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

Abbas Sahra’i


Age: 27
Nationality: Iran
Religion: Presumed Muslim
Civil Status: Single


Date of Execution: April 13, 2017
Location: Arak, Markazi Province, Iran
Mode of Execution: Hanging
Charges: Murder
Age at time of offense: 27

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 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.

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

News of Mr. Abbas Sahra’i’s execution was published on April 13, 2017, in the Markazi Province Judiciary’s website and by the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB). Additional information about this case was obtained from ISNA (April 12, 2017) and IRNA (January 11, 2017, and March 7, 2017) news agencies and from other sources.*

Mr. Abbas Sahra’i was 27 years old, single, and resided in the city of Arak. He had a criminal record for having participated in a scuffle that had led to a killing in which he had played no role. Mr. Sahra’i had spent a year in Arak prison for that scuffle, and at the time of the incident he had been released from prison for just 10 days by posting a 200-million-Tuman bond.

Mr. Abbas Sahra’i’s case is related to the murder of 6 individuals in Arak.

Based on available information, on the morning of January 11, 2017, between 5 and 7 AM, an individual armed with a Kalashnikov fired a few shots in his own home and then went to two homes in Football Si-metri neighborhood (Ali ebn-e Abitaleb neighborhood) and Taleqani Street in Arak, and opened fire on the residents, immediately killing five and injuring four people. One of the injured died at the hospital. According to the Judiciary’s announcement, the individuals killed in the first home consisted of a police officer who had played a role in arresting the defendant the previous year and his family. The second family was the parents of the murder victim.

Arrest and detention

Mr. Abbas Sahra’i was arrested Wednesday night, January 11, 2017, by police officers on a street in the city of Arak. Reports of 2 shootings had been received by the Police 110 Emergency Center that morning. Announcing that they had arrested a suspect, the police said they were in the planning stages of arresting the principle defendant. Mr. Sahra’i’s picture and personal information were broadcast on the Province television network as the perpetrator, in order to be positively identified by the people. Based on available information, Mr. Sahra’i was turned over to the Arak Criminal Investigations Bureau upon arrest in order to be interrogated.


On Tuesday, March 7, 2017, Markazi Province Criminal Court, Branch One, located at Markazi Province Judiciary building on Hepco Street in Arak, tried Mr. Abbas Sahra’i and his brother as Defendants Number 1 and 2, respectively. The two defendants’ court-appointed attorneys, the [victims’] next of kin, one of the injured individuals, the plaintiffs’ attorneys, and a group of reporters were present in the courtroom. Based on available information, the trial session started at 9 AM. Upon informing the defendants of the charges against them and questioning the latter, the next of kin spoke as the plaintiffs. According to the Markazi Province Criminal Court, Branch One chief judge, the defendants were given ample opportunity to defend themselves. After a one hour recess, the Court issued its ruling in that same session.


The Judge declared Mr. Abbas Sahra’i’s charges as being “6 counts of intentional murder, carrying and possession of firearms, endangering public order and security.”

Evidence of guilt

Among the evidence presented against Mr. Sahra’i was the Medical Examiner’s confirmation of the killing of 6 individuals in two residences as a result of firing with a Kalashnikov weapon in Si-metri Football neighborhood (Ali ebn-e Abitaleb neighborhood) and Taleqani Street. One of the injured individuals was present in court as an eyewitness. Mr. Abbas Sahra’i’s statements as well as his brother’s, who was the other defendant in the case, were also presented as evidence against him.

Mr. Sahra’i admitted that he had shot the victims. His brother declared that at Mr. Sahra’i’s request, he had purchased a Kalashnikov weapon along with 105 rounds of ammunition with four million five hundred thousand Tumans of his brother’s money, and had taken delivery of the weapon from the seller in front of their home.

At the trial session, Mr. Abbas Sahra’i stated that he had hidden the weapon in the mountains upon his release, and had brought it home on the day of the event, and when his brother and mother had objected and tried to prevent him from going to the victims’ home, he had warned them not to follow him by firing a few shots, and had left the house armed with the weapon.

“The weapon that was procured was a Kalashnikov along with 105 rounds of ammunition, for which I paid four million five hundred thousand Tumans of my brother’s money, four million of which was paid in cash, and five hundred thousand Tumans was paid through debit card transfer to the seller’s debit card, at which time the seller delivered the weapon to me in Arak in front of our home.”


