Omid, a memorial in defense of human rights in Iran
One Person’s Story

Ali Reza Reza'i

About

Age: 24
Nationality: Afghanistan
Religion: Islam (Shi'a)
Civil Status: Single

Case

Date of Execution: September 20, 2015
Location: Azarbaijan-e Gharbi, Iran
Mode of Execution: Death in custody

Human rights violations in this case

The Legal Context

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, 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 to equality before the law and the right to equal protection of the law.

UDHR, Article 7; ICCPR, Article 26.

The right to due process

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

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 the right to legal aid. The right to communicate with one’s attorney in confidence

ICCPR, Article 14.3.b and 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.

  • 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.

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 14.1, Article 14.3.c.

  • The right to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against one, and the right to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on one’s behalf under the same conditions as prosecution witnesses.

ICCPR, Article 14.3.d and 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.

·         The right not to be tried or punished again for an offence for which one has already been

convicted or acquitted.

ICCPR, Article 14.7.

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

Information regarding the death in detention of Mr. Ali Reza Reza’i was taken from three interviews conducted by the Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation with his relative, who was with him until the last moments of his life; with Mr. Ali Hezareh, an Afghan documentary film maker residing in Paris; with Mr. Reza’i’s sister in October of 2015; and the official statement by his family. Additional information was gathered from the websites of RFI on September 26, 2015 and Deutsche Welle Persian on May 13, 2013 and September 14, 2015.

Mr. Reza’i was arrested on September 20, 2015 while crossing the Turkish border illegally along with six others. He died in detention after being led to the border station several hours later.

Mr. Reza’i was born in Tehran into an Afghan family who migrated to Iran in 1979. He was single and 24 years old. He had primary education and lived in Pakdasht near Varamin in Tehran Province until 2004. He then moved to Afghanistan along with his family and resided in Kabul. He left school and began graphic and artistic work and after completing a course in montage, he entered the movie industry. He worked at National Radio and Television in Afghanistan for a period. He also worked at the Afghanistan Cultural House and at an independent cultural center as a sound recordist and director’s assistant. He lost his mother in 2008 and helped his father, who was a well-known metalsmith in Afghanistan and owned a large factory which made safes. They had a factory in Kabul, but when his father died in 2012, Mr. Reza’i experienced the problems facing the industry and his father’s wealth disappeared. He decided to migrate to Europe and re-entered Iran legally.

However, without committing any crime, he was arrested in Orumieh and his passport was cut up. The apparent reason for this was that Afghans were forbidden to enter Azerbaijan-e Gharbi province. He was detained at Sefidsang Camp* for several days under hard condition and then deported to Afghanistan where unfavorable living conditions forced him to migrate once more. Since he could not get another passport to enter Iran legally, he entered illegally over the Zahedan border. He stayed with his sister in Iran for seven months. Finally, due to a lack of work permit and difficulties of life in Iran, he decided again to leave for Europe. (interview with Mr. Ali Hezareh)

Background

Iran has long been host to one of the largest displaced populations in the world due to its 937 kilometer border and common language with a large part of the Afghan population. Millions who fled conflict and repression during the late 1970s and early 1980s when the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan, or during the civil war and especially after the Taliban took power in 1996, left their homeland and mostly fled to Pakistan and Iran.

Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, emphasized hosting Afghans in 1979. Therefore, Iran gave asylum and some assistance to Afghan refugees from 1979 to 1992. However, after the Afghan Mojahedin came to power in 1992, the Iranian government began encouraging and pressuring Afghans to return to Afghanistan through various measures, including the implementation of onerous procedures for renewing refugee papers, refusal to register newly arriving Afghans as refugees, and denial of public services to refugees. As a result, about a million Afghans returned to their homeland in a short period. This policy has continued up to now in spite of increasing Afghan migration caused by dire security condition in Afghanistan since 2008. Authorities arrest undocumented Afghans and detain them in camps assigned for aliens before returning them to their country. Meanwhile, the United Nations offered financial assistance to the Iranian government in order to support minimum living conditions for refugees and their voluntarily return.**

Arrest and detention

Mr. Reza’i was arrested by border patrol agents near the Turkish border while attempting to leave Iran illegally along with a group of his family members on September 20, 2015 at 3:00 A.M. All his companions - including a 10-year-old, a 12-year-old, a 19-year-old girl, and three youngsters aged between 18 and 25 - were arrested and led to the border station. (RFI on September 26, 2015)

According to his companion’s interview and his family’s statement, after hours of mountain climbing and the surprise attack and shooting by the border patrol, Mr. Reza’i felt exhausted and ill. In spite of this, agents forced him and the rest of the group to climb on for another half an hour to reach the border station. When a companion realized that Mr. Reza’i was not feeling well and asked soldiers to rest, agents beat him and Mr. Reza’i. According to his sister, who was among the companions, soldiers subjected Mr. Reza’i to several minutes of fist punches and kicks; one such kick to Reza’i’s chest would prove life-threatening. The severity of beating was such that Mr. Reza’i passed out and laid on the ground with only 100 meters left to go to the station. (interview with ABF)

Death in Detention

Lack of medical attention caused Mr. Reza’i’s heart to beat slowly and ultimately stop. However, following CPR and heart massage performed by a companion, his heart began pumping again and he opened his eyes and breathed. Officials’ indifference and violent reactions to any request for help caused Mr. Reza’i’s death in the border station ten minutes later on September 20, 2015 at 10:00 A.M. (interview with ABF)  

Trial

Mr. Reza’i was never tried.

