Abdorrahman Boroumand Center

for Human Rights in Iran

https://www.iranrights.org
Memorial
Omid, a memorial in defense of human rights in Iran
One Person’s Story

Zahra Bahrami

About

Age: 45
Nationality: Iran
Religion: Unknown
Civil Status: Single

Case

Date of Killing: January 29, 2011
Location of Killing: Evin Prison, Tehran, Tehran Province, Iran
Mode of Killing: Hanging
Charges: Drug trafficking; Drug possession; War on God, God's Prophet and the deputy of the Twelfth Imam

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 have been violated in this case:

  • The right to liberty and security of the person. The right not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention.

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 3; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 9.1.

  • The right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, including the right to change and manifest one’s religion or belief.

    UDHR, Article 18; ICCPR, Article 18.1, ICCPR, Article 18.2; Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, Article 1 and Article 6.

    In its general comment 22 (48) of 20 July 1993, the United Nation’s Human Rights Committee observed that the freedom to "have or to adopt" a religion or belief necessarily entailed the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one’s current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views, as well as the right to retain one’s religion or belief. Article 18, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights bars coercion that would impair the right to have or adopt a religion or belief, including the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers to adhere to religious beliefs and congregations, to recant their religion or belief or to convert.

  • The right to freedom of opinion and expression, including the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas.

    UDHR, Article 19; ICCPR, Article 19.1 and ICCPR, Article 19.2.

  • The right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of one’s interests.

    UDHR, Article 20; ICCPR, Article 22.1.

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 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 a fair and public trial without undue delay.

    ICCPR, Article 14.1, Article 14.3.c.

  • The right to defense through an attorney or legal aid. 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 appeal to a court of higher jurisdiction.

    ICCPR, Article 14.5.

  • 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.

About this Case

Correct/ Complete This Entry

Information relating to the execution of Ms. Zahra Bahrami, a UK resident with dual Iranian-Dutch citizenship, was drawn from official statements by Iranian authorities, published reports by human rights groups, testimonies of her family, media reports, and a Boroumand Foundation's interview with a former prisoner. The latter was detained in Evin during the detention and interrogation of Ms. Bahrami and managed to communicate with her for a short time while she was in solitary confinement and also when she was brought to the public ward. This person was interviewed outside Iran (November 2011 and January, 2012). Also see Amnesty International statements (December 2010, 29 January and 16 February 2011), announcement by the Public and Revolution Prosecutor's Office (29 January 2011), Radio Netherlands Worldwide, (27 and 31 January 2011, and 4 February 2011), Reuters (2 February 2011), Wall Street Journal (7 February 2011), BBC (29 January 2011), Deutsche Welle (29 January 2011), Radio Free Europe (22 December 2011).*

The news of Ms. Bahrami's execution led to tensions between Iran and the Netherlands as well as in Iran's relations with the European Union. The Dutch media, some political parties, and Iranian residents in the Netherlands criticized the Dutch government for its slow reaction and its limited efforts in support of Ms. Bahrami (Radio Netherlands Worldwide, 31 January 2011). Furthermore, the Dutch Parliament summoned the Foreign Minister for explanation (Radio Zamaneh, 31 January 2011). The Dutch government temporarily suspended all diplomatic contact with Iran. Iran responded by accusing the [European] states of meddling in its internal affairs (Reuters, 2 February 2011).

Ms Bahrami was born in Tehran and had a son and two daughters. According to the available information, she had experienced many difficulties throughout her life. She left Iran with her son in 1991 after her divorce from her first husband. She settled in the Netherlands in 1992, where she eked out a living through performing professional Indian dancing. She was also a student of Indian sitar music at the Rotterdam Conservatory. According to Dutch media reports (Radio Netherlands Worldwide, 4 February 2011), Ms. Bahrami got involved in drug smuggling in 1999 after she learned that one of her daughters was in a poor psychological condition. She needed money to pay for her fare to Iran and bring her daughter to the Netherlands. But the attempt proved to be ultimately unsuccessful. She was arrested by the Dutch authorities in 2003 and handed down a three-year prison sentence.

