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

Seyed Amin Sedaqatpur


Age: 17
Nationality: Iran
Religion: Presumed Muslim
Civil Status: Single


Date of Execution: April 25, 2019
Location: Shiraz Central Prison (Adelabad), Shiraz, Fars Province, Iran
Mode of Killing: Hanging
Charges: Rape; Robbery
Age at time of offense: 15

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 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 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.

  • The right of a person not to be subjected to the capital punishment for an offence committed before the age of eighteen. The right not to be deprived of life while pregnant.

ICCPR, Article 6.5; Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 37.a.

About this Case

Was not even 16 years old at the time of arrest.

News of the executions of Seyed Amin Sedaqatpur, child of Gol Jan and Seyed Hamid, and one of his relatives, Mr. Mehdi Sohrabifar (Qarehcheh), was obtained through an interview conducted by the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center with a person acquainted with Mr. Sedaqatpur (June 18, and 28, and July 6, 2019). News of this execution was also published by Khabar Jonoob (April 27, 2019), Amnesty International (April 29, 2019), Iran Human Rights Organization (April 28, 2019), and Rokna website (May 2, 2019). Additional information about this case was obtained through the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center’s research, including correspondence with Amnesty International (April 29, 2019), Khabar Jonoob (July 30, 2017, April 18, and May 8, 2019), Islamic Republic News Agency, IRNA (May 8, 2019), and Iran Human Rights Organization (April 30, and May 7, 2019).

Mr. Sedaqatpurwas born on October 13, 2001, in the city of Shiraz. (Iran Human Rights Organization, April 30, 2019).

Mr. Sedaqatpur case is related to burglary of several homes and sexual assault of a number of women in Shiraz’ Koushk Meydan [neighborhood] in 2017, when he was only 16 years old.

International law strictly prohibits the use of capital punishment in the case of individuals who were under the age of 18 at the time of the commission of the crime. As a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Iran is bound not to subject individuals who have committed a crime as children, to capital punishment.

Arrest and detention

Criminal Investigation Officers arrested Mr. Sedaqatpur in Shiraz sometime after mid June 2017. On June 7, 2017, a woman contacted Criminal Investigations Police and informed them of a burglary and threats of sexual assault. As the investigation progressed, the police were apprised of complaints by 6 other women in May-June in Koushk Meydan, a working class neighborhood in Shiraz, and found out that some of them had been sexually assaulted. About two weeks later, Criminal Investigations officers were able to identify two burglars through facial composite sketches and other investigative [techniques] and were able to arrest them within a short time of each other. (Khabar Jonoob, April 18, and 27, 2019). According to a person acquainted with Mr. Sedaqatpur, this case had a third defendant. According to this person, Mr. Sedaqatpur and his co-defendant were identified by this third defendant to the Criminal Investigations Police. (Iran Human Rights Organization, April 30, 2019, Boroumand Center interview, June 28, 2019).

He was detained in the Criminal Investigation Office for two months without an access to his family or an attorney. His family said that he was even tortured while being held there.

In another news piece, Khabar Jonoob newspaper announced the age of the other two defendants arrested as 16. (Khabar Jonoob, April 18, 2019). Documents published by Iran Human Rights Organization show, however, that Mr. Sohrabifar and his co-defendant had not yet turned 16 at the time of their arrest. (Iran Human Rights Organization, May 7, 2019).

Mr. Sedaqatpur was detained at the Shiraz Criminal Investigations Bureau for two months. His family was unable to contact him in that period. According to the person close to Mr. Sedaqatpur. (Iran Human Rights Organization, April 30, 2019, Boroumand Center interview, and 28, 2019). He was then transferred to the Shiraz Reform and Education Center and stayed there until April 2019. On April 24, 2019, Mr. Sedaqatpur and his co-defendant were transferred to Shiraz’ Adelabad Prison (without knowing the reason for such transfer). He was able to meet with his family at the prison on that day. (Amnesty International).


Shiraz Criminal Prosecutor’s Office, Investigating Judge Branch 17, opened the case against Mr. Sedaqatpur. (Khabar Jonoob, July 30, 2017). Subsequently, the case was tried at Shiraz General Court. (Iran Human Rights Organization, April 30, 2018). He was represented by counsel at the trial.

No further information is available about Mr. Sedaqatpur trial session(s).


Mr. Sedaqatpur was charged with “rape while committing theft”. (Iran Human Rights Organization, April 30, 2019). He and his co-defendant were charged with “7 counts of burglary of homes and sexual assault of women”. (Khabar Jonoob, April  27, 2019).

The Judiciary Branch spokesman alluded to the “serious charges” brought against the defendants in the case, consisting of “armed robbery, forcible rape, kidnapping, and multiple crimes and violent acts” without mentioning Mr. Sedaqatpur and his co-defendant by name, and denied that they were juvenile adolescents. (IRNA). According to the person acquainted with Mr. Sedaqatpur, he and his co-defendant were also charged with “Moharebeh” (“waging war against God”). (Boroumand Center interview, June 28, 2019).

