997 and 31 July 3 2010, these crimes are within the jurisdiction of, and are adjudicated on a regular basis by, Revolutionary Courts whose decisions are final. After being handed down by the judge, death sentences are sent to the Prosecutor General or the Head of the Supreme Court as a matter of administrative approval.

With the passage of the new Rules of Criminal Procedure in 2014 (and its coming into force in June 2015), however, drug related crimes became subject to appeal as well.

General Courts, 1979-1982

In cases not falling under the jurisdiction of the Revolutionary Courts, the system devised under the previous regime continued to function in parallel with new systems devised by laws passed by the Judicial Council, one of which, entitled The Legal Bill for the Establishment of General Courts of 11 September 1979, radically changed the entire structure and categorization of the courts. It divided the courts in three branches: Criminal, Civil, and Peace (a sort of arbitration court dealing with minor financial and other disputes). Specialized courts such as family courts were eliminated.

General Courts, 1982-1994

The Law of the Amendments to the Rules of Criminal Procedure of 1982 established a new criminal courts system, Criminal Courts I and II. Criminal Court I, established only in provincial capitals, had jurisdiction over more serious offenses, including those punishable by death, and Criminal Court II heard less serious crimes.

General Courts, 1994-2002

The Law for the Establishment of General and Revolutionary Courts of 14 June 1994 established umbrella courts called General Courts, which replaced and dissolved pre-existing civil and criminal courts. The law dissolved the Prosecutor’s offices and tasked a single person with the roles of judge, prosecutor, and investigator.

General Courts, 2002-2015

In 2002, the 1994 Law was amended, reviving the role of the Prosecutor’s Office in General Courts. The prosecution offices were re-established in a gradual process over several years. The amended law also re-established specialized branches within general courts dealing separately with criminal and civil matters. In addition, this law allocated a number of branches of the Province Court of Appeals to have original jurisdiction over a number of cases including the most serious offenses, as well as political and media crimes. In these cases, the branches are called the Province Criminal Court.

General Courts, 2015 to Today

With the passage of the new Rules of Criminal Procedure in 2014 and its coming into force in June 2015, general courts underwent certain changes as well. Criminal courts were divided into Criminal Court One, Criminal Court Two, Military Court, Juvenile Court, and Revolutionary Court. Criminal Court One has jurisdiction over serious crimes such as those subject to the death penalty, life imprisonment, amputation, third degree, and higher, as well as political and media crimes. Criminal Court Two has jurisdiction over other crimes. Another change consists of the establishment of juvenile courts, which adjudicates crimes committed by individuals less than 18 years of age. In cases where the individuals less than 18 commit serious crimes such as those subject to the death penalty, however, Criminal Court One will have jurisdiction, observing rules of juvenile criminal procedure.

The Appellate System of General Courts, 1979-Present

The Legal Bill for the Establishment of General Courts of 11 September 1979, abolished appeal of most criminal courts’ decisions. The law of 1982 restricted the appeal possibility even further. According to the Islamic Republic authorities’ interpretation of Islamic Law, a qualified jurist’s decisions were not subject to appeal except under special circumstances, such as when the judge realized his own mistake, or another judge advised him so, or when he did not have jurisdiction over the case. Even in such situations, the case would not go to a higher court but would be subject to review by the same judge or another judge at his level. The judges were even urged to call their verdicts “opinions,” so that the possible change in the verdict would not be “haram” (“sinful,” the highest level of prohibition in Islam, disobedience of which would result in a sin).

In October 1988, the Majles (Iranian parliament) passed a law regarding review of court judgments. This law provided for an appeal if the conviction was claimed to be based on invalid documentation or false testimony. The defendant could also base an appeal on a point of law or a procedural violation.

The appellate system was expanded in other laws in the late 1980s and in 1993. The Law for the Establishment of Criminal Courts I and II of 11 July 1989 created the Branches of the Supreme Court. Crimes of less importance, tried in Criminal Court II, were subject to review by Criminal Court I.

For the most important crimes involving death punishment, which were under the jurisdiction of Criminal Court I, the law allowed limited appeal to the Branches of the Supreme Court. Defendants had the right to petition the Supreme Court for appeal in certain cases involving false testimony or procedural violations, and if granted, the case would be remanded to either another criminal court or the original one.

