Abdorrahman Boroumand Center

for Human Rights in Iran

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

Majid Parmasi


Nationality: Iran
Religion: Islam
Civil Status: Single


Date of Killing: July 19, 2016
Location of Killing: Central Prison (Nedamatgah), Karaj, Alborz Province, Iran
Mode of Killing: Hanging
Charges: Drug related offense

About this Case

News and information about the execution of Mr. Majid Parmasi, son of Qovatollah, was obtained from an Abdorrahman Boroumand Center interview with two informed sources, on July 20, 2016 and July 21, 2016.  News of this execution was also published in Iran Newspaper on July 21, 2016.  Additional information was gleaned from the court’s verdict, recorded in the Boroumand Center archives. 

Mr. Parmasi was from the town of Karaj in Alborz Province.  Mr. Parmasi was self-employed and he was single (Center Interview, July 21, 2016) 

Mr. Parmasi and his co-defendant’s case was related to drug charges.

Arrest and detention

The circumstances and exact details of Mr. Parmasi’s arrest and detention are not known.  However, an informed source told Abdorrahman Boroumand Center that he had been arrested in Karaj by The agents of Information Department of Alborz Province on February 11, 2013 (Documents available at Boroumand Center, July 20 and 21, 2016).

Also, according to the court verdict of his co-defendant, Mr. Parmasi and his co-defendant had been arrested by narcotics officers of the Information Ministry at a poultry breeding facility.  According to this verdict, which was handed down by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office on September 29, 2013, the location of arrest was rented by Mr. Parmasi, the primary defendant in this case (Documents available at Boroumand Center, July 20 and 21, 2016).

Mr. Parmasi was incarcerated in Hall #2 at Karaj Penitentiary (ABC Interview, July 20 and 21, 2016).


Mr. Parmasi’s trial was conducted by the Revolutionary Court of Karaj, Branch 4, Judge Farajollahi presiding, in July of 2013.  Mr. Parmasi had a Lawyer. (ABC Interview, July 20 and 21, 2016)

There is not a complete record of the method of interrogation in the preliminary investigation, or in court.  This case was sent to the revolutionary court of Karaj, after a guilty verdict and an indictment was issued.


According to the verdict, the charge brought against Mr. Parmasi was specifically, “manufacturing and possession of 6,150 grams psychedelic drugs (crystal meth)” (ABC Interview, July 21, 2016).  It should be noted that in an interview given after the sentence was carried out, the Karaj Prosecutor did not mention a specific charge for Mr. Parmasi (Iran Newspaper, July 21, 2016).

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 have drawn attention to reports indicating that the Islamic Republic authorities have brought trumped-up charges, including drug trafficking, sexual, and other criminal offences, against their opponents (including political, civil society activists, as well as unionists and ethnic and religious minorities). Thousands of alleged drug traffickers have been sentenced to death following judicial processes that fail to meet international standards. Scores of them were executed based on a 1989 law imposing mandatory death sentences on drug traffickers found in possession of specified amounts of prescribed narcotics (5 kg of hashish or opium, and more than 30 grams of heroin, codeine or methadone). The exact number of people convicted based on trumped-up charges is unknown.

Evidence of guilt

According to the verdict of the court, the confessions of the accused in this case while they were held by the Information Ministry, and also being present “in the location where psychedelic drugs were manufactured and where implements for this operation were found” were taken as evidence of guilt in this case and reasons to support their conviction (Documents available at Boroumand Center, July 8, 2015).  According to the Karaj prosecutor, in later investigations, it became clear that these individuals “had several criminal records, including narcotics smuggling.”  The prosecutor did not give any details about these criminal records or about Mr. Parmasi’s personal record (Iran Newspaper, July 21, 2016).

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 the verdict on the case of another defendant, although during the preliminary investigation carried out by the information office, Mr. Parmasi had “confessed”, in the initial phases he had named other individuals as partners in the manufacturing operation.  Later on, including in court, he denied having manufactured and stored psychedelic drugs (Documents available at Boroumand Center, July 8, 2015).