Ms. Bahrami left for Britain in 2006 to begin a new life. In 2007 she was again arrested in the Netherlands while carrying a forged Austrian passport, and sentenced to one year in prison (Radio Netherlands Worldwide, (4 February 2011). Her daughter, Ms Banafsheh Nayebpour, said in an interview that her mother visited Iran quite often in order to see her and the children of her brother, whom she had been helping ever since the latter's execution (International Campaign for Human Rights, 26 January 2011).

According to existing information, Ms. Bahrami became politically active in support of the opposition after arriving in Britain. She was apparently in contact with opposition media under the alias of "Kurdieh Banoo", and was providing them with occasional reports on the demonstrations inside Iran. In that connection, a recording of her voice in conversation with Pars TV is posted on YouTube. During that period, she paid several visits to Iran. According to Amnesty International, Ms Bahrami had visited Tehran to take care of her daughter who was receiving chemotherapy treatment (Amnesty International, 29 January 2011).

The witness interviewed by ABF remembers Ms. Bahrami as a lively woman who was very kind to fellow prisoners and defiant towards the guards. “I could hear her make prisoners laugh. Sometimes, she even made the guards, laugh.” She liked music and was often singing her cell (ABF interview, January 20, 2012).

Arrest and Detention

Ms. Bahrami was arrested in the winter of 2010 alongside three other individuals. Non-governmental and human rights sources believe that she was arrested during the Ashura protests in December 2009 (Amnesty International, 29 January 2011). Ms Bahrami's daughter, Ms Nayebpour, also stated in an interview that her mother was arrested in a brutal manner while traveling in a car along Tehran's Shademan Street two days after Ashura. Quoting her mother, she said that Intelligence Ministry agents had arrested her after dragging her out of the car by pulling her hair (JARAS, 15 January 2011). According to a witness, Ms Bahrami was detained in Ward 209 of Evin Prison when the prison was overcrowded with political prisoners in the days following the Ashura arrests (ABF interview, November 16, 2011). After that date, Ms. Bahrami was transferred to the Women's Ward, and two months later, on 7 December 2010, to the Methadone Ward (HRANA, 28 October 2010 and Radio Farda, 21 January 2011). Official and semi-official sources, have given two different dates for the arrest: 1 February (Kayhan, 31 January 2011) and 1 March 2011 (Iran's official response to the British government, as cited by IRNA, 1 February 2011).

Independent witnesses, media and human rights sources believe that Ms Bahrami was tortured and was for a period confined in solitary confinement, without any contact with the outside world (Amnesty International, December 2010). In that regard, Ms Bahrami's daughter told HRANA in an interview that the family had no news of their mother for three months; they did not even know that she had been arrested until Ms Bahrami telephoned them from inside prison (HRANA, 16 January 2011). She had spent at least eight months in solitary confinement, about which she had protested in court on 16 August 2010 (HRANA, 18 August 2010). According to non-official news agencies, Ms Bahrami had been prevented from contacting the Embassy of the Netherlands and her family for some time, and was subsequently permitted to have only brief telephone conversations in the presence of Intelligence Ministry agents (HRANA, 4 April 2010). There are also reports that she had been subjected to lengthy and constant interrogations. These interrogations were not conducted by ordinary interrogators but by the anti-espionage team of the Intelligence Ministry (Radio Zamaneh, citing the International Campaign for Human Rights (31 January 2011)

According to the interviewed source, Ms. Bahrami contacted her through an opening in her cell, during the interrogation period. She repeatedly said that she was tortured. She asked the interviewee to inform anyone she talks to from the outside so that the information about her arrest reaches the Dutch embassy. She was in a very poor physical state and found it very difficult and painful to sit down or stand up as a result of torture. The interviewee also highlighted the prison guards' abusive conduct with prisoners in the wake of the Ashura protests (ABF interview, November 16, 2011). According to reports, she was suffering from lung complications and her face was swollen and covered in infected blemishes; her condition was worsening owing to lack of access to medical care. (HRANA, 11 July 2010). Reports of her physical state were confirmed by her daughter in an interview in January 2011 (Radio Farda, 21 January 2011). The Iranian government rejected all these reports and said that Ms. Bahrami had been accorded all her legal rights (IRNA, 30 January 2011).

