Abdorrahman Boroumand Center

for Human Rights in Iran

https://www.iranrights.org
Omid, a memorial in defense of human rights in Iran
One Person’s Story

Mohammad Ali Savari

About

Age: 38
Nationality: Iran
Religion: Islam (Sunni)
Civil Status: Married

Case

Date of Killing: September 11, 2007
Location: Karun Prison, Ahvaz, Khuzestan Province, Iran
Mode of Killing: Hanging
Charges: War on God; Actively opposing the Islamic Republic

About this Case

Mr. Savari established the “Imam Ali Fund,” a youth NGO in Ahvaz’s Kut Abdollah region. Giving small loans to vulnerable individuals and conducting Arabic language, Koran, and tutorial classes for poor students, were among this NGO’s activities.

News of Mr. Mohammad Ali Savari’s execution was published in numerous sources, including Amnesty International (September 13, 2007), Ahvaz Human Rights Organization (September 14, 2007), and Radio Farda (September 13, 2007). Quoting the Ahvaz prosecutor, the IRNA and ISNA news agencies published news of the execution of three individuals (September 13, 2007), without mention of their names. Additional information in this regard was obtained in an interview conducted by the Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation (ABF), with a person close to Mr. Savari, and with two individuals accused in the case, which has been referred to as “the Ahvaz bombings case” by Iranian authorities, including a prison mate (ABF interview), as well as from Mr. Savari’s complaint addressing the Revolutionary Court, the Judges’ Disciplinary Court, the letter sent by seven attorneys to the head of the Ahvaz Islamic Revolutionary Tribunal – Branch 3, and from other sources*.

Mr. Mohammad Ali Savari was 38-years-old, was married, and had five children. He had a bachelor’s degree in English Literature and was an English teacher in the city of Ahvaz. In addition to teaching, he worked part-time as a driver in a taxicab agency. He was an ethnic Sunni Arab from Dashte Azadegan who had grown up in a war-torn and poor family, in very difficult circumstances.

Mr. Savari was a calm man, an avid reader, intellectual, humanitarian, and a cultural and social activist in Ahvaz. He was among the first members of “Lajanah Al Wefaq,”**from which he separated when it became the Vefaq Party and continued his cultural activities in the NGO “Shams-e Jonub.” He later established the “Imam Ali Fund,” a youth NGO in Ahvaz’s Kut Abdollah region. Giving small loans to vulnerable individuals, publishing the internal publication “Al-Resalah,” and conducting Arabic language classes, as well as Koran, theater, and tutorial classes for poor students, were among this NGO’s activities. (ABF interview).

He staged a play in Arabic in Ahvaz, having to do with Palestine. He was also trying to produce and stage the Arabic translation of Orwell’s Animal Farm. Along with other ethnic Arab activists of Ahvaz, he organized popular demonstrations on the occasion of Quds Day 2004, in support of Palestine, which were carried out parallel with the government-organized demonstrations, resulting in the security forces’ reactions and threats. These demonstrations were completely Arabic in form and were accompanied by popular and Arabic slogans. (ABF Interview). According to one of his prison mates, Mr. Savari clearly stated that he did not believe in violence at all, but in peaceful struggle.

A short time after Mr. Savari’s arrest, his wife and children, who lived in one of the Ahvaz schools’ custodial lodgings, were evicted by the Ministry of Education. (ABF Interview).

Mr. Savari and his brother, Jafar Savari, along with Abdolreza Navaseri, were the fifth group of Khuzestan Province ethnic Arabs who were executed in Ahvaz, in connection with the 2005 bombings and unrest. The sentence and execution issued for this group of individuals prompted numerous reactions from the attorneys in the case, the Association for the Protection of Prisoners’ Rights, as well as international organizations such as Amnesty International (May 17 and June 29, 2006) and Human Rights Watch (June 26 and November 11, 2006). In a resolution issued on December 19, 2006, the UN General Assembly expressed grave concern about widespread human rights abuses, the use of torture and execution in Iran, and, more particularly, regarding discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities. The open publication of seven of the Ahvaz bombing defendants’ attorneys resulted in their prosecution on the charge of endangering national security in Ahvaz. (ILNA, October 7, 2006). The attorneys’ trial was supported by the UN Special Rapporteurs’ objections. (UN website, January 10, 2007).