Finally, the Law for the Establishment of General and Revolutionary Courts of 1994, as amended in 2002, established an appellate court at each provincial capital, called Province Court of Appeals, composed of a three-judge panel, to review decisions made by both general and revolutionary courts. The Supreme Court was designated as the appellate authority for particular decisions, including those carrying the death penalty, as well as decisions made by the Province Criminal Court.

The amended law of 2002, continued the appellate procedure to the Branches of the Supreme Court established by the afore-mentioned law of 11 July 1989

The Supreme Court continues to be the competent authority to rule on new trials, which have been provided for in limited circumstances.

With the passage of the new Rules of Criminal Procedure in 2014 and its coming into force in June 2015, the Court of Appeals shall be the competent authority to hear appeals from Criminal Court Two decisions, and the Supreme Court shall hear appeals from Criminal Court One decisions.

Special Courts for the Clergy

These courts are rooted in a 1979 decree, issued by Ayatollah Khomeini, which established a committee of religious and noble figures in every region to purge the clergy of anti-revolutionary elements under the supervision of the Revolutionary Courts. Between late 1981 and 1984, a special court in the city of Qom handled, though not systematically, the trial of clerics.

On 29 July 1987, Ayatollah Khomeini officially appointed a prosecutor and a member of the clergy as Shari’a judge for Special Courts for the Clergy. On 6 August 1990, a directive was issued regulating the conduct of these courts, the jurisdictional ambiguity of which is such that it effectively extends to “anyone where one of the parties is a cleric” and to “all matters in which the Court is designated as competent by the Supreme Leader.”

The court, which was not mentioned in the Islamic Republic's constitution, was mandated to try “pseudo clerics, those related to/connected with the clergy, for public and/or anti-revolutionary crimes, and violations of the prestige of the clergy,” and where the principal suspect is a member of the clergy, “any co-conspirator or assistant, whether a cleric or not.”

These courts are generally not open to the public and can issue sentences for all acts and omissions punishable under codified Iranian laws or Shari’a or for any other acts or omissions which can bring dishonor to the clergy or to the Islamic Revolution. Further, in certain particular cases – which have not been defined – where no punishment has been devised by either the Penal Code or even the Shari’a, the Court “can rule as it deems fit.”

The Appellate System of the Special Court for the Clergy, 1979-Present

There is no information on any appeal process for the Special Court for the Clergy prior to the 1990 directive. Article 49 of said directive set up, however, an appeals court called Special Appellate Court for the Clergy, the head of which is appointed by the Supreme Leader, to which the decisions of the lower court can be appealed.

Military Courts

The military court system, independent from the judiciary under the previous regime, became a part of it on 1 December 1981. The Judiciary Organization of the Armed Forces, established in 1986, replaced and merged other military courts and tribunals in existence at the time, namely the pre-revolution Judiciary Organization of the Army, the Revolutionary Tribunal of the Army (established on 8 December 1979), and the Revolutionary and General Court for the Revolutionary Guards (established on 15 July 1979.) The Judiciary Organization of the Armed Forces has its own Criminal Code and follows the country’s general rules of criminal procedure.

The Law of the Criminal Procedure of the Armed Forces of 15 May 1985 created Military Courts I and II. Military Court I has jurisdiction over more serious offenses, including those punishable by death, and Military Court II hears less serious crimes.

The Appellate System of Military Courts, 1979-Present

The law of 8 December 1979, establishing the Revolutionary Military Court, did not provide for any appeals. The Law of 15 May 1985 created a system of appeals through the creation of a two-tier system of courts. The decisions of Military Court II were subject to review by Military Court I. This law also provided that multiple Branches of the Supreme Court be designated as the appellate court to review decisions of Military Court I.

The judges

1979-1997: Prosecutors and judges are not necessarily law graduates and jurists. Shortly after the Islamic Revolution, a five-member Committee was established to purge the judicial system of undesirable elements, pursuant to the Legal Bill for the Modification of the Judiciary and the Law for Hiring Judges of 8 March 1979. The power of the committee was absolute and its decisions, resulting in a widespread purge of the judiciary, final.