Trial

Ms. Bahrami appeared before Branch 15 of Tehran's Islamic Revolution Court presided by Judge Salavati, on 16 August 2010, and was tried by the same court later on 7 December 2010 (Deutsche Welle, 29 January 2011 and Committee of Human Rights Reporters, 5 January 2011).

According to Ms. Bahrami's defense lawyer, Ms Sharif Razi, and also Judiciary Spokesman Mohseni-Ezhe'i, and based on Article 32 of the anti-narcotics law, those sentenced by courts of First Instance on drugs related offenses have no right of appeal, and their cases are merely sent to the state Prosecutor General and the Supreme Court for approval. Consequently, the sentence issued for Ms Bahrami was sent to the Prosecutor General for approval, and subsequently to the Amnesty and Clemency Commission, without going through an appeal stage (Central News Unit, 1 February 2011, HRANA, 29 January 2011, and Rooz Online, 6 January 2011).

Charges

According to official sources, the defense lawyer, her family, and various human rights groups, Ms. Bahrami was initially arrested in relation to security-related issues, and it was later that she was charged with possession and trafficking of drugs. An announcement published by the Public and Revolution Prosecutor's Office in the wake of her execution stated that Ms. Bahrami had been "arrested earlier for security reasons." It was some time later that the charge of forging of documents was added to her indictment (IRNA, 1 February 2011).

In a letter to the British government after Ms. Bahrami's execution, the Iranian embassy stated that she was charged with membership to the Kingdom Assembly of Iran [Anjoman-e Padeshahi-e Iran], which had "caused the martyrdom of 14 and injury of 215 individuals in a terrorist attack in the city of Shiraz" (IRNA, 1 February 2011). A statement by the Tehran Public and Revolution Prosecutor's Office, dated 29 January 2011, also confirmed that the defendant had been "arrested earlier for security reasons."

Kayhan newspaper stated that Ms. Bahrami had "engaged in inciting rioters on the Ashura Day unrest in Tehran (Kayhan, 31 January 2011). Ms Sharif Razi too said in a number of interviews that, as stated by Judge Salavati at Ms Bahrami's preliminary court session, one of the charges against her was that of moharebeh [waging war against God].

Another charge against Ms. Bahrami was the possession of 450 grams of opium, 450 grams of cocaine, and sale of 150 grams of cocaine. The Tehran Public and Revolution Prosecutor's Office announced that she was a "member of an international drugs network and was smuggling cocaine into Iran from the Netherlands through her Dutch contact. As part of her activity in the drugs ring she had smuggled cocaine into Iran on two occasions and distributed them inside the country." (Statement by the Tehran Public and Revolution Prosecutor's Office, 29 January 2011)