Historical Background of the Ahvaz Bombing

Subsequent to the publication of a letter ascribed to a government official concerning systematic modification of the fabric of Khuzestan Province’s ethnic Arab population, demonstrations broke out on Friday, April 15, 2005, in [the city of] Ahvaz, and then in [the town of] Hamidideh. In quashing the demonstrations, security and police forces resorted to violence, which led to the death and injury of dozens of protestors and resulted in the protests and the unrest spreading to a number of other Khuzestan cities, continuing for at least 10 days.*** These protests were the beginning of a series of incidents, including widespread arrests, multiple bombings, and successive executions in Ahvaz. For instance, a series of bombings followed on June 12 and October 15, 2005, and on January 24 and February 27, 2006, in various regions of Ahvaz, Abadan, and Dezful. These bombings were carried out in front of government buildings and in public places and left in their wake more than 20 dead and dozens injured.****According to government sources, other bombings (targeting oil pipelines and non-residential regions around Ahvaz) occurred at the end of summer and in the fall of 2005, which did not leave any casualties.

In response to the Ahvaz bombings, security forces arrested dozens of the region’s ethnic Arab individuals, charging them with participation in the bombings. They were then kept in solitary confinement cells, for months, at the Information Ministry’s Detention Center. People being held were subjected to torture, in order to confess having taken part in the bombings. According to the Ahvaz Prosecutor, ultimately a total of four cases were opened at the Revolutionary Court, Special Branch, and at least 45 individuals were charged. Dozens of these individuals were tried in closed sessions and were sentenced to death by the Revolutionary Court. At least 20 of these sentences were carried out. Dozens of other Arab citizens were given long-term sentences.

Government officials never accepted that these bombings had internal reasons which had arisen following the Khuzestan incidents. In multiple, and sometimes contradictory, statements, political and judicial authorities imputed responsibility to groups opposing [the Islamic Republic], including, “Those loyal to the previous regime and residing in England;” “Fugitive SAVAK (the Shah’s security and intelligence apparatus) members, and family members of the destroyed Monafeqin (MKO);” “Wahabis;” “secessionists;” and/or to groups affiliated with the UK and other foreign countries. The Iranian government officially accused the UK of involvement in the bombings and declared that the bombers had been trained in Iraq, in regions under British army control, where they had acquired their arms and explosives. In one such statement, then-President Mahmud Ahmadinejad spoke of the clear and obvious footprint of Iraq’s occupiers in the Khuzestan incidents. (ISNA, January 25, 2006). The British government officially denied these accusations and expressed its concern regarding such statements made by Iranian officials. (BBC, November 1, 2005).

The televised confessions of a number of those arrested were broadcast several times on local TV and on Iran’s English language, Press TV. In one of these programs, broadcast on local TV on November 13, 2006, 10 of these individuals declared themselves to be members of “Katibeh Shohadaye Mohiuddin Al Nasser,” (“Mohiuddin Al Nasser Martyrs Brigade,”) or (the military wing of the Al-Nazal movement). No group officially accepted responsibility for the Ahvaz bombings. However, a video recording was distributed in the name of Katibeh Shohadaye Mohiuddin Al Nasser and “Harakat Al-Nazal Al-Arabi Le-Tahrir Al-Ahvaz (“Ahvaz Arabic Liberation Movement”), showing some of the bombings, including the explosion in front of the Natural Resources Organization building and oil pipeline explosions. At a later time, Harakat Al-Nazal officially accepted responsibility for some of the oil pipeline explosions.

Arrest and Detention

Information agents arrested Mr. Savari on September 2, 2005.***** (ABF Interview). According to a person close to him, he was kept in solitary confinement at the hidden detention center of Ahvaz’s Information Administration. During that time, he constantly underwent physical and psychological torture. Information agents had also arrested his brothers Hamzeh and Jafar and were searching to arrest his young son, Jasem. Coerced by information agents, Mr. Savari contacted his family and asked that his eldest son, who was being sought by security forces, turn himself into the authorities. In order to find out where Mr. Savari’s son was hiding, and to put pressure on him, security agents even detained the elder of their tribe for a short time.

According to a person close to Mr. Savari, who was visiting with his family in Karun Prison, he recounted that Mr. Savari had repeatedly been tortured while in the Ahvaz Information Administration detention center,in order to make false confessions.

