Mohammad Esma'il Qasemi: One Person’s Story

Human rights violations in this case

The Courts

Islamic Revolutionary Courts, 11 February 1979-1994

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

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

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

Islamic Revolutionary Courts, 1994-2002

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

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

2. defaming Ayatollah Khomeini and the Supreme Leader;

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

4. espionage;

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

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

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

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

Islamic Revolutionary Courts, 2002-Present

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

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

The Appellate System of Revolutionary Courts, 1979-Present

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

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

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

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

General Courts, 1979-1982

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

General Courts, 1982-1994

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

General Courts, 1994-2002

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

General Courts, 2002-2015

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

General Courts, 2015 to Today

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

The Appellate System of General Courts, 1979-Present

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special Courts for the Clergy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Military Courts

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

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

The Appellate System of Military Courts, 1979-Present

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

The judges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Human rights violations

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

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

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 3; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 9.1.

The right not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honor and reputation.

UDHR, Article 12, ICCPR, Article 17.1.

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 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.

Judgment rights

The right to seek pardon or commutation of sentence.

ICCPR, Article 6.4.

Capital punishment

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

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 3; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 6.1; Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, Article 1.1, Article 1.2.

The right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.

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

About this Case

who distributed foreign currency in the market as a trustee of the Central Bank, was charged with corruption and disruption of the country’s financial, tried and executed in an extremely hasty fashion.

News of the execution of Mr. Mohammad Esma’il Qasemi, child of Gholamali, along with another individual (Mr. Vahid Mazlumin), was published in Tehran General and Revolutionary Prosecutor’s Office News Website on November 14, 2018. Additional information about this case was obtained from Mizan News Agency (October 5, 2018, and November 14 and 15, 2018), Fars News Agency (November 28, 2018), and Mehr News Agency (November 14, 2018) websites.

Mr. Qasemi was born on 1973, and resided in Tehran. Since 1994, he was in the business of buying and selling foreign currency and gold coins under the nickname of “Mohammad Salem.” In 2011 and 2012-13, he distributed imported foreign currency from Dubai in the market as a trustee of the Central Bank (Mizan News Agency- November 14, 2018).

Mr. Qasemi had been summoned once in 2012, as one of the principal elements and agents of disruption and disarray in the country’s currency system. However, the Central Bank intervened on his behalf and announced that he was an agent and contact of the Central Bank; he was thus acquitted of the charges against him (Mizan News Agency- October 5, 2018 and Mehr News Agency).

Mr. Qasemi was in the business of buying and selling foreign currency and gold coins under the nickname of “Mohammad Salem.”

Mr. Qasemi’s case was related to financial crimes committed in 2018 in Tehran.

Arrest and detention

There is no information about the details of Mr. Qasemi’s arrest and detention.

Trial

Tehran Islamic Revolutionary Court, Branch Two, reserved for cases of financial corruption, tried Mr. Qasemi and 14 other individuals in the case. The first trial session convened at 10 AM on Saturday, September 8, 2018. The trial was public and the defendants’ attorneys were in attendance (Tehran General and Revolutionary Prosecutor’s Office News Website, Mizan News Agency, Mehr News Agency). No further information is available on other trail sessions.

Charges

Mr. Qasemi’s charge was “Efsad fel-Arz (“spreading corruption on Earth”) through establishing and heading a network of corruption and disruption of the country’s financial, foreign currency, and monetary system, by performing illegal and unauthorized transactions and wholesale traffic of currency from the country on a large scale” (Court Decision issued by the Special Tribunal for Financial Corruption, Branch Two, Fars News Agency).

According to the Court Decision issued against Mr. Qasemi, he was one of the closest people to Mr. Vahid Mazlumin, the principal individual of a network called the “Vahid Mazlumin Network”, which engaged in large scale sale and purchase of foreign currency and gold coins. About 170,000 transactions had been carried out in 219 bank accounts in this network, reportedly totaling 14 thousand billion tumans. According to official reports, the members of this network had inflamed the foreign currency and gold coin markets through wholesale and large scale transactions on paper and futures transactions. One of the other actions they had engaged in was illegally taking funds out of the country (Tehran General and Revolutionary Prosecutor’s Office News Website).

According to the Court, Mr. Qasemi was very close to the principal individual of a network called the “Vahid Mazlumin Network”, which engaged in large scale sale and purchase of foreign currency and gold coins.