Evidence of guilt

The evidence against Ms. Bahrami have been listed as her confession to being a member of the Kingdom Assembly of Iran and the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization, possession of drugs, witness testimonies, and police expert declaration that the drugs found in her home were genuine (Kayhan, 31 January 2011 and Amnesty International, 29 January 2011). The Voice and Vision (state-run Iranian television) broadcast Ms. Bahrami's confessions first in 2010 and later, following Ms. Bahrami's execution, on 29 January 2011. However, after her execution, the part concerning Ms. Bahrami's political links were omitted from the televised confession. She had confessed to participating in the protests, and engaging alongside her co-protestors, who were armed with knives, in clashes with the police. She then went on to confess to possession and trafficking of drugs, which she said she had stored in her home. The television also broadcast a testimony against her given by a young man who claimed to have come across Ms. Bahrami in a cafe where the defendant had suddenly asked him for opium. He added that Ms. Bahrami had then told him about the international drugs trafficking network she was a member of and explained that they had "brought 600 grams of cocaine into Iran and were seeking to take opium, and hashish, methamphetamine out of the country. He added that she [defendant] had sold 150 grams of it and was looking for customers for the remaining quantity" (Iranian TV 2030 news bulletin, 29 January 2011). Her lawyer, Ms Sharif Razi also confirmed the existence of [her client's] confessions in the case but noted that prior to becoming her lawyer, Ms Bahrami had confessed that the drugs belonged to a friend of hers to whom she was feeling somewhat indebted, and that out of friendship she had promised the friend to look after the drugs until his/her return to Iran. (Rooz Online, 6 January 2011).

Regarding the charge of moharebeh and links with the monarchist group, Anjoman Padeshahi Iran, Ms Sharif Razi said that Ms Bahrami had confessed to having had links with the said group several years ago.

Defense

Ms. Bahrami's defense statements in court have not been published. Her family, the Dutch government, and human rights groups have strongly opposed her court process and described it as unjust. (Amnesty International, December 2010 and BBC, 29 January 2011). Ms. Bahrami was tortured during the interrogation process and was suffering from searing pain in that made it extremely difficult for her to sit down or stand up. She told the interviewee repeatedly that she was tortured and insisted that they [interrogators] should not be trusted and that “they lie”. (ABF interview, November 16, 2011). These groups have raised several points in relation to the general mode of the trial.

Firstly, Ms. Bahrami's confessions were extracted under duress, and should, therefore, not be used (Amnesty International, 29 January 2011). According to non-official sources, in the course of the confessions Ms. Bahrami was in a very weak physical state. Ms Bahrami had told the court that all her confessions were made under duress. Her daughter has on many occasions quoted her mother as telling the court president, Judge Salavati, in court: "I was put under pressure. I was in an appalling condition and had no choice but to accept all these charges. But I am telling you now that the charge is totally baseless and I totally reject it." (HRANA, 22 January 2011) Ms Bahrami's lawyer, who was also present at the court session, has confirmed this (Rooz Online, 6 January 2011). The court, however, had paid no attention to the defendant's allegation of torture and deemed her confession as valid evidence (Kayhan, 31 January 2011). Furthermore, Ms. Bahrami's daughter has said that the Tehran Public and Revolution Prosecutor Abbas Ja'fari-Dolatabadi had promised her mother that she would be released if she agreed to give a televised confession. But after she had done so, the confessions were used against her. Ms. Bahrami's confessions and the testimony given against her, which were broadcast on Iranian national TV, are in contradiction with her confessions as quoted by her defense lawyer from the file.

Secondly, Ms. Bahrami's confessions had been broadcast on national TV in 2010, over a year before the start of her trial (Amnesty International, 29 January 2011). And based on existing evidence, the judge presiding over the case had already made his ruling regarding the defendant's guilt before the start of the trial and had told Ms Bahrami's lawyer that her punishment in relation to the drugs charges would be either execution or life imprisonment. (HRANA, 26 August 2010 and Rooz Online, 6 January 2011)