The Law for the Conditions of Selection of Judges of 4 May 1981 established the conditions of eligibility for judges. The latter were to be hired among men who were legitimate children and had practical commitment to Islam and allegiance to the Islamic Republic. The law, which led to the hiring of clerics and Islamic legal scholars, also allowed hiring practically anyone as a judge who could “obtain the Judicial High Council’s permission.” Moreover, Note 2 of the Amendments of 4 October 1982 to this law allowed widespread employment of seminary students “who ha[d] general knowledge equivalent to a high school diploma” as judges at prosecutor’s offices in general as well as Revolutionary Courts.

By 1989, the judiciary counted about 2,000 new judges trained in theological seminaries (graduates and students) and political appointees, many having replaced judges trained in law schools.

1997-Present: As of this writing (2013) the Law for Hiring Judges and its amendments of 4 October 1982, 7 February 1987, and 9 May 1988 are in full force and form the basis for hiring judges. The Executive Rules of Procedure of 22 December 1997 subjected such hiring to passing an entrance examination and successful completion of an apprenticeship program, the duration of which ranges between one and two years. The law does not limit hiring to men only but does not specify in what capacity women will be functioning, other than an advisory one.

Currently, judges are selected in accordance with the Guidelines on the Recruitment, Selection, and Internship for Judicial Candidates and the Hiring of Judges.

Dismissal of Judges: From 1979 to 1989, the judiciary was run by the Supreme Judicial Council which was composed of the head of the Supreme Court, the Prosecutor General (both of whom were appointed by the Supreme Leader), and three judges elected by the entire body of judges in the country. The Council had the power to hire and dismiss judges in accordance with the law.

The constitutional reforms of 1989 substituted the Supreme Judicial Council with one person, the Head of the Judiciary. The Supreme Leader, whose mandate is not subject to popular vote, appoints the Head of the Judiciary for a 5-year term. The latter has significant power to influence the dismissal of judges. Dismissal cases are referred to three types of disciplinary courts, presided over by judges appointed by the Head of the Judiciary, who has veto power over any decisions made by the relevant courts.

Two of these courts, established in 1991 and 2011, are charged with examining the judges’ conduct from a religious and ideological standpoint. The process does not necessarily involve the defendant and the final decision, left to the Head of the Judiciary, is not subject to appeal.

Human rights violations

Based on the available information, some or all of the following human rights may have been violated in this case:

The right to liberty and security of the person. The right not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 3; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 9.1.
The right not to be punished for any crime on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time it was committed.

UDHR, Article 11.2; ICCPR, Article 15, Article 6.2.
The right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, including the right to change and manifest one’s religion or belief.

UDHR, Article 18; ICCPR, Article 18.1, ICCPR, Article 18.2; Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, Article 1 and Article 6.

In its general comment 22 (48) of 20 July 1993, the United Nation’s Human Rights Committee observed that the freedom to "have or to adopt" a religion or belief necessarily entailed the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views, as well as the right to retain one's religion or belief. Article 18, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights bars coercion that would impair the right to have or adopt a religion or belief, including the use or threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers to adhere to religious beliefs and congregations, to recant their religion or belief or to convert.
The right to freedom of opinion and expression, including the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas.

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

The right to due process

The right to be presumed innocent until found guilty by a competent and impartial tribunal in accordance with law.

UDHR, Article 11.1; ICCPR, Article 14.1 and Article 14.2.

Pre-trial detention rights

The right to know promptly and in detail the nature and cause of the charges against one.

UDHR, Article 9(2); ICCPR, Article 9.2 and Article 14.3.a
The right to counsel of one’s own choosing or legal aid and the right to meet with one’s attorney in confidence

ICCPR, Article 14.3.d; Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, Article 1 , Article 2, Article 5, Article 6, and Article 8.
The right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defense case.

ICCPR, Article 14.3.b; Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, Article 8
The right not to be compelled to testify against oneself or to confess to guilt.

ICCPR, Article 14.3.g.
The right not to be subjected to torture and to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

UDHR, Article 5; ICCPR, Article 7; Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment, Article 1, and Article 2.

Trial rights

The right to a fair and public trial without undue delay.

ICCPR, Article 9.3, Article 14.1, Article 14.3.c.
The right to examine, or have examined the witnesses against one and to obtain the attendance and examination of defense witnesses under the same conditions as witnesses for the prosecution.