Charges

The charge against Mr. Reza’i was “illegal border crossing” when arrested.

Evidence of guilt

The report of his death in detention did not provide any evidence against Mr. Reza’i.  

Defense

Mr. Reza’i had no opportunity to defend himself.

Judgment

No ruling was issued against Mr. Ali Reza Reza’i. His body was left on the floor of the border detention center for 6 to 7 hours (RFI, September 26, 2015). Then a police vehicle transferred it to another station in Chaldoran and later to the forensics morgue. Only after the family paid costs were they able to receive his body, which was buried in Emamzadeh Hamzeh Cemetery at Khanunabad in Pakdasht (official statement by Mr. Reza’i’s family). In his death certificate, issued on September 22, 2015, the date of death is written as September 21 and the cause of death as “unknown but possibly due to heart arrhythmia.” (ABF interview)

The Family’s Statements

According to Mr. Reza’i’s sister, when his body was washed in preparation for burial, black and blue marks on his chest and nose and mouth bleeding were evident (ABF interview). According to Mr. Reza’i’s companion, when his family tried to file a complaint with the border patrol a day after his death, the inspector of Branch One of Chaldoran Courthouse told them that agents had done their duties and that the family could not do anything. When the family told him that they didn’t have the money necessary for taking Mr. Reza’i’s body, he told them that he would then be buried in an unknown location. Ultimately, the family had to pay 1.7 million Tumans for an ambulance, forensics costs, and transportation of the body. (ABF interview)

In a statement published on social media several days after his death, Mr. Reza’i’s family described the event and concluded: “From our point of view, the death of Ali Reza Reza’i was a murder. Based on all laws, police are responsible for protecting the life and health of those in custody. The soldiers’ negligence regarding Ali Reza’s physical health, beating him, and depriving him of first aid and denying his request for medical attention caused his death. Those who kicked and beat him up are responsible for his death and must be accountable. 40 minutes passed from the first signs of a problem to his death. It would certainly have been possible for them to provide necessary medical attention.” (official statement by Mr. Reza’i’s family)    

*Shahid Motahari Care Camp in Fariman: This camp is located 30 kilometers from Fariman and 150 kilometers from Mashhad. On average, two thousand illegal aliens enter the camp daily. (website of the Bureau for Aliens and Foreign Immigrants Affairs, July 2, 2015)

**The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that a total of 2.5 million Afghans, including 1.5 million registered Afghan refugees and 1 million undocumented, were living in Iran as of November 2015. The latest governmental statistics, published in May of 2015, indicate that about one million Afghans legally and somewhere between 1 to 1.5 million Afghans illegally live in Iran. Most of them have lived in Iran for a long time, they have married, and worked in difficult jobs such as construction work. Most Afghan refugees live in urban areas and in certain provinces such as Khorasan-e Razavi, Tehran, and Esfahan.

Since 2004, Iran has imposed severe restrictions on freedom of movement for Afghans. Their movement totally in some provinces, and partially in some other provinces, is forbidden. Even though Iran signed the 1951 Refugee Convention, it has imposed some discrimination against Afghan refugees. For example, the Iranian government has made it difficult for many mixed Iranian - Afghan couples to marry, denied citizenship to Afghan husbands of Iranian women, and created barriers to citizenship for the children of such couples. Since 2006, mixed marriages are not recognized officially. Iranian women cannot officially marry Afghan men unless they go through a difficult process.

According to various reports by human rights defenders, some of the discrimination against Afghan migrants includes charging a fee to obtain education for their children, and various excuses by school principals to deny their registration. Afghans are restricted to working in specific professions, all of which are menial and many of which are dangerous, as listed by the Interior Ministry. They cannot obtain driver licenses nor purchase property in their name. Finally, both documented and undocumented Afghans experience a range of abuses, and many who are deported also face police abuse, including violence, theft, unreasonable deportation fees, forced labor during detention prior to deportation, and poor conditions in detention facilities.

Difficult living conditions in Iran forced some Afghans to aim for migrating to Europe through the Turkish border. But they face Iranian control of the border and many obstacles to reaching their goals. For instance, according to the Border Commander of the West Azarbaijan province, about 22 thousand foreign citizens who intended to exit through the West Azarbaijan border, were arrested during the spring and fall of 2015. At least two individuals were shot to death by border patrols.    

Correct This Entry