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

Sa'id Hana'i


Age: 40
Nationality: Iran
Religion: Islam (Shi'a)
Civil Status: Married


Date of Execution: April 16, 2002
Location: Central Prison (Vakilabad Prison), Mashhad, Khorasan\Khorasan-e Razavi Province, Iran
Mode of Execution: Hanging
Charges: Murder
Age at time of offense: 39

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 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 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.

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

Mr. Hana’i was a 39-year-old mason, married with three children, carried a Bassij membership card, and served on the front lines of the Iran-Iraq war

News of Mr. Sa’id Hana’i’s execution on April 17, 2002, was published in Jam-e Jam newspaper (April 17, 2002). Additional information about this case was obtained from numerous reports in Iran Newspaper (July 28, 29, and 31, 2001 August 1, 2001, September 16, 2001, October 13, 17, and 25, 2001), ISNA (September 22, and October 12, 2001), and the documentary film “And the Spider Came,” containing interviews with the defendant, the defendant’s family, the victims’ families, and Mr. Hana’i’s relatives.

Mr. Sa’id Hana’i, child of Ali Asghar, was 39 years old and resided in the city of Mashhad. He had a fifth grade education, was married, and had three children: one boy and two girls. Mr. Hana’i had served on the front in the Iran-Iraq war. He was a mason (building contractor) and, according to his wife, had a religious disposition. Mr. Hana’i had previously undergone treatment for mental and psychological issues (Iran Newspaper, July 29, 2001).

Mr. Hana’i’s case is related the discovery of the bodies of 16 women aged 18 to 55 years old between July 2000 and July 2001 in Mashhad, who had been murdered in the same fashion. The case came to be known as the “spider murders.” According to media reports, the victims had “criminal records related to drugs, vagrancy, and moral turpitude.” It took an entire year to arrest the defendant in this case. The case had attracted much media attention, and as time went by, the number of victims kept rising. The then-commander of the Police Force, Mr. Qalibaf, attributed the delay in identifying the murderer and preventing further murders to the fact that the victims had been banished and disowned by their families and their families had therefore not alerted and complained to the police. Upon Hana’i’s arrest, the Khorassan Province Bassij Organization brought a complaint against him for forging a Bassij membership card.

Arrest and detention

Based on available information, one of the victims had been able to run away from her attacker and provided his personal information and address to the police. Thus, one year after the first murder, Mr. Hana’i was identified and arrested. He was interrogated by Criminal Investigations officers. No information is available on the manner of his interrogation. Mr. Haha’i was taken to Mashhad Prison at the close of the interrogations.


Mr. Sa’id Hana’i’s trial took place at the Mashhad General Court Branch 53, in four sessions (three of which were public, and one closed) on September 22, and on October 10, 11, and 16, 2000.

The first trial session was convened at the Mashhad Judiciary Meeting Hall, with the next of kin, the defendant, and his attorney in attendance. The Prosecutor’s representative proceeded to read the indictment against the defendant, pointing to the negative effects of such murders on society’s fundamental social and cultural structure, stating that they create insecurity, agitated minds, and fostered instability across the board. He asked for the harshest possible sentence for the defendant, and asked for a closed-door trial session in order to address charges of adultery. Given that Mr. Hana’i had claimed that “the victims deserved to be killed,” the Prosecutor’s representative stated that the victims’ petty criminal records were not grounds to pronounce them “mahdur ul-dam” (literally meaning “one who has forfeited one’s blood”; this is a person whose blood, according to religious law, can be shed without penalty or punishment for the murderer) and asked that the defendant be sentenced and punished expeditiously. The victims’ families then proceeded to bring their complaints (ISNA, September 22, 2000).

Mr. Hana’i’s second trial session which was due to take place on September 29, 2000, was postponed due to his lawyer’s resignation, and was convened on October 10, 2000, upon designation of a court-appointed lawyer. Mr. Hana’i proceeded to describe the murders in detail in this session. In bringing Khorassan Province Bassij Organization’s complaint, its legal representative stated: “A Bassiji is the protector of order in society, he is not the cause of disorder in society… Can this corrupt being be an appropriate model for society and the people?” (ISNA, October 10, 2000). In the third session which took place on October 11, 2000, the judge cited the Medical Examiner’s report which had declared the defendant of sound mind. The Prosecutor’s representative had asked the court to sentence the defendant to the harshest possible punishment on that basis. Mr. Hana’i’s court-appointed lawyer was present at the session (Iran newspaper, October 13, 2000). Based on available information, Mr. Hana’i’s last trial session, convened on October 16, 2000, was a closed-door session (Iran newspaper, October 17, 2000).