Thirdly, Ms. Bahrami did not have effective access to other guarantees of a fair trial, such as to legal representation. Her first defense lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh, was herself arrested shortly after agreeing to represent her. Also, according to reports, during her legal representation of Ms. Bahrami, she was not given access to her client's file for some time, and had merely managed to have a monitored telephone conversation with her (HRANA, 26 August 2010). Ms. Bahrami's family had not initially been given access to her file either, and had even spent six months to try and track down her case number. Moreover, after Ms Sotoudeh's arrest, Ms. Bahrami's family had serious difficulty in paying the legal fees of another competent lawyer because the court had confiscated Ms. Bahrami's entire assets – as will be mentioned later (HRANA, 25 December 2010) It has been said that the judge and Intelligence Ministry interrogators dealing with the case had also embarked on threatening lawyers to prevent them from taking on Ms Bahrami's case. For instance, at one stage, the judge tore up the legal contract of one of the lawyers who had intended to represent Ms Bahrami (HRANA, 28 October 2010) The case's second lawyer, Ms Sharif Razi, also stated that by the time she took on the case, it was too late for any kind of defense as she had already confessed to offenses that were punishable by death penalty (Rooz Online, 6 January 2011). Furthermore, Ms Bahrami's family and lawyer had been put under pressure not to contact the Dutch embassy or give interviews to the media. When communicating the verdict to Ms Sharif Razi, Judge Salavati warned her not to get in touch with either the media or the Dutch embassy (HRANA, 5 January 2011).

Ja'fari-Dolatabadi also promised her that if she refrained from giving any interviews, he would do his utmost to secure Ms. Bahrami's release (HRANA, 16 January 2011)

Fourthly, throughout her time in detention, before and even after her trial, Ms Bahrami was prevented from having access to consular assistance from her country of nationality, the Netherlands. These criticisms highlight international laws based on which, in the likelihood that the death penalty is meted out to a foreign national, that country's authorities must be notified and be given the right to extend consular assistance to the detainee (Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Avena Case, Mexico versus USA, International Court of Justice, 2004) The Iranian authorities openly prevented Ms. Bahrami from having any contact with the Dutch authorities (Netherlands TV, September 2010). The Iranian authorities pointed to Article 989 of the Civil Code, which does not recognize the adoption of foreign nationality by Iranians who have not first renounced their Iranian nationality, hence any second nationality is considered null and void.

Regarding the charge of possession and trafficking of drugs, Ms. Bahrami's family and human rights bodies believe the charge to be without merit and used to cover up her execution on the charge of moharebeh (waging war against God). Highlighting similar cases in which political activists have most likely been executed on drugs-related charges, Amnesty International quotes Mrs Ebadi as saying that execution of political opponents under the pretext of common offenses is not uncommon in Iran (Amnesty International, 16 February 2011) Moreover, in an interview to Radio Netherlands, Nobel laureate and lawyer Mrs Ebadi raised the question of why the authorities had discovered drugs in Ms Bahrami's home several days after her arrest? Surely, in those few days her family could have easily disposed of the drugs and destroyed any incriminating evidence? (Netherlands Radio, 15 February 2011). Moreover, Ms Bahrami's daughter having dismissed the charge of possession and trafficking of drugs remarked that the illicit substances had been planted in her mother's house (Amnesty International, December 2010). She posed the question of why all of a sudden the political accusations against her mother had been forgotten, and never pursued. And if her mother's offense was an ordinary one, why had she been detained in Evin Prison's security ward for 11 months? (HRANA, 6 January 2011)

Regarding the charge of moharebeh, Ms. Bahrami's lawyer stated that the only evidence against her was her own confession, and even then some parts of the defendant's confession had been disregarded, because she had said that she had cut off her links with the said organization some time ago (Rooz Online, 6 January 2011). Ms. Bahrami's daughter also reiterated that her mother's political activity did not go beyond telephone contacts with opposition media and participation in protest gatherings, and that she had had no links with any political groups. Furthermore, she noted that the Kingdom Assembly of Iran had also denied any links with Ms. Bahrami (HRANA, 6 January 2011). This possibility is corroborated by Ms Bahrami's telephone contact with Pars TV network under the alias of "Kurdieh Banoo". In the course of that telephone contact, Ms Bahrami had highlighted some of the state violence against protestors in the wake of the 2009 elections, to which she was a witness. She had also made some harsh remarks about the Iranian government and the manners of protest. For instance, she said: "... Don't tell us not to beat them up! We will beat them up! We will set off fires! We will tear down! We will attack everything of this regime!..." (YouTube, quoting Persian Radio, presented by Sa'id Qa'em-Maghami)