According to a person close to Mr. Savari, who was visiting with his family in Karun Prison, he recounted that Mr. Savari had repeatedly been tortured while in the Ahvaz Information Administration detention center, in order to make false confessions. On one occasion, he had been flogged so severely that he had fainted after bleeding from the head. He was not able to sleep on his back for days. (ABF Interview).

For about a month prior to his trial, Mr. Savari was briefly transferred to the detention center of the Shiraz Intelligence Office. During the ten months he spent at the Information Administration detention center, he was only allowed one visitation with his family. Pressure from the Information Administration interrogators continued, even after judgment was rendered in his case, and he was transferred to Karun Prison. He was returned to the Information Administration detention center many times for questioning, with various excuses and for whatever incident that occurred in prison. One of these transfers was prompted by Mr. Savari, and a number of other prisoners’ celebration of the Jordanian national soccer team’s victory over Iran. (ABF Interview).

Mr. Savari was learning French and Russian while at Karun Prison. When, at his request, his family had brought him French and Russian dictionaries, prison authorities ridiculed them, saying such things as, “Why would a prisoner with a death sentence want to learn French and Russian.” (ABF Interview).

Trial

On May 23, 2006, the Ahvaz Revolutionary Court, Branch Three, tried Mr. Savari and a number of the other individuals accused in this case; the session took a single day, was closed [to the public], and there were no witnesses. Mr. Javad Tariri, who represented Mr. Mohammad Ali Savari, had not been able to meet with his client prior to trial, nor had he been able to read the case file. (Defense attorneys’ letter to the Court). Until the court session, itself, was held, Mr. Savari had no knowledge of the trial; the session had taken place without the other defendants in the presence of the Ministry of Information representative. (Mr. Savari’s complaint to the Judges’ Disciplinary Court).

According to the head of the Association for the Protection of Prisoners’ Rights, attorneys for the defense had not seen their clients until the day of the trial, having to ask that they identify themselves to make sure that they were, indeed, their clients. (Radio Farda, June 21, 2006).

Charges

The charges against Mr. Mohammad Ali Savari were “Moharebeh” (“waging war against God”), and “acting against national security.” (Mr. Savari’s complaint to the Judges’ Disciplinary Court, September 14, 2006). In their letter to the Court, the attorneys in the case stated that their clients were being tried for armed uprising. (Defense attorneys’ letter to the Court). Promoting Wahabism was another charge. Mr. Savari had repeatedly been interrogated on the charge of promoting Wahabism for choosing the name Omar for his son. (ABF Interview).

The validity of the criminal charges brought against this defendant cannot be ascertained in the absence of the basic guarantees of a fair trial.

Evidence

There is no precise information regarding evidence presented at trial, nor have Iranian authorities and media published any details or evidence in the case. According to Mr. Savari, the judge “had made no mention of objective witnesses and/or objective or subjective evidence that constituted the basis for the charges.” (Mr. Savari’s complaint to the Judges’ Disciplinary Court).

Defense

Mr. Savari and his attorney objected to the charges and the manner in which the trial was conducted. Objecting to the illegality of the proceedings, Mr. Tariri, Mr. Savari’s attorney, left the courtroom in protest. (ABF Interview). In a letter to the Ahvaz Revolutionary Court, Mr. Savari objected to the lack of legal representation at the lower court and stated:  “I did not deny the charges against me in said court, which are not supported by any type of evidence, whatsoever, because of the pressure from the Ministry of Information regarding confessions, and due to psychological stress resulting from extreme physical and psychological torture.” (Letter to the Ahvaz Revolutionary Court).

“I did not deny the charges against me in said court, which are not supported by any type of evidence, whatsoever, because of the pressure from the Ministry of Information regarding confessions, and due to psychological stress resulting from extreme physical and psychological torture.”

In an open letter to the head of the Ahvaz Revolutionary Court, Branch Three, Mr. Tariri and six other attorneys in the case objected to the course of the proceedings, stating that they had been apprised of the trial date only one or two days prior to such date, at most, whereas the law requires that they be so informed at least five days in advance. They further stated that they had not had the time to read, study, and take notes of 800 pages of case files in such a short period. Further, that in spite of repeated written and oral requests, the court had not authorized them to meet privately with their clients and that trial sessions had been conducted individually, without the other defendants and their attorneys present, which was against the law. The defense attorneys declared that, “… in the event that their legal requests are not granted, they would leave the courtroom in protest of the unethical and non-judicial manner of adjudication.” (Attorneys, letter).