ICCPR, Article 14.3.e.

The right to have the decision rendered in public.

ICCPR, Article 14.1.

Judgment rights

The right to appeal to a court of higher jurisdiction.

ICCPR, Article 14.5.
The right to seek pardon or commutation of sentence.

ICCPR, Article 6.4.

Capital punishment

The inherent right to life, of which no one shall be arbitrarily deprived.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 3; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 6.1; Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, Article 1.1, Article 1.2.
The right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.

ICCPR, Article 7; Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment, Article 1 and Article 2.

About this Case

Introduction

The information regarding Mr. Kianoosh Asa’s extrajudicial killing was drawn from an interview by the Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation (ABF) with one a person close to Mr. Asa, and the following websites: Amnesty International (20 June 2011), BBC News (17 August 2010), the Committee of Human Rights Reporters (17 June 2009; 21 March 2010; 19 August 2009), Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan Website (7 September, 2009), Roozonline (17 June 2010; 29 July 2009; 7 April 2010), Kalameh (24 March 2011), BBC Persian (10 December 2010), Radio Farda (28 november 2009), Parcham (3 October 2009).

Mr. Asa was shot during the post-presidential election protests in Iran on June 15, 2009. He was born into a Kurdish family from the Sanjabi tribe in Kermanshah. The members of this tribe are mostly "Ahl-e Haq”religion or “Yarsan” (1) (Committee of Human Rights Reporters, 21 March 2010).

Mr Asa graduated from the Razi University of Kermanshah in chemical engineering with a concentration in gas and petro chemistry and was enrolled in a masters’ program at the Elm-o San’at University of Tehran. He was planning to finish his thesis during the summer of 2009. He left Kermanshah for Tehran before the election day and told his family that his trip to Tehran was necessary to take care of some administrative issues related to his thesis (ABF interview).

Mr. Asa was known as a responsible and intelligent person who particularly valued education. He had found a job to suport his family financially after his graduation in order to make it possible for his older brother – who had to leave school after their father’s death – to go back to school. He also was an active member of civil society, especially focused on environmental activism. He was a member of many groups and clubs such as the “Technical School of Razi University,” “Kurd Youth,” “Youth of Kermanshah” and “Shajarian.” He was also a member of the “Association of the Green Front” and participated in its activities, such as cleaning up trash from the mountains (ABF interview with one of Mr. Asa’s relatives).

Mr. Asa did not belong to any political party, yet, according to the interviewee, he did not believe in apathy. He was interested in political and social issues and brought the university publications home and encouraged others to read them. Before the presidential election of 2009, he was a member of Mehdi Karoubi’s campaign. He used to discuss his support for Mr. Karoubi openly at his university (ABF interview). Mr. Asa also liked reading books, especially history books. He was interested in drawing. He used to play the tanbour, a traditional Iranian music instrument (Roozonline, 28 May 2009; ABF interview with one of Mr. Asa’ relatives).

Death

Mr. Asa was shot on 15 June 2009, during massive demonstrations related to the Green Movement, but the exact date of his death remains unclear, the reasons for which are described below. According to one his relatives, Mr. Asa left his dormitory at around 2:00 or 3:00 P.M. on 15 June in order to attend a rally in favor of the Green Movement. He also brought along several students. On Azadi Street in Tehran, 2 or 3 kilometers from Azadi Square, his friends left him one by one despite Mr. Asa’s insistance on continuing to the rally. Based on the available information, Mr. Asa heard the leaders of the Green Movement, walked towards the sounds and left his friend. That was the last time his friend saw him alive (ABF interview).

According to the interviewee, eye-witnesses said that he was shot once in the side. He was moving his hands, legs and neck and even turned his head. Other protesters picked him up and put him in a car (ABF interview).

On the morning of 17 June 2009, after several unsuccessful calls to his cell phone, Mr. Asa’s brother and sister went from Kermanshah to Tehran to find him. At first they went to the Rasul Akram Hospital, where some of the wounded protesters of 17 June but they were not allowed to enter the hospital. They were shown a list of wounded, but Mr. Asa’s name was not among them. They were told that the security forces took most of the wounded and all the dead from the hostpital two days prior. They also went to Evin Prison every day and to Kahrizak Center without success. In the following days, they searched for Kianoosh unsuccessfully. They went to the Revolutionary Tribunal, the Shapour Police Station, the NAJA Intelligence Service, the Security Police and other places where they guessed Mr. Asa might be (ABF interview).