A Summary of the Legal Defects in the Adjudication of Ms. Zahra Bahrami’s Case

According to published reports, Ms. Zahra Bahrami retracted her initial confession at trial and stated that it had been obtained under torture and duress. Her attorney also confirmed at trial that she had been tortured. Nevertheless, the Revolutionary Court relied on her confession made during the interrogations and at the Prosecutor’s Office [before the Investigating Judge], and rendered its decision on that basis. Pursuant to Iranian law, torturing and putting a defendant under duress is illegal and considered to be a crime. Furthermore, confessions obtained in this manner are without legal credence. Principle 38 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran as well as other Iranian laws expressly state that a confession made under duress has no validity whatsoever, and go so far as to even consider the extraction of an admission through torture to be a crime and those who commit such an act, criminals. (Islamic Penal Code, Article 578). Therefore, the court’s reliance on testimony or confession made under duress and torture was completely contrary to the law. It was necessary for the court to conduct investigations into such a claim before relying on a confession as the basis of its ruling. Furthermore, pursuant to Iranian law, including the Islamic Penal Code and the Law on General and Revolutionary Courts Rules of Criminal Procedure, admissions and confessions are legally valid only when made before the trial judge issuing a ruling in the case. (The Law on General and Revolutionary Courts Rules of Criminal Procedure, Note to Article 59). In other words, although confessions made before a person who is not a judge is considered a type of evidence, it is necessary, however, that admissions and confessions be made before the judge and for the judge to hear it for himself if the court cites such admissions as the basis of its ruling. Therefore, confessions made before the investigating judge or law enforcement officials alone, cannot be cited as evidence in the judge’s ruling. This provision does not take into consideration whether the confession was obtained legally or under torture; in other words, by the simple act of the defendant not confessing before the court, her confession in prior stages cannot be relied on as the basis of the ruling.

According to available information, judicial authorities created serious impediments to Ms. Bahrami’s access to a defense attorney, and prevented an attorney from being present and representing her at various stages of the proceedings. Pursuant to Principle 35 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran and to Articles 128 and 185 of the Law on General and Revolutionary Courts Rules of Criminal Procedure of 1999, access to an attorney has been officially recognized as a right. To that end, the Law Providing for the Selection of Attorneys by Parties to a Dispute, states that in the event of violation of the right to retain an attorney, the ruling issued by the court shall have be null and void. In the present case, Ms. Bahrami’s attorney stated that by the time he had entered the case, there was no longer anything that could be done, and that all the evidence that could lead to a sentence of capital punishment had already been gathered. It appears, therefore, that the absence of an attorney in a very important part of the adjudication seriously impeded a fair trial.

Various judicial and non-judicial authorities have made statements on numerous occasions regarding whether the charge against Ms. Bahrami was security related or not. In spite of that, however, she was ultimately executed for drug related crimes. The aforementioned statements demonstrate that the case was opened against her with a security angle in mind, and that it was the Information Ministry agents who conducted the preliminary interrogations and investigations. Security agents entering a drug case is neither justifiable nor legal under any circumstances, since Information Ministry agents are not considered the Judiciary’s law enforcement officers in drug related cases. In other words, the officers who engaged in conducting preliminary investigations had no legal authority to do so. That fact alone invalidates all preliminary investigations conducted in the case.

Ms. Bahrami’s family had no information about her whereabouts until three months after her arrest, whereas a defendant must be able to contact his/her family immediately upon arrest in order to inform them of said arrest. Furthermore, Ms. Bahrami spent 8 months in solitary confinement, and such confinement has not been provided for in any Iranian law. Additionally, if hers was a drug-related case, and drugs had been recovered from her home, then keeping her in solitary confinement for 8 months and conducting lengthy interrogations was meaningless [and served no purpose whatsoever].