Mr. Qasemi was accused of “engaging in the traffic of foreign currency and hence causing major disruptions and chaos in the country’s monetary and foreign currency systems, in spite of the fact that he knew full well what economic conditions the country was in and what crises, issues, and hardships had been caused by sanctions and the resulting shortage of the country’s currency sources. He did this in spite of several prior arrests, and knowing full well the criminal nature of his actions and the destructive consequences of his illegal activities, and knowing full well the effectiveness such actions had in opposing and undermining the Islamic Republic of Iran. Individuals who have been investigated have unanimously alluded to Vahid Mazlumin’s “rente” (French word, in its current usage in Persian meaning “abuse of privileged position, situation, and information for financial gain”) and his relations with the officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Central Bank and/or certain government officials” (Court Decision issued by the Special Tribunal for Financial Corruption, Branch Two, Fars News Agency).

The validity of the criminal charges brought against these defendants cannot be ascertained in the absence of the basic guarantees of a fair trial. International human rights organizations have drawn attention to reports indicating that Islamic Republic authorities have brought trumped-up charges against their political opponents and executed them for alleged drug trafficking, sexual, and other criminal offences. Each year Iranian authorities sentence to death hundreds of alleged common criminals, following judicial processes that fail to meet international standards. The exact number of people convicted based on trumped-up charges is unknown.

Evidence of guilt

According to the Court Decision convicting Mr. Qasemi, the evidence used against him was:

1- A Central Bank report dated February 8, 2018, in which 10 individuals responsible for the disruption of the country’s foreign currency system, including several of the defendants in the case, had been named;

2- A Tehran Criminal Investigations Police report dated September 18, 2018, regarding Mr. Mazlumin’s and the other defendants’ network and organized activities that had resulted in a major disruption of the foreign currency market;

3- A Tehran Criminal Investigations Police report dated August 7, 2018, stating that more than 50 lines (equal to fifty million dollars) of paper transactions and 20 lines (equivalent to 20 million dollars) in cash transactions were made by Mr. Qasemi;

4- Preliminary and additional reports of the Information Ministry dated September 12, and September 22, 2018, detailing the connections between Mr. Mazlumin and the group under his management with more than 110 currency exchange businesses, indicating this organized group’s unauthorized large scale activities and transactions;

5- A Tehran Criminal Investigations Police report dated September 18, 2018, detailing the opening of fake bank accounts and conducting major wire transfers in rials through these accounts by enticing and bribing a number of past and present branch managers; and

6- The defendants’ admissions and statements (Court Decision issued by the Special Tribunal for Financial Corruption, Branch Two, Fars News Agency).

The adjudication of Mr. Mazlumin’s case was unusually expeditious: It took only 43 days from the first trial session until the lower court’s ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Defense

The adjudication of Mr. Qasemi’s case was unusually expeditious: It took only 43 days from the first trial session until the lower court’s ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court. The reason for this haste was the Head of the Judiciary Branch’s request made to the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic to allow the cases of those who cause disruptions and disarray in the country’s financial system to be treated as extraordinary cases and be adjudicated speedily, and to prohibit any suspension or reduction of sentence for such defendants. The Leader of the Islamic Republic granted that request and stressed that the punishments of financial criminals be carried out expeditiously (Mehr News Agency).

Pursuant to said order, Mr. Qasemi’s case was decided while some of the defendants were still fugitives from the law and the Central Bank’s role and the role of the Bank’s Herassat (“Protection”) wing was still unclear. Furthermore, the Court Decision expressly admitted that “in the opinion of this Court, many of the accounts have not been identified thus far and further investigations and analysis is required” (Fars News Agency).

There is no information regarding the details of Mr. Qasemi’s defense.

A Summary of the Legal Defects in the Adjudication of Mr. Mohammad Esma’il Qasemi’s Case

