Abdorrahman Boroumand Center

for Human Rights in Iran

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

Mohammad Kia Kiamehr


Age: 34
Nationality: Iran
Religion: Islam (Sunni)
Civil Status: Single


Date of Killing: May 24, 2016
Location of Killing: Central Prison (Nedamatgah), Karaj, Alborz Province, Iran
Mode of Killing: Hanging
Charges: Drug possession
Age at time of alleged offense: 30

About this Case

The judge decided about the fate of Mohammad Kia Kiamehr (Khezr) without evidence relying only on his own knowledge (the knowledge of the judge). Muhammad was Sunni.

The news of the execution of Mr. Mohammad Kiya (known as Khezr) Kiamehr, son of Karim, along with three other individuals* was obtained from Iran newspaper (June 21, 2016). Additional information was drawn from Abdorrahman Bouroumand Center’s investigation, based on the review of case documents, interviews with informed sources (August 23, 2018, September 15, 2018, and May 22, 2022). 

According to available information, 35-year-old Mr. Kiamehr was born in HaMr.an village of Sardasht in West Azerbaijan and lived in Tehran's Sadeqieh (Aryashahr) area and was engaged He studied up to fifth grade and was a builder and bought and sold houses in Karaj, Alborz Province. Mr. Kiamehr was also licensed to import and export ceramic tiles to Iraq. (Interview with an informed source - August 23, 2018). 

The case of Mr. Kiamehr was related to a 2011 drug-related crime. 

Arrest and detention 

According to an informed source, in June, July and August 2011Mr., 10 to 12 anti-narcotics agents entered Mr. Kiamehr’s construction site in the Mardabad area of Karaj  with several people in plain clothes, and according to the testimony of Mr. Kiamehr and the workers who were present, arrested him after beating, slapping, and kicking him, which resulted in a broken arm. During his arrest, one of the officers even told him: "You ought to be executed given that you’re Sunni." Mr. Kiamehr's house was also searched on the day of his arrest. The agents found no evidence but took his Peugeot (automobile). Finally, the agents took Mr. Kiamehr to the Narcotics Control Department in Karaj. (ABC interview – Sep. 15, 2018) 

Mr. Kiamehr stayed in this detention center for 18 days but was not allowed to visit or make phone calls and was constantly interrogated. The interrogators beat him to get a confession. 

After being interrogated, Mr. Kiamehr was transferred to ward three of Karaj Central Penitentiary, where prisoners using drugs were held. He was allowed visitors, only behind the cubicle once a week and in person once every two weeks. His lawyer met with him only once to sign a power of attorney. (ABC interview – Sep. 15, 2018) 

Mr. Kiamehr was in prison for five years. On May 21, 2016, he visited with his family for the last time. 

The agents of the anti-narcotics headquarters arrested him while beating, slapping, and kicking him, which resulted in a broken arm.


The second branch of the Karaj Islamic Revolutionary Court tried Mr. Kiamehr in three sessions. He had two lawyers during the trial, but the judge did not allow them to speak and they had to submit a defense brief to the judge. (ABC interview – Sep. 15, 2018) 


The Islamic Revolutionary Court of Karaj charged Mr. Kiamehr and his co-accused with "complicity in the manufacture and production of psychoactive substances and possession of narcotics." (Judgment of the Islamic Revolution Court of Karaj – May 27, 2014) 

In a situation where minimum procedural guarantees are not observed, and the defendants are deprived of a fair trial, the accuracy of the crimes attributed to them is uncertain. International human rights organizations point to reports that, in some cases, the authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran falsely accuse their opponents (including political, civil, union, or minority activists) of drug trafficking or committing public and sexual crimes and execute them alongside ordinary criminals. Thousands of people accused of drug trafficking have been sentenced to death based on a judicial process inconsistent with international standards. Among them were those executed based on the 1987 law, which imposed the death penalty on traffickers who possessed a certain amount of drugs (5 kilograms of hashish or opium, more than 30 grams of heroin, codeine, or methadone). The number of people sentenced to death based on false accusations is unclear. 