Finally, on Wednesday 25 June, they went to the Forensic Office and found their brother’s picture among photographs of people who had been killed but remained unidentified (ABF interview).

On Mr. Asa had been shot twice. Once in his side as reported by eye witnesses and once in the neck (ABF interview and Committee of Human Rights Reporters, 19 August 2009). The official death certificate reported his date of death as June 19th. Therefore, it is not clear where and under what condition Mr. Asa was kept from 15 June to 19 June and how he was killed (Amnesty International, 20 June 2011). According to one of his relatives, his body was bruised and his mouth was full of blood. There was a scar of a bullet in his neck but it was stitched up in a way so that the size and type of the bullet were not detectable (ABF interview). According to Mr. Asa’s mother, the forensic report is very incomplete. It does not specify, for example, the kind of bullets used to kill Mr. Asa and whether or not the two bullets were shot from the same gun, etc. This report provides that the body was delivered to the morgue by unknown individuals (Roozonline, 7 April 2010). The death certificate mentions that Mr. Asa’s death was caused by the “violence by others” (BBC, 17 August 2010). Mr. Asa’s belongings were were never returned to the family (Radio Farda, 28 November 2009).

The Family’s Reaction

The Asas filed a complaint at the Criminal Prosecution Office on Davazdah-e Farvardin Avenue, and requested to receive his body. According to his mother, after seeing Mr. Asa’s academic record from Elm-o San’at University, the judge offered his condolences and issued an order to deliver the body to the family (The Committee of Human Rights Reporters, 19 August 2010), which was done on 27 June (Kalameh, 30 November 2010).

The burial ceremony of Mr. Asa was held on 28 June (Kalameh, 30 November, 2010) in silence, which was a decision made by the family in order for them to be allowed to hold the ceremony in their traditional way. Once the ceremony was held, the Asas focused their effort to follow up on the case. They met with political figures, sent several letters to the head of the Judicial and Legislative Branches and the Special Committee to Investigate Post-Election Incidents. They also hired a lawyer for their case but as of the summer of 2011, they have not been successful in finding follow up on Mr. Asa’s case (ABF interview).

The family also wrote several letters to government officials and had several interviews with media outlets Mr. Asa’s case On 7 December 2009; he was invited to give a speech in Elm-o San’at University in his brother’s memory. The authorities arrested him that day (BBC Persian, 8 December 2009).

State Officials’ Reactions

State officials did not provide any official statement regarding Mr. Asa and did not accept any responsibility for his death. The Special Committee to Investigate Post-Election Incidents did not contact the Asas (ABF interview). According to Mr. Asa’s mother, judicial officials required from the family to present a suspect in his murder and to withdraw their complaint to the court. To date, their lawyer’s efforts to follow-up on Mr. Asa’s case did not lead to concrete results and the judge assigned to the case told the Asa family that their case would not come to any conclusion. Mr. Asa’s brother and sister were summoned once and questioned about general issues relating to the case. None of the family’s letters were answered except one letter the head of the Parliament where the parliament refers them to the judiciary (Kalameh, 24 March 2011).

Moreover, the authorities put pressure on the Asas not to have a public burial ceremony and continued to do so for any memorial ceremony held for Kianoosh. According to Mr. Asa’s mother, the burial ceremony was held on 27 June 2009 without the traditional public announcement. Th security forces were present in number and under cover at the ceremony. They interrupted a relative from filming the ceremony, took the film and returned it to the family a couple of days later, after eliminating parts of it including the images Mr. Asa’s mother crying on the grave,. During the Chehellom ceremony (a memorial which is held on the 40th day after death) Mr. Asa’s older brother was arrested while giving a speech about Mr. Asa. The undercover police used pepper spray against Mr. Asa’s mother and sister, when they tried to prevent Kamran’s arrest. Many other people were arrested during the unrest that ensued afterwards (Roozonline, 17 June 2010).