1- According to the Court Decision issued by the Tehran Islamic Revolutionary Court, Branch Two, reserved for cases of financial corruption, pursuant to Islamic Penal Code Article 286, and to the Law for the Punishment of Disruptors of the Financial System, Articles 1 and 2, Mr. Qasemi was found to be “Mofsed fel-Arz” (“one who spreads corruption on Earth”) for disrupting and wreaking havoc on the country’s financial system and was sentenced to death. Pursuant to Article 1(a) of the Law for the Punishment of Disruptors of the Financial System, “disrupting the country’s monetary or foreign currency system consists of large scale traffic of foreign currency or minting counterfeit coins or printing counterfeit paper currency, large scale import or distribution thereof, whether foreign or domestic” and constitutes a crime. Pursuant to Article 2 of said law, if such action is taken for the purpose of damaging or opposing the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran, or with the knowledge that such action will be effective in opposing the regime, said action shall constitute an instance of Efsad fel-Arz (“spreading corruption on Earth”) and the perpetrator shall be sentenced to death. As can be ascertained from the above provision, the first condition that must be satisfied is to show that “disruption in the financial system is extensive”. It must then be proven that the disruption was done “with the intent to oppose the regime”. Article 286, cited by the lower court, provides for the satisfaction of those same conditions. Pursuant to this Article “any person, who extensively commits a felony against the bodily integrity of the people, offenses against the country’s domestic or international security, spreads lies and falsehoods, disrupts the country’s economic and financial system, commits arson and destruction of property, disseminates poisonous, bacterial, and dangerous materials, establishes, or aids and abets in the establishment of places of corruption and prostitution, [on a scale] and in such a way that causes severe disruption in the country’s public order and insecurity, or causes large scale damage to the bodily integrity of the people or to public or private properties, or causes the large scale spread of corruption and prostitution, shall be considered Mofsed fel-Arz and shall be sentenced to death.” According to this Article, “spreading corruption on Earth” is established only when, first, “the disruption of the country’s economic system is extensive”, and, secondly, as a result of such action (s) there is “severe disruption in public order or large scale damage to public property”.

In spite of the fact that there is ambiguity in the provisions of the aforementioned Article and there is thus room for arbitrary interpretation thereof, it does not appear that the totality of Mr. Mazlumin’s actions reached an extent which would have jeopardized the country’s security or caused large scale disruption in the economic system. The increase in the price of foreign currency and gold coins that was alleged to have been due to Mr. Mazlumin’s actions at trial (in the lower court), was not based on any sound evidence and expert analysis; no evidence was presented for these allegations. Additionally, many experts have concluded that the turmoil and disarray in the foreign currency and gold coins market was due to political upheavals as well as to mismanagement on the part of the government. Furthermore, the court did not establish in any way whatsoever that Mr. Mazlumin intended to damage the Islamic Republic. Nowhere in the Court Decision does it appear that the court had engaged in establishing the Defendant’s intent, and no evidence or documentation was submitted to that effect. Therefore, even assuming the accuracy of the charges against the defendant in this case, the latter should have been subjected to Ta’zir regulations and punishments, and he should have been sentenced to prison terms and monetary penalties. The Law for the Punishment of Disruptors of the Country’s Financial System expressly and specifically provides that Efsad fel-Arz is established only when there is an intent to oppose the Regime, and if such intent is not ascertained and established, the perpetrator will be condemned to prison sentences and monetary penalties.

The reason for this expedited adjudication was the Head of the Judiciary Branch’s request made to the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic to allow the cases of those who cause disruptions and disarray in the country’s financial system to be treated as extraordinary cases and be adjudicated speedily, and to prohibit any suspension or reduction of sentence for such defendants.

2- Mr. Qasemi was tried in a court that had been established shortly before his trial through an order of the Supreme Leader. Trial procedure in these courts is based on a directive issued by the Head of the Judiciary Branch on the basis of the Leader’s order. The rules of procedure in these courts is in conflict with existing Iranian laws in many respects, and are breaches of the principle of fair trial. For instance, the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran provides that the Islamic Consultative Assembly (“Majless” or Parliament) is the sole legislative authority in the country. Principle 58 of the Constitution provides: “The functions of the legislature are to be exercised through the Islamic Consultative Assembly, comprised of the elected representatives of the people. Legislation approved by this body, after going through the stages specified in the articles below, is communicated to the executive and the judiciary for implementation.” The Constitution has provided for only a single extraordinary legislative tool, and that is to resort to a referendum. Principle 59 provides: “In extremely important economic, political, social, and cultural matters, the function of the legislature may be exercised through direct recourse to popular vote through a referendum. Any request for such direct recourse to public opinion must be approved by two-thirds of the members of the Islamic Consultative Assembly.” As can be clearly ascertained, legislative power has been entrusted to no other body than the Islamic Consultative Assembly, or through recourse to a referendum. Furthermore, Principle 110, which enumerates the Leader’s powers, has not provided for any legislative authority in any manner whatsoever. Therefore, the Leader’s aforementioned order violates the country’s Constitution.

