Abdorrahman Boroumand Center

for Human Rights in Iran

https://www.iranrights.org
Library
Promoting tolerance and justice through knowledge and understanding
Flogging

Flogging, Unidentified 14-Year-Old Boy, Birjand, Khorasan, 02/27/2013

Khorasan
February 27, 2013
Newspaper article

“[Reported by] Mehdian – A pigeon thief in Birjand brought the Plaintiff to court, and as a result, the owner of the pigeon was sentenced to payment of a monetary penalty in lieu of imprisonment, for illegal keeping of the bird.

According to “Khorassan Jonubi” (“South Khorassan”) [newspaper], a 14-year-old youth who had stolen four pigeons from his neighbor’s rooftop, was recognized by another neighbor; he was arrested when the owners of the pigeons lodged a complaint against him. After the necessary investigations were conducted, the 14-year-old’s case was sent to Birjand Court for adjudication.

At trial, the plaintiff stated: “This is not my thing. The pigeons belong to a colleague of mine who was transferred to another town and had entrusted me with the pigeons for safekeeping. The neighbor’s son, however, stole the pigeons in two phases.” The judge pointed to the illegality of keeping pigeons in the vicinity of an airport without a permit, and asked the plaintiff to explain his action. The plaintiff stated: “I acknowledge my mistake. Normally, those who keep pigeons in their homes do not obtain a permit; had I known that my action was prohibited, I would not have kept any pigeons at home.” As his last defense, he stated: “I accept the charge, and given the small number of the pigeons, I request that I be acquitted.”

The defendant in the case stated: “This is the first time I have committed theft and I request a reduced sentence.” At the close of the trial, the judge found the 14-year-old youth guilty of stealing four pigeons, and, the plaintiff’s taking back his complaint and the return of the birds notwithstanding, sentenced the defendant to six months imprisonment and 30 lashes, pursuant to Islamic Penal Code Article 656.

Pursuant to the Law for Increased Punishment for Flying Pigeons in the Vicinity of an Airport, the judge also found the 30-year-old plaintiff guilty of keeping a pigeon in the vicinity of an airport without permit. Because he had no criminal record, however, in accordance with Islamic Penal Code Article 22, Paragraph 5, the judge reduced his sentence from imprisonment to payment of a one-million-Rial monetary penalty.”

ABF Note

 

Findings of guilt in the Islamic Republic of Iran's Judicial Proceedings

The Islamic Republic of Iran's criminal justice system regularly falls short of the standards for due process necessary for impartiality, fairness, and efficacy. Suspects are often held incommunicado and not told of the reason for their detainment. Defendants are frequently prohibited from examining the evidence used against them. Defendants are sometimes prohibited from having their lawyers present in court. Additionally, confessions, made under duress or torture, are commonly admitted as proof of guilt. Because Iran's courts regularly disregard principles essential to the proper administration of justice, findings of guilt may not be evaluated with certainty.

Corporal Punishment: the Legal context in the Islamic Republic of Iran

The Islamic Republic's criminal code recognizes corporal punishment for a wide range of offenses: consumption of alcohol, theft, adultery, "flouting" of public morals, and mixing of the sexes in public. Judges have the latitude to mete out corporal punishment for those sentenced to death. In such cases, the flogging is carried out before death to maximize the suffering of defendant. Aside from flogging, the Islamic Republic also employs amputations as a punishment for theft. In such cases, the defendant is taken to a hospital and put under anesthesia as his hand or foot is amputated. In some cases the left foot and right hand are cut off, making it difficult for the condemned to walk, even with the assistance of a cane or crutches.

The Islamic Republic's Systematic Violation of its International Obligations under International Law

The use of corporal punishment is contrary to international law and is addressed in several international agreements. Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Iran has ratified, states that, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Identical language is also used in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Iran is also a party to. The strongest expression of international disapproval is contained in the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). This treaty defines torture as, "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as ... punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed." Although the Islamic Republic of Iran has yet to sign the CAT, the prohibition on torture is now considered jus cogens and, therefore, part of customary international law. Furthermore, even though the norm against corporal punishment is not yet a jus cogens, there is increasing evidence that it is illegal under international human rights law.[1] In Osbourne v. Jamaica, the Committee Against Torture (a body of experts responsible for monitoring compliance with the Convention) held that "corporal punishment constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment contrary to Article 7 of the Convention." The Islamic Republic of Iran's systematic violations of its obligations under international law have been addressed by the UN General Assembly multiple times, most recently in December 2007. In Resolution 62/168, the UN expressed deep concern with Iran's continued flouting of international human rights law, particularly, "confirmed instances of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including flogging and amputations."