On September 14, 2006, Mr. Savari filed a complaint with the Judges’ Disciplinary Court against the head of the Ahvaz Revolutionary Court, Branch Three, for “breach or non-compliance with the legal requirements and judicial regulations regarding trial substance and procedure.” In his complaint, he asked that the judge’s clear disregard for legal requirements be investigated and analyzed, especially in the following instances:

“First: Before sitting in front of the judge at trial, I had no idea where I was and for what reason, because I had not received prior notification of a trial or any such thing. The honorable judge had either no knowledge of this, or had not attached any importance thereto, and had not informed me of my trial rights and issues.

Second: When he (the judge) found out that, from the moment I had been arrested until that very moment, I had not met with my attorney, even for an instant. He denied my attorney’s request to hold a confidential or non-confidential meeting with me, prior to the trial, and has thus deprived me of my right to counsel.

Third: I appeared before the judge by myself and in the absence of the other defendants and did not understand the notion of “Moharebeh” and other legal concepts and therefore did not know how to defend myself. The judge did not provide any explanation or justification in that regard.

Fourth: I did not know who my co-defendants were, and I had not seen them. Even during trial I did not meet them. It was only upon going to prison, and that’s after the trial, that I met them and learned of their names, charges, and sentences.

Fifth: I was fearful of the presence of the representative of the Ministry of Information in the courtroom. I therefore did not trust the judge, whom I considered to be an Information interrogator, or the court, which I considered to be an arm of the Ministry [of Information]. [I believed] that my statements in my own defense would be used against me, as they had been in the course of the investigations conducted by the Ministry of Information.

Sixth: The honorable judge did not provide any explanation whatsoever regarding his guilty finding, nor about how and why the charges had been brought against me [in the first place], based on what witness testimony, and what objective or subjective evidence. He simply did not consider it important; the court session was merely an interrogation and a question and answer session.” (Mr. Savari’s complaint to the Judges’ Disciplinary Court, September 14, 2006).

In spite of having been officially registered, this complaint was never looked into. (ABF Interview).

The families of six of the defendants, including Mr. Savari’s, considered the charge of “bombing” (brought against their children) to be without basis and a fabrication. On August 7, 2006, they lodged a complaint in the Khuzestan Judiciary against the editors of the Rooznameh Rasmi (the Iranian Official Gazette), the ISNA news agency, the Iran news agency, the Ruzan newpaper, the Nur-e Khuzestan newspaper, and the Karun newspaper, alleging defamation, slander, and spreading rumors. The complaint stated that “our children have been condemned to death for acting against national security, whereas these press media have accused our children of bombing, which is a completely baseless lie and a fabrication, meant to destroy our – families of the defendants – reputation.” (Mr. Savari’s complaint to the Judges’ Disciplinary Court)

Mr. Baqi objected to the fact that a 28- or 30–year-old judge, without sufficient [and proper] education [and experience] was given the power to decide whether the defendants lived or died. He emphasized that, even applying accepted legal and religious norms of the Islamic Republic itself, such death sentences should not have been issued.

In a letter to the chief of the Judiciary, the head of the Organization for the Defense of Prisoners’ Rights objected to the sentences issued for ten of the defendants, including Mr. Savari (Emadeddin Baqi, June 15, 2006). In an interview with the BBC, Mr. Baqi pointed to letters in the prisoners’ own handwritings, stamped by the prison, in which they have declared that they were forced to confess under duress. (Morning Show, June 26, 2006). In another interview, with ILNA, Mr. Baqi objected to the fact that a 28- or 30–year-old judge, without sufficient [and proper] education [and experience] was given the power to decide whether the defendants lived or died. He emphasized that, even applying accepted legal and religious norms of the Islamic Republic itself, such death sentences should not have been issued. (ILNA, June 25, 2006).

Three U.N. Special Rapporteurs sent two letters to Islamic Republic officials in August and in November 2006, demanding clarifications regarding the Ahvaz bombing defendants’ claims of torture and unfair trial. The government did not, however, reply to these letters. (U.N. Human Rights website, January 10, 2007).Three of the individuals accused in the Ahvaz bombing case testified, in an interview with the Boroumand Foundation, that the prison guards, in bombing cases, applied severe physical and psychological torture, in order to elicit incriminating confessions about themselves and the other accused individuals.