The following provisions in the Head of the Judiciary’s Directive are among provisions that violate the law:

a) [Pursuant to the Directive,] the cases of individuals accused of financial corruption are to be heard by Revolutionary Court Special Branches. These Branches are to convene in Tehran, and all related cases are to be referred to said Branches by the Head of the Judiciary Branch’s First Deputy, and may also convene in provincial capitals if the Head of the Judiciary Branch deems it necessary, whereas, pursuant to Iranian law, adjudication of a criminal case must be done in the jurisdiction where the crime has taken place.

b) Pursuant to this Directive, five days is the deadline provided in the Rules of Procedure for legal matters, including service of notice and appeal, whereas the Rules of Criminal Procedure allow a defendant 20 days to object to and appeal a court ruling.

c) Pursuant to this Directive, in the event that in the course of the trial, the court determines that there are investigative defects in the case, it may conduct and complete additional investigations sua sponte, whereas, pursuant to existing laws, in the event of such defects, the court must refer the case back to the prosecutor’s office to complete investigations.

d) [The Directive] prohibits any suspension or reduction of sentence for individuals convicted of financial disruption or corruption, whereas the provisions regarding suspended and reduced sentences are of a general nature in the Islamic Penal Code, and criminals convicted of financial corruption have not been [singled out and] deprived of the right to suspension and reduction of sentence in absolute terms.

e) [Pursuant to the Directive,] in all cases of financial corruption, in the event that the prosecutor’s office or the court, as the case may be, determines that there is sufficient evidence, it may issue a mandatory temporary detention order until the conclusion of the proceedings and issuance of a final ruling. This order cannot be appealed to other authorities, and any modifications thereto, must be done by the court hearing the case, whereas, pursuant to the Law on the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a mandatory temporary detention order is issued only for crimes that carry specific punishments, and it can be appealed.

f) [Pursuant to the Directive,] sentences issued by [the Special Branch] are final and binding, with the exception of death sentences. Death sentences can be appealed to the Supreme Court within a maximum of 10 days, whereas, pursuant to the Law on the Rules of Criminal Procedure, all rulings issued by lower courts can be appealed to Courts of Appeal or the Supreme Court, and the time allotted for the filing of such an appeal is 20 days.

Given the above, the adjudication of Mr. Mazlumin’s case by the aforementioned Special Court was most certainly contrary to the law, and the principles of fair trial have not been observed.

3- It took about 3.5 months from the time when Mr. Qasemi was arrested until the ruling became final, and that all stages of the proceedings including interrogation, preliminary investigations, trial, and appeal, took place within that short period.

Furthermore, the Court Decision was upheld by the Supreme Court within 25 days of the appeal. Considering that Mr. Qasemi’s case file was immensely voluminous and complex, and there were 15 defendants in the case, it can certainly be said that the amount of time allotted for reviewing such a case was minimal and the case was considered in an extremely hasty fashion. In such cases, there is a need for various expert analyses and opinions, and inquiries must be made with numerous governmental and non-governmental bodies. It is unfathomable that such a case can be heard accurately and correctly in such a short and limited amount of time. It must be noted that the execution of a number of individuals, including Mr. Qasemi, occurred at a time when the country was dealing with a severe economic crisis and the authorities wanted to hastily reorganize the chaotic foreign currency and gold coin market through tough judicial measures, an attempt that, according to many economic and financial experts, never attained its intended objective: the executions had absolutely no effect on controlling and reducing the price of foreign currency and gold coins in the market.

According to many economic and financial experts, the executions had absolutely no effect on controlling and reducing the price of foreign currency and gold coins in the market.

Judgment

On September 26, 2018, Tehran Islamic Revolutionary Court, Branch Two, reserved for cases of financial corruption, sentenced Mr. Mohammad Esma’il Qasemi to “death and expropriation of assets resulting from the crime”. On October 21, 2018, Supreme Court Branch 41 upheld the ruling verbatim (Fars News Agency).

Mr. Mohammad Esma’il Qasemi was hanged in Tehran on the morning of Wednesday, November 14, 2018, along with Defendant number one in the case, Mr. Vahid Mazlumin (Tehran General and Revolutionary Prosecutor’s Office News Website).

Tehran Islamic Revolutionary Court, Branch Two, reserved for cases of financial corruption, sentenced the other defendants in the case to prison sentences ranging from 3 to 20 years (Fars News Agency).

Abdorrahman Boroumand Center

for Human Rights in Iran

Mohammad Esma'il Qasemi

About

Case