Evidence of Guilt 

The evidence against Mr. Kiamehr, his co-accused's confessions, the defendant's fiancé's statements, the finding of a blue notebook, the anti-narcotic police agent’s statements, the discovery of a sample of (ephedrine) pills in Mr. Kiamehr's car, and the discovery of two kilos and 800 grams of methamphetamine-type psychoactive substances and the storage of one kilo and 300 grams of ephedrine tablets from prefabrication to produce psychoactive substances. Alborz province anti-narcotics agents had discovered the above mentioned industrial drug manufacturing workshop along with ephedrine bottles and tablets in the home of the primary defendant, Mr. Mohsen Danahur. (Karaj Islamic Revolution Court judgement - May 27, 2014) 

According to the Karaj Islamic Revolutionary Court, the confessions of the primary defendant and the discovery of some psychotropic substance pills in Mr. Kiamehr's car were the court's evidence for his participation in the production of psychotropic substances. The court also referred to the contents of a blue notebook which contained the method of making psychotropic substances, and Mr. Kiamehr's fiancé statement about having witnessed Mr. Danahurr giving a package containing five hundred thousand Tomans to Mr. Kiamehr. (Judgment of the Islamic Revolution Court of Karaj - June 6, 2014) 

International human rights organizations have repeatedly condemned the Islamic Republic of Iran’s government for the systematic use of severe torture and solitary confinement to extract confessions from prisoners and have questioned the reliability of the confessions obtained from the accused under pressure. 


Based on available information, there is no convincing evidence against Mr. Kiamehr, and he has denied his relationship and cooperation with the primary defendant. On July 25, 2015, in a letter to the Supreme Court, the primary defendant requested that Mr. Kiamehr’s charges be dismissed. In this letter, he wrote that his statements and confessions “in different stages of the proceedings in the case of Mr. Mohammad-Kia Kiamehr, son of Karim, against him, were pure lies, and the allegation of his participation in the preparation and possession of narcotic drugs was unjust, unacceptable and contrary to the truth.” He also stressed that “I feel nothing but regret for attributing the [ownership of the] methamphetamines to him, which has caused him humiliation and indignity, and led to his condemnation.” (Mr. Danahur's official letter to the President of the Supreme Court – July 28, 2015). 

In his defense, Mr. Kiamehr's lawyer pointed to the dearth of evidence and court investigation against his client and asked the court to acquit him. Based on the defense brief on file at the Boroumand Center, he wrote to the prosecutor protesting the indictment issued by branch two of the Islamic Revolution Court: 

"At first glance, it seems that the honorable judge has decided to issue a decision by relying on his knowledge, the ‘knowledge of the judge’**. However, it is necessary to consider the conditions of citing the judge's knowledge. "Knowledge" is also equivalent to "certainty" and “satisfied” in terms of principles and jurisprudence. It is the opposite of "suspicion", and it appears that the documents referenced by the esteemed judge usually do not create certainty that a crime has been committed. Until there is no certainty, the principle of acquittal must be applied. A death sentence cannot be issued based on speculation. 

"In the sixth line of the issued ruling, it is mentioned that the ‘discovery of psychoactive substances’ does not imply participation in the manufacture and production of psychoactive methamphetamine substances." He adds: "In the sixth line, ‘extensive investigations by drug enforcement agents’ were also mentioned as one of the pillars of the verdict. So, the question raised is, on which page of the case and investigation has the client's manufacture and production of psychoactive substances been confirmed and identified?” 

"First and foremost, the primary defendant's statements (who is the defendant himself) cannot imply the commission of the crime of participation in the manufacture and production of psychoactive substances by the accessory defendant; and second, the confession of the primary defendant, based on the meaning of the word ‘confession’, which is indeed "news which is to one's own detriment" only refers to the manufacture and production of psychoactive substances by the primary defendant and not the accessory defendant (i.e. the client). In addition, in writing, the primary defendant admitted once in prison that he lied, and the accused accessory was not involved in the manufacture and production of psychoactive substances. But following this written confession, once again in court, he said that he had been deceived, and as a result, he declared his statements against the accessory accused to be lies. It is worth noting that, at present, the primary accused is willing to testify again that he lied that the accessory accused participated with him in manufacturing and producing psychoactive substances. 

The primary accused is now saying that he has a guilty conscience and that he caused the client's death sentence to be issued with his lie. Hence, for the sake of God almighty, he requests the proper judicial authority to order his statements to be heard once more. And regarding the discovery of the blue notebook, he also says that his client has denied the attribution of this notebook and its handwriting to himself and "requests to be referred to an expert to clarify the truth, in that it was the court did not effectuate this request and secondly, the contents of this notebook also, do not imply the manufacture and production of psychoactive substances by my client." 

The Defense brief also rejected the "narcotics agent's statement", which was mentioned among the documents in the judge's knowledge. He said: "The reality is that the said agent claimed that he heard from behind the door that the accessory accused told the primary accused ‘, You take responsibility for everything; I will solve your problem if I am released’. To begin with, it is unclear what the phrase ‘you take responsibility for everything’ means. Ephedrine tablets or psychedelic production, or both? Therefore, it cannot simply be said that the accessory defendant meant to take responsibility for the manufacture and production of psychedelic drugs. Secondly, the methods of acquiring knowledge must be conventional; hearing someone's voice from behind a door is not a conventional way to rationalize proof of guilt and sanctification of the principle of innocence. How is it known that the primary accused did not tell the accessory that ‘you should take responsibility for everything’? How is the agent mentioned above sure that the voice was the voice of the accessory when he did not see his face? 