The family was harassed for trying to keep the memory of Kianoosh alive. Other siblings of Mr. Asa were questioned and threatened at their work places as well. Mr. Asa’s older brother was summoned from his office to the intelligence service office several times (Kalameh, 24 March 2011). He was also arrested in March 2011 when he was at Mr. Asa’s grave by the agents of Ministry of Intelligence. He was detained for a short time at the Branch of Ministry in Kermanshah (Roozonline, 7 April 2010).

The security forces arrestd Mr. Asa’s brother, Mr. Kamran at least twice. Once on 7 December 2009 while he was trying to get into the Elm-o San’at University, as mentioned previously. He was released after two months on the third party custodian. He was arrested once again days before the anniversary of his brother’s death. According to Mr. Asa’s mother, security forces went to the Asas’ home and searched the place, including Kianoosh’s room. They confiscated Mr. Asa’s books, thesis, his music instrument and other personal belongings. They charged Mr. Kamran Asa; he was with, “propaganda against the regime.” One of the interrogator’s concerns was a letter Mr. Kamran Asa’s was going to write regarding his brother’s case to the head of the judicial branch and a letter he had written to Mr. Karoubi. They also told Mr. Kamran Asa that his family took advantage of Mr. Asa’s death and wanted to use it as propaganda against the regime and the family intended to create unrest during the anniversary of Kianoosh’s death. Mr. Kamran Asa was released on $11,000 dollar bail. He was warned however to stop following-up on Mr. Asa’s case, to avoid the arrest of the entire family for which warrents were already issued (Roozonline, 17 June 2010). According to Mr. Kamran Asa, one of the interrogators told him, “Your mother is still mourning for Kianoosh. Don’t make her mourn for her other children as well” (Kalameh, 24 March 2011).

Mr. Asa’s mother noted: “We are always being watched. All of our movements are controlled. Our telephones are bugged. All these times, we have never been able to go to Kianoosh’s, my son’s grave in peace. There are always security agents around his grave. When there is a special event, there are always 6 to 7 vehicles full of male and female agents but in the rest of the days there are palin-clothes.They sometimes even sit at the grave with this excuse that they are praying for Kianoosh” (Roozonline, 7 April 2010).

Other relatives of Mr. Asa were also threatened for carrying a picture of him or talking about him. These police forces attacked Mr. Asa’s cousin’s shop and arrested him because he had a picture of Mr. Asa in his shop. On another occasion, the police summoned a relative who had talked about Kianoosh on the phone and threatened him not even to the name ‘Kianoosh’ if he didn’t want to end up like Kianoosh (Kalameh, 24 March 2011).

The harassment and threats continued each year, during the anniversary of Mr. Asa’s death in an effort to prevent people to attend. For example, in Mr. Asa’s anniversary the plain-clothes stopped and searched the cars of the people who intended to participate in the ceremony including Mr. Asa’s nephew and threatened them not to participate. They even warned the printing companies which tried to print Mr. Asa’s poster for the ceremony (Kalameh, 30 November 2011). According to Mr. Asa’s mother, unknown people poured acid on his grave stone and set it on fire. The grave stone was a gift from the victim’s friends. The police also uprooted the sapling which was planted on his grave (Roozonle, 18 August, 2010).

Background

Election returns from Iran’s 12 June 2009, presidential election declared Mahmoud Ahmadinejad re-elected with 62.63 percent of the vote. Following the announcement, citizens disputing these official results demonstrated in the streets. Text messaging services were disrupted starting at 11:00 p.m. on the night before the election and remained unavailable for nearly three weeks, until July 1st. On Election Day, the deputy chief of Iranian police announced a ban on any gathering of presidential candidates’ supporters throughout the country. The same evening, security forces made a “show of strength,” increasing their presence in Tehran’s public squares to “reinforce security at polling stations.” Officials at election headquarters began reporting results soon after midnight, despite a statement from the Minister of the Interior that the first returns would not be announced until after the Morning Prayer (around 4:00 a.m.).

Many supporters of other presidential candidates came out into the streets on 13 June , once the results were made public, to protest what they believed to be a fraudulent election. Candidates Mir Hossein Musavi, Mehdi Karubi, and Mohsen Reza’i, Ahmadinejad’s competitors in the race, contested the election, alleging many instances of fraud. They filed complaints with the Council of Guardians, the constitutional body charged with vetting candidates before elections take place and approving the results afterwards, requesting an annulment and calling for a new election. Before the Council of Guardians could review their claims, however, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, congratulated Ahmadinejad on his re-election. In the meantime, many people active in Karubi’s and Musavi’s campaigns were arrested.