The court charged Mr. Sa’id Hana’i with “16 counts of intentional murder, 13 counts of adultery, theft, forgery, and use of forged document (Bassij card).” He was accused of having picked up sixteen women as prostitutes on the streets of Mashhad between July 29, 2000, and July 23, 2001; after giving them a ride on his motorcycle, he had lured them to his home, and, after engaging in illegal sexual relations with them, he had strangled them with their own head scarves and murdered them. He had then robbed them, rolled their bodies in their chadors, and left them on the outskirts of town, on Khin Arab road in particular.

Sa’id Hana’i was charged with “16 counts of intentional murder, 13 counts of adultery, theft, forgery, and use of a forged document.” 

Evidence of guilt

Mr. Hana’i confessed to 16 counts of intentional murder in court, and proceeded to provide details of each of the murders. He described his motive for the killings as wanting to “get rid of social corruption.” Judicial and law enforcement officials declared that police investigations proved that the murders were committed by Mr. Hana’i.

According to available reports, the Prosecutor’s representative cited the evidence for the crimes as being the Defendant’s express, clear, and repeated admissions; re-construction of the murder scenes by the Defendant and the conformity thereof with existing evidence; discovery of the bodies of murder victims; the statements of the sole victim who had been able to run away from him; and the Medical Examiner’s findings. Based on available information, the Medical Examiner’s representative stated in court that the Defendant was mentally fit and that there were no indications of insanity at the time of the commission of the murders, and that all the evidence confirmed his mental and psychological health, and that he was of sound mind. He further stated: “The Defendant himself has stated that he was in charge of the Parents and Teachers Association at his child’s school and that he had made constructive proposals at the Association.”


At trial, Mr. Hana’i said in his own defense: “I’m [affected by] temporary insanity and I think I have killed 16 cockroaches. Even if [I am executed through] Qesas, I do not regret what I have done.” Denying the charges of “13 counts of adultery, robbery, and misuse of a forged document (the Bssij membership card),” he stated: “Every time I saw a [prostitute] on the street, I became momentarily insane, and my eyes would bulge out of their sockets. I would only regain my calm after I killed a prostitute” (Iran newspaper, October 13, 2001). According to the Medical Examiner’s report, Hana’i did not have sexual relations with the victims prior to murdering them (Iran newspaper, July 28, 2001).

Objecting to the fact that the physicians who had examined his client were not present in court [to provide testimony], Mr. Hana’i’s defense attorney stated with regard to his client’s lack of mental stability: “Mr. Hana’i was hospitalized twice in 1980-81 and in 1982-83, for psychological issues, and he escaped from the hospital both times.” Stating that the Bassij representative’s statements were outside the framework [of the case], he said that [the representative’s] statements had nothing to do with the charge of “forgery of a seal” and had no legal validity. He emphasized that the court must treat his client as an “accused” person, not a “murderer” (ISNA, October 10, 2001).

During interrogation, Mr. Hana’i stated that the idea of murdering women that he considered “prostitutes” had come to him after his own wife had been harassed by a driver. According to available information, he stated: “During that time, when I saw loose women and prostitutes getting into cars, I began to think that it was these types of women who were the main reason why a driver would mistake my wife [for a prostitute.] As I was fundamentally opposed to these women, and the fact that the neighborhood where I resided was not livable due to the comings and goings of these street women and my wife and children had no security, I decided to confront the prostitute situation” (September 16, 2001).

Prior to the implementation of his death sentence, however, Mr. Hana’i stated: “I was sick and suffered from mental issues; what I did was not willful; I was taking pills even then. I hope no one else repeats the crimes that I committed. At first, I thought what I was doing was right and that people would support me; but after several murders, I realized what a mistake I had made” (Jam-e Jam, April 17, 2002).


In the fall of 2001, Mashhad General Court Branch 53 sentenced Mr. Sa’id Hana’i to 12 death sentences (Qesas of life), payment of Diah to the families of four of the victims, 14 years imprisonment, 173 lashes for illegal relations, return of stolen property, and 4 years imprisonment for forging a document and his position [as a member of the Basij] (Jam-e Jam, April 17, 2002). Supreme Court Branch 31 upheld the sentence in January 2002. According to one published report, the court decision was based on a finding of Efsad fel-Arz (“spreading corruption on Earth”) (Iran, October 25, 2001).

Mr. Hana’i’s sentence of 173 lashes was carried out before he was executed

According to the sentence implementation judge’s statement, the Judiciary was of the view that the sentence should be carried out in public, but because the next of kin wished the punishment to be implemented in private, a public execution was dispensed with. Based on available information, Mr. Hana’i’s assets were not sufficient for the payment of Diah to the families of four of the victims; it was therefore ordered that his assets be proportionately divided among the four families. Mr. Hana’i’s sentence of 173 lashes was also carried out. On April 16, 2002, Mr. Sa’id Hana’i was hanged in Mashhad Prison in the presence of the next of kin and the authorities in charge.

Correct/ Complete This Entry