Based on available information, because of the [authority’s decision] to quickly take this case to trial, Mr. Abbas Sahra’i did not have the opportunity to hire an attorney of his choosing and had to accept the court-appointed lawyer.

In court, Mr. Sahra’i stated: “I admit to killing 6 members of these 2 families, but I did not endanger public order.” Stating that the family of the previous year’s scuffle’s murder victim had insulted and disrespected his mother, whereas he had played no role in last year’s murder, he added: “Now that same family claims I’m not a man. I defended my honor. If the standard is to carry out justice, then justice must decide my fate as well. I accept everything I’ve done but I ask for justice in this particular case.” Stating that he intended to ask the previous year’s murder victim’s family for forgiveness upon release from prison, he noted that during the trials for the previous year’s murder, one of the victims had told him: “I will murder you if you set foot outside prison.” He further added: “The family disrespected my mother and beat her up. My father had a heart attack, and he had just visited me 2 weeks prior to his heart attack and was physically healthy.” He alluded to one of the murder victims and said: “He, and last year’s murder victim’s son, kept guns in their home and since he had threatened me, I couldn’t fight guns with sticks; and that was the reason I procured a firearm; I did not intend to commit murder with it.”

Emphasizing that his family was not safe during his incarceration, Mr. Sahra’i said: “My mother did not feel safe in my absence and she and my brother were repeatedly persecuted by this family. This family had threatened my younger brother several times and had even broken his car windows.”

Emphasizing that he had not intended to kill all the victims, Mr. Sahra’i said: “I went to the intended house in a rented Pride [automobile] and the murder victim opened the door after I rang the bell; with my gun pulled out in his direction, I told him to go upstairs so I could talk to him and told him to tell his wife not to come in if she was home, because I did not intend to bother anyone. However, the victim suddenly lunged at me and I inadvertently fired my weapon. After he was shot, his mother came toward me and I started firing at them and I don’t remember in what order, but I shot five of them.” The defendant continued: “I had thought that this family would persecute my mother and that was why I asked the victim to give me some time to move our home to Tehran so that my family could be safe. But this individual denied my request and did not give me the opportunity, and assisted in my arrest.”

Further stating that he intended to marry another one of the victims last year, he said: “She had had issues with her brother for years and I only agreed to marry her in order to help out his brother who had been a friend of mine for years, but in spite of my having procured the material things to start a life together, I was betrayed again.”

In describing the second incident, Mr. Sahra’i said: “First, I rang the bell, and even though I had covered my face with a shawl, the owner of the house saw me through the window and recognized me. When he came to the door to talk, I told him that a real man does not bother and persecute a woman. Then the person who had opened the door screamed ‘Don’t come downstairs’ because he had seen my gun. Then I fired on those people.”

Defendant Number 2 admitted the charge of procuring the weapon and stated that his confessions against Mr. Sahra’i were obtained under pressure from the investigating judge. At trial, he explained one of the murder victim’s family relations with the previous year’s murder victim and stated: “Both individuals had guns and the victim had repeatedly threatened my brother and in the last trial (of the previous case) he had overtly declared that they would persecute my mother; they persecuted me repeatedly in the street, so much so that I rarely even left the house, but because of the friendship we had, we abstained from bringing charges. But the persecution along with threatening text messages continued. When my brother was told of my mother being persecuted, he decided to take revenge.”

Regarding the financial issues between Mr. Abbas Sahra’i and the family of the murder victim Mr. Sahra’i intended to marry, he stated: “They had had some cash and other types of dealings; for instance, I personally delivered some of the household items and a gold necklace that he had bought for the victim, myself.”


Mr. Abbas Sahra’i was sentenced to death 6 times (6 Qesas of life), in public, to be carried out in the Ali ebn-e Abitaleb neighborhood, 8 years imprisonment, and 74 lashes. In spite of his objection to the sentence, Supreme Court Branch 19 upheld the ruling. Mr. Abbas Sahra’i was hanged in public on April 13, 2017, in Arak’s Ali ebn-e Abitaleb neighborhood.

Correct/ Complete This Entry