Judgment

On June 6, 2006, the Ahvaz Revolutionary Court, Branch Three, sentenced Mr. Mohammad Ali Savari to death. This sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court in July-August. (Human Rights Watch, November 11, 2006).

On September 11, 2007, Mr. Savari was hanged in Karun Prison, along with his brother, Jafar Savari, and Abdolreza Navaseri. One week before the sentence was carried out, prison authorities told his family to come out for a last visitation. Informed of the news, a large crowd gathered outside Karun Prison, demanding the sentence not be carried out. Ultimately, a prison official appeared before the crowd and informed them that Mr. Savari’s death sentence had been abrogated. One week later, when the family went to prison for weekly visitations, prison officials told them that their son had been executed the night before. (ABF Interview).

According to one of Mr. Savari’s prison mates, the officials took his personal effects on the eve of his execution and transferred him to a solitary confinement cell. On his way to solitary confinement, Mr. Savari chanted, “We will sacrifice our body and soul for you from Ahvaz” in Arabic. (ABF Interview).

Mr. Savari’s body was not turned over to his family. Mourning rituals continued for a week, until the body was relinquished to the family. Ultimately, on September 17, Mr. Savari’s body was interred in Mollasani Cemetery in the Veiss region, far from the city of Ahvaz, and in the presence of his brother and security agents. Subsequent to the burial, security agents did not allow Mr. Savari’s family to hold an official wake for him.

-------------------------------

*Sources
IRNA (March 1, 2006 and September 13, 2007), ISNA (September 13, 2007), ILNA (June 25, July 25, October 7, and November 18, 2006), Radio France (February 15, 2007), Radio Farda (June 15 and 21, 2006), BBC Parsian (June 21 and 26, 2006 and September 13, 2007), Padmaz (April 12, 2014), Amnesty International (May 17, June 29, November 13, and December 24, 2006), Amnesty International (January 10, January 15, and September 13, 2007), U.N. Human Rights website (January 10, 2007), Human Rights Watch (June 26 and November 11, 2006, and February 15, 2007), Rooz Online (November 20, 2006), Ahwaz News Agency (February 13 and September 14, 2007), Emadoddin Baqi Website (June 15, 18, 21, 23 and 26, 2006), Iran Newspaper (March 2, 2007), and the Kayhan Newspaper(July 30, 2006).

**“Vefaq Eslami Party (Lajanah Al Wefaq)”
“Lajanah Al Wefaq” was formed in the late 1990’s with emphasis on the Arab identity and the rights of Khuzestan’s ethnic Arab population. In its first congress on January 9, 2002, it officially declared its existence in Ahvaz under the name “Hezb-e Vefaq-e Eslami” (“Islamic Unity Party”) (Al Wefaq), and an Arab member of the Majles (Iranian Parliament), Representative Qasem Shadidzadeh, became the party’s secretary general. Vefaq declared itself a reformist party, “whose main objective is to institutionalize democracy in a civil and multicultural society that respects the dignity of all human beings, regardless of their race or religion.” Vefaq’s platform alludes to the revival of ethnic identity; ending ethnic, economic, and cultural discrimination; cooperation with progressive parties and convergence with other ethnic groups in Iran, in order to solve the national issue; implementation of heretofore not implemented constitutional principles, especially Principle 15; active participation of political experts in political, economic, and cultural posts and capacities; fighting backward social customs that are remnants of tribal medieval thinking in Khuzestan’s Arab population; and emphasizing the important place and the participation of women in political and social affairs.
The Vefaq Party conducted cultural activities in Khuzestan’s Arab regions. It succeeded in winning one of Ahvaz’s three parliamentary seats in the Sixth Majles elections, and in winning 8 of 9 seats on the Ahvaz City Council in the second city council elections in 2002-2003. In 2003-2004, a section of the Party branched off to form “Hezb-e Afaq-e Eslami” (”Islamic Horizons Party”). All of the Party’s candidates were ruled ineligible to stand for the seventh Majles elections or for the third city council elections. On November 4, 2006, subsequent to the 2005 protests and unrest in Khuzestan, the Ahvaz Prosecutor’s Office considered the Vefaq Party’s activities to be “in opposition to the holy regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and to be geared toward creating conflict and tension among people, especially between the Arab and non-Arab populations,” and declared the Party illegal, further stating that membership in the Party, or of any connection to it, would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