"In the eighth line of the issued verdict: "The phrase ‘discovery of a sample of uncovered pills from the defendant's car’ is stated that firstly, the discovery of a sample of these pills in the defendant's car does not indicate anything special and does not indicate the manufacture and production of psychoactive substances at all; and secondly, these pills also have medicinal properties and are used by bodybuilders. Discovering a sample of them in a person's possession does not indicate the production of methamphetamine." 

At the end of the defense, Mr. Kiamehr's lawyer asked for an acquittal and removal of the confiscation of his client’s assets: "Given that the client has a license to import and export ceramic tiles to Iraq, and his current assets are the result of around-the-clock efforts in the mentioned field, the confiscation of these properties as the proceeds of crime does not seem fair. Because firstly, the client has only committed the crime of possessing ephedrine tablets, and the said property cannot be the result of this crime. all of the evidence and documentation and bills of transactions proving engagement in commercial transactions and engagement in the business of import and export of ceramics and tiles by my client were attached to the case file at trial. There is therefore no doubt that these assets were not obtained as a result of the commission of the crime and are the fruit of my client’s relentless efforts and work. Consequently, we request that these assets be released." (Defense text of Mr. Mohammad-Kia Kiamehr’s lawyer). 

In an interview with the Iran newspaper, the Karaj General and Revolutionary Prosecutor stressed that Mr. Kiamehr and other defendants had "multiple criminal charges, including drug trafficking". In contrast, in the Karaj Islamic Revolution Court, Mr. Kiamehr specifies that Mr. Kiamehr does not have a criminal record. (Islamic Revolution Court of Karaj judgement – May 22, 2014)


On September 7, 2014, relying on Article 211 (judge's knowledge), the judge at Branch 2 of the Islamic Revolution Court of Karaj convicted Mr. Mohammad Kia Kiamehr. Based on paragraph six of article eight of the law amending the law on combating narcotic drugs and paragraph three of articles five and four additions of the amendment law ***, for participation in the manufacturing, production and possession of psychoactive substances, he was sentenced, on the one count, to execution and confiscation of property resulting from the same crime, and for involvement in possession of ephedrine drugs to two years of imprisonment and 45 lashed and paying a fine of 20 million Rials. This ruling was approved by the Supreme Court. 

Mr. Mohammad Kia Kiamehr was hanged along with three others on May 24, 2016, at the Karaj Central Prison, without his family or lawyer present. 

Before the court’s ruling, the anti-narcotics agents had already confiscated Mr. Kiamehr's house and car. Mr. Kiamehr’s body was handed over to his family and buried in his hometown of HaMr.an village.


* Mika'il Shahbazi, Gholamreza Ahmadi, Ruhollah Roshangar.
** Mr. Kiamehr's lawyer explains in this regard: "Article 211 of the Islamic Penal Code approved in 1392 (2013) defines the knowledge of a judge: "The knowledge of a judge is the certainty obtained from the detailed documentation presented to him. In cases where the document of the verdict is the knowledge of the judge, he is obliged to explicitly stipulate the presumption and the documented judge-made laws about his knowledge in the verdict. Methods of obtaining knowledge of the judge in a criminal incident concerning the time and place of the crime are two groups. The first part of the investigation is when the knowledge of the judge is acquired outside of the investigation and trial sessions, which is not so in the present case; but the second part is the investigation when the judge, after considering the complaint plan and reasons, the evidence and proofs of the accusation and listening to the defendant's defenses and arguments and the evidence of the accusation and by fully examining the contents of the case and their reasons and listening to the statements of the parties to the case, it will be known whether the documents of the crime against the accused are correct or not. In the notation to article 211 of the new Islamic Penal Code, it is stated that cases such as expert theory, site inspection, local investigations, informed statements, reports of bailiffs and other evidence and presumption that are usually informative can be considered as documents of the judge's knowledge and from this note it can be understood that the document of knowledge of a judge is generic and not subjective. These documents should be informative for every other judge.” 
*** Article 8, paragraph 2 of the law on the amendment of the anti-narcotics law: more than 30 grams, execution and confiscation of property resulting from the same crime. Article 5, Paragraph 3 and 4 of the addendum: more than one gram to four grams, from eight million to twenty million rials fine, two to five years imprisonment, and thirty to seventy lashes.

Correct/ Complete This Entry