The validity of the criminal charges brought against this defendant cannot be ascertained in the absence of the basic guarantees of a fair trial. International human rights organizations allude to reports according to which, in certain cases, the Islamic republic of Iran’s officials bring false charges against their opponents (including political, civil, and union activists, as well as ethnic and religious minorities) such as drug trafficking or commission of public or sexual crimes, and execute them along with other regular criminals. Hundreds of people are sentenced to death in Iran every year; however, the number of those who are sentenced to death based on these false charges is not known.


The evidence presented against Mr. Sedaqatpur consisted of the plaintiffs’ testimony which resulted in a composite sketch of his face, as well as his and his co-defendant’s confession in the interrogation sessions before the investigating judge. (Khabar Jonoob, April 27, 2019). According to the person acquainted with Mr. Sedaqatpur, his and his co-defendant’s confessions were obtained under torture. According to this person, a number of the plaintiffs brought other complaints against him and his co-defendant concerning other matters while he was in detention. (Boroumand Center interview, June 28, 2019).

There is no information regarding other evidence against him.

International human rights organizations have repeatedly condemned the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran for its systematic use of severe torture and solitary confinement to obtain confessions from detainees and have questioned the authenticity of confessions obtained under duress.


According to people close to him, his mental maturity was not approved by the forensics. (Iran Human Rights)

Mr. Sedaqatpur had access to an attorney at trial. No further information is available regarding Mr. Sedaqatpur and his attorney’s defense at the court session(s).

A Summary of the Legal Defects in Mr. Sohrabifar’s Case

At the time of the event, Mr. Sedaqatpur was approximately 16 solar years old; since the age of criminal responsibility in Iranian law has been determined on the basis of a lunar year, however, he was considered to be mature and criminally responsible from a legal perspective. Although in Iran the age of criminal responsibility is the age of puberty/maturity, [that is, 15 years for boys], the new Islamic Penal Code of 2013, provided for the possibility of juveniles under the age of 18 to not be subjected to the death penalty. Pursuant to Islamic Penal Code Article 91 “In crimes requiring Hadd or Qesas, if the individuals under the age of 18 who have attained puberty cannot comprehend the nature of the crime or the prohibition thereof, or if there is doubt as to their mental development [and capacity] and maturity, they will be sentenced to the punishments prescribed in this chapter on a case by case basis. In order to ascertain mental development and maturity, the court may obtain the medical examiner’s opinion, or utilize any other method it deems appropriate.”

According to available information, Mr. Sedaqatpur was tried and sentenced to death on charges of “Moharebeh” (“waging war against God”) and “Efsad fel-Arz” (“spreading corruption on Earth”). The element of disrupting public peace and its extent is very important. Even assuming that he had committed the alleged acts, it cannot be said that those acts constituted “Moharebeh” or “Efsad fel-Arz”. It appears that given the broad applicability of “Moharebeh” and “Efsad fel-Arz” and the relative ease of proving them, the prosecutor’s office and the trial court have resorted to indicting him based on these crimes in order to get quick and easy convictions.

According to available information, the defendant did not have an attorney at least for a portion of preliminary investigations, whereas, pursuant to Article 190 of the Law on the Rules of Criminal Procedure, “in the case of crimes the punishment for which is the death penalty or life imprisonment, if the defendant does not introduce an attorney in the preliminary investigations stage, the investigating judge shall designate a court-appointed attorney for him/her”. Considering that the punishment for the charges against the defendant was the death penalty, not appointing an attorney for him in a portion of the preliminary investigations, raises serious doubts as to the validity of such investigations.


Shiraz General Court sentenced Seyed Amin Sedaqatpur and his co-defendant, Mr. Mehdi Sohrabifar (Qaracheh), to death, imprisonment, and flogging. The ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court. (Iran Human Rights Organization, April 30, 2019; Boroumand Center interview, June 28, 2019).

On April 25, 2019, Seyed Amin Sedaqatpur and his co-defendant were hanged at Shiraz’ Adelabad Prison along with two other individuals.

Mr. Sedaqatpur’s family learned from the signs of injury on his body that the flogging sentence had been carried out prior to his hanging. (Amnesty International).

Mr. Sedaqatpur’s sentence had at one point been overturned by the Supreme Court. (Rokna, May 2, 2019; Iran Human Rights Organization, April 30, 2019).

Mr. Sedaqatpur’s family and attorney were not aware that the death sentence had been carried out. They were called by the Medical Examiner’s Office after the execution to go and take delivery of his body. (Amnesty International; Iran Human Rights Organization, April 30, 2019).

Correct/ Complete This Entry