*** A Summary of the Khuzestan Protests on April 2005
Subsequent to the publication of a letter dated July 24, 1998, ascribed to then-President Khatami’s Chief of Staff, Mohammad Ali Abtahi, demonstrations protesting the letter broke out on Friday, April 15, 2005, first in [the city of] Ahvaz, and then in other cities, such as Mahshahr and Hamidideh, and continued for several days. The letter emphasized the modification of Khuzestan Province’s ethnic Arab population through promotion and encouragement of the migration of non-native populations to the province, [thus] reducing Khuzestan’s Arab population to one third of the total population of the province. Although the government’s spokesperson officially denied [the existence of] this letter on Saturday, April 16, the demonstrations that had been called for by the “Coordination Committee for Popular Protests in Ahvaz” continued extensively in the coming days. In calling for demonstrations, [the organizers] highlighted various factors, including “the central government’s policies in expropriating Arab farmers’ lands for various projects such as sugar cane development,” and “marginalization of, as well as profound discontent among, Khuzestan’s Arab [population], as a result of the regime’s efforts to obliterate Arab identity.”
The demonstrations that had started in Kui-e Alavi (Shelangabad /Da’ereh), one of [the city of] Ahvaz’s poor neighborhoods, quickly spread to the center of Ahvaz and to the cities of Mahshahr and Hamidieh. Citing Ahvaz News (a regional news organization) and eyewitnesses at the scene, the Ahvaz Human Rights Organization’s bulletin, dated April 15, 2005, stated, “Around three thousand Arab people of Ahvaz have gathered together and started extensive but peaceful demonstrations in Kordovani Street and Square, along with thousands of others in neighborhoods such as Shelangabad, Malashieh, Ameri, and Kut Abdollah, among others. Security forces are attacking the demonstrators, first with tear gas, and are subsequently firing on them in Da’ereh and Malashieh neighborhoods.” The degree of violence resorted to by security and police forces in quashing the demonstrations was such that it led to the death of a number of protestors. Dozens more were injured. Subsequent to these deaths, the intensity and magnitude of the protests increased. In a number of towns, demonstrators proceeded to cut off roads and to occupy government buildings and police posts. These protests continued for ten days in many Arab regions of Khuzestan. Protestors demanded a government apology to the region’s Arabs. Official government sources, quoting the Islamic Republic’s Defense Minister, announced the death toll as standing at three or four. (ISNA, April 19, 2005) Civil society activists, however, declared the number of people killed during these events to be between 50 and 60. Amnesty International stated the number as 29; Human Rights Watch, 50; and the Ahvaz Human Rights Organization, 160. Dozens of others were injured. The Ahvaz General and Revolutionary Prosecutor’s Office announced the arrest and arraignment of 447 individuals. (IRNA, April 25, 2005) Local sources, however, announced the number as being greater than 1200. A number of intellectuals and ethnic leaders were among those arrested. Although the demonstrations subsided after ten days, widespread arrests, multiple bombings, successive executions, and popular protests continued on various occasions, including the anniversary of the events.

****Ahvaz Bombings in 2005 and 2006:
June 12, 2005:  Four explosions occurred in front of the Governor’s building, the Planning and Budget Organization building, the Housing and Urban Development Organization building, and in a residential neighborhood, leaving at least 8 dead and 98 injured.
September 1, 2005:  The bombing of oil installations and two pipelines in the Zargan region of Ahvaz.
October 15, 2005:  Two explosions occurred prior to Iftar, in the month of Ramadan, at two locations on Salman Farsi (Naderi) Street, leaving at least 6 dead and 100 injured.
January 24, 2006:  Bombings at Saman Bank --  in the Kianpars neighborhood of Ahvaz and at the Khuzestan Province Natural Resources General Administration building --  left at least 6 dead and 45 injured (certain reports indicating 8 or 9 dead).
February 27, 2006:  Bombings at the Governor’s buildings in the cities of Dezful and Abadan left 4 injured.
*****Amnesty International announced the arrest date to have been around November 4, 2005. (Amnesty International, May 17, 2006).

Correct/ Complete This Entry