No further information is available on Mr. Parmasi’s defense.

A Summary of the Defects of Mr. Parmasi’s Legal Proceedings

According to the court ruling issued by Branch Four of the Islamic Revolutionary Court of Karaj, Mr. Majid Parmasi had only confessed to producing methamphetamine during the interrogation; however, he had denied making methamphetamine in the court and at the Public Prosecutor’s Office. He had referred to others as responsible for the crime. In his ruling, judge Farajollahi pointed out this fact and stated that those other individuals were not arrested. Therefore, it was necessary for judicial authorities to investigate such claims and interrogate those individuals. In other words, if the defendants claimed that the discovered narcotics belonged to others, the others should have been summoned and interrogated. But the judicial authorities did not do their jobs. If those individuals were summoned and interrogated, it is possible that other aspects of the case would be clarified. This caused the investigation to be incomplete in this case. Judicial authorities are obligated to do their best to find the truth and do a thorough investigation.

2- According to the existing laws in Iran, including the Islamic Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure for the Revolutionary and Public Courts, a confession can only be considered for a court ruling when it is made in the presence of the judge. Therefore, confessions made only in the presence of an inspector or law enforcement officials could not be referred for ruling. According to note 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the Revolutionary and Public Courts, “in cases in which the confession of a defendant or a testimony of a witness, or testimony to testimony of a witness is used for the court ruling, it must be heard by the judge who issues the ruling.” According to note 2 of Article 218 of the Islamic Penal Code, a “confession has validity only when it’s made in front of the judge in court.”

In the verdict issued by the Islamic Revolutionary Court, it emphasized that Mr. Parmasi made no confession during the trial and in front of the judge. His confession took place in front of the law enforcement officials. In the verdict, Judge Farajollahi pointed out that the defendants’ confessions took place at the Intelligence Office during the interrogation. He added that the denial of such confessions is a trick performed by drug traffickers due to their contact with criminals during the detention period. Therefore, one can conclude that the judge based his ruling on the confession of the defendant at the Intelligence Office during the interrogation. For this, it seems that the court ruling was issued illegally.

3- According to the existing information, Mr. Parmasi did not benefit from an attorney during trial procedure. His family could only choose an attorney for him a short time before his trial, whereas, according to the laws, the presence of an attorney in cases such as this with a potential death sentence, is necessary. Based on Article 186 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the Revolutionary and Public Courts, “in crimes punishable by death, stoning, and life imprisonment, if the defendant cannot introduce an attorney, assignment of a public defender is necessary.” Even though the presence of an attorney in judicial procedure is limited to the trial and judges, misinterpreting the law, consider the presence of an attorney to be necessary only in court; according to a rational interpretation of this article, the defendant should have access to an attorney throughout the process including the preliminary and interrogation periods. Mr. Parmasi was interrogated without knowing his rights. He was denied access to an attorney during an important phase. Denying Mr. Parmasi an attorney or a public defender during the bulk of the investigation prevented him from defending himself. This is so important that it could have nullified all of the preliminary investigation and the court ruling.       


According to “Clause 6 of Article 8 of the Law of War Against Narcotics”, Branch 4 of the Islamic Revolutionary Court of Karaj sentenced Mr. Parmasi to death. This verdict was sent to the Supreme Court on July 8, 2015, pursuant to Article 23 of the Law of War Against Narcotics (Documents available at Boroumand Center, July 8, 2015). Iran Newspaper reported that this verdict was approved by the supreme Court (Iran Newspaper, July 21, 2016).

Mr. Parmasi was able to visit with his family, the day before his sentence was carried out (ABC Interview, July 20 and 21, 2016). Mr. Majid Parmasi’s sentence was carried out on July 19, 2016, in the courtyard of Karaj Central Penitentiary (ABC Interview, July 20 and 21, 2016; Iran Newspaper, July 21, 2016).

Mr. Parmasi was buried at Javar cemetery in Emamzadeh Ebrahim (BAC Interview, July 20 and 21, 2016).


* Mr. Mika’il Shahbazi

Correct/ Complete This Entry