On 15 June, unprecedented demonstrations filled the streets of central Tehran. The number of people in attendance was not officially estimated. It was said that up to 3,000,000 people attened the protest. As the demonstrations were ending, paramilitary forces attacked the marchers, injuring and killing several people. To prevent such news from being broadcast, the Iranian government expelled foreign journalists from the country and banned news agencies from reporting on the events. Over the next three days, protesters took part in peaceful demonstrations in Tehran. The repression entered a new phase on 19 June after Ayatollah Khamenei’s Friday sermon, in which he announced his support for Ahmadinejad and warned protestors that they were responsible for any disorder and its consequences. Amnesty International stated that the speech gave “legitimacy to police brutality.” The next day and thereafter, police and plainclothes paramilitary groups attacked the protesters. Public gatherings of any kind were declared illegal, and police, motorcycle-riding special units wearing black uniforms and helmets, and plainclothes agents brutally enforced this restriction.

Individuals in civilian clothing, commonly referred to as plainclothes forces, are used in the Islamic Republic to disrupt political and trade union activities, student events and gatherings, electoral initiatives, and protests. Armed with sticks and clubs, and sometimes with chains, knives, batons, or firearms, they emerge when the state decides to suppress dissent. These plainclothes forces move about freely, violently beating protesters and arresting them, while the police passively look on or actively cooperate with them.

There is little information on the command structure and organization of such groups, whose members wear ordinary clothing rather than official uniforms and may be affiliated with the ministry of information, influential political groups, or the armed forces. Following the post-election demonstrations in June 2009, pictures of some plainclothes agents were posted on internet websites. Internet users helped to identify some of them and provided evidence that these individuals were affiliated with the Basij paramilitary groups, the Revolutionary Guard Corps, and state intelligence forces. On 16 September 2009, a deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guards Corps of the Province of Tehran confirmed the active and decisive role of Basij forces in the repression of the demonstrations, saying, “Basijis, through their presence in recent events, have blinded the eyes of the conspirators, and they should be appreciated… The enemies of Islam wanted to make the air dusty and to exploit the recent events, but thank God, through the enlightenment of the Honorable Leader we were victorious against this conspiracy.” He also emphasized, “The zealous youth of [the] Basij, believers in the Guardianship of the Jurisprudent, are the second and third generations of the Revolution. They have been successful in this stage and victorious on this battlefield.”

When personal property was damaged during the protests, government authorities and state-run radio and television programs accused the demonstrators of vandalism and justified the repression. At the same time, however, footage posted online showed security forces destroying and damaging property on side streets and in uncongested areas away from the protests. Moreover, in a public gathering in Tehran on 20 October, the chief of Iranian police conceded that police had destroyed and damaged property and accepted responsibility for it.

The precise number of citizens injured, killed, or disappeared in the post-election violence is not known. According to various reports, there were hundreds of victims in demonstrations throughout the country. More than seventy names have been reported. It is said that officials have threatened victims’ family members, demanding their silence and that they refrain from giving interviews. Reports also allege that returning a victim’s body to a family has been made conditional upon their agreement to change the cause of death listed on the coroner’s certificate to that of a heart attack or some other natural cause — thus foregoing the right to file a complaint — as well as the family's agreement not to hold memorial services for the loved one.

According to government statements, more than 4,000 people were arrested throughout Iran in the weeks following 12 June. Many have been held at the Kahrizak Detention Center, where prisoners’ rights and minimum hygiene standards were typically ignored. Numerous reports of violence, including the torture and rape of detainees, have been published. State reports and testimonies confirm that a number of detainees at Kahrizak died in custody due to beatings, difficult and unbearable prison conditions, and torture.

_________________________________________________________________________________

(1) Ahle Haq (Yarsan) is a religious minority that the Iranian constitution does not recognize. Its members, living primarily in western Iran and Iraq, are mostly ethnic Kurds and are estimated to be around 1,000,000 people. They are subjected to religious discrimination and prevented from practicing their faith communally.

Abdorrahman Boroumand Center

for Human Rights in Iran

Kianush Asa

About

Case