She was buried without her family’s knowledge, and this is while no one other than a deceased’s family has the legal right to carry out the funeral rites. According to Article 18 of the “Regulations on the Manner of Implementation of Qesas, (“Retributive death sentence”), Stoning, Murder, Crucifixion, Execution, and Flogging Sentences as Provided for in Article 293 of the Law on the General and Revolutionary Courts Rules of Criminal Procedure of 2003”, “once the sentence has been carried out and the Medical Examiner or a trusted physician has determined with certainty that death has occurred, the deceased’s body shall be taken from the place the sentence was carried out and shall be turned over to the Office of the Medical Examiner. In the event that the convict’s [family and next of kin] ask for the body, the deceased’s body shall be turned over to them upon a determination and order of the judicial authority in charge of the implementation of the sentence; otherwise, the body shall be buried in accordance with the applicable legal and religious regulations. In the latter case, all burial expenses shall be borne by Beit-ol-Mal (“the Government funds”).”

Judgement

Ms. Bahrami was sentenced to death and confiscation of property on the charge of possession and involvement in the trafficking of cocaine. She was also sentenced to 70 lashes and a payment of a 14 million-rial cash fine (Statement by the Tehran Public and Revolution Prosecutor's Office, 29 January 2011). The sentence was communicated to Ms Bahrami's lawyer on 2 January 2011 (HRANA, 5 January 2011)

Ms Zahra Bahrami was hanged at dawn on Saturday 29 January 2011 (Statement by the Tehran Public and Revolution Prosecutor's Office, 29 January 2011). Her daughter quoted remarks by one of her mother's cellmates on the manner of her execution. She quoted her as saying that they had come to Ms Bahrami's cell a day before her execution and told her to pack her belongings. She spent the night in the Prayers Room. They woke her up at 4 am and took her to the gallows. They told her to write down her last will and testament (Radio Free Europe, 4 January 2012) Ms Bahrami's execution took her family, lawyer and the Dutch government by surprise. None of them had been notified (Amnesty International, 16 February 2011). After the execution of her client, Ms. Sharif Razi told the media that she had no knowledge whatsoever of the execution, while legally, the convict's lawyer should be informed 48 hours in advance of the execution (Wall Street Journal, 7 February 2011 and Amnesty International 16 February 2011). Ms. Bahrami's family also disclosed that they had not been notified of the prosecutor's decision. Ms Bahrami's daughter told the International Campaign for Human Rights that her mother's file was still going through the administrative stages for amnesty and that they were still awaiting a positive or negative response in that regard (Rooz Online, 30 January 2011 and Radio Zamaneh, 3 February 2011). Moreover, the Intelligence Ministry's Follow-Up Department had given Ms Bahrami's family assurance that the case would be settled in the Amnesty and Clemency Commission and that there was no cause for concern (Rooz Online, 30 January 2011).

As to whether or not all her trial stages had been completed, there are contradictions between government sources, her family and lawyer on the one hand, and various [other] government sources, on the other. In a statement issued immediately in the wake of Ms Bahrami's execution, the Tehran Public and Revolution Prosecutor's Office declared that the aforementioned sentences had been approved by the Prosecutor-General (Statement by the Tehran Public and Revolution Prosecutor's Office, 29 January 2011). The Iranian ambassador to the Netherlands also announced: "The enforcement of the verdict demonstrated that it had been approved by the Prosecutor-General and the time period for the approval of the verdict by the Prosecutor depends on the judge and the trial stages." Judiciary Spokesman Mohseni-Ezhe'i told a news conference that both the first and second amnesty commissions had rejected Ms Bahrami's appeal for amnesty (Central News Unit, 1 February 2011) The statement by the Tehran Public and Revolution Prosecutor's Office makes no mention of a court verdict in relation to the charge of moharebeh (Statement by the Tehran Public and Revolution Prosecutor's Office, 29 January 2011).

The Dutch government also announced its shock and regret at the abrupt execution of Ms. Bahrami. The Dutch foreign minister stated that his government had heard of the execution via the media (Radio Farda, 30 January 2011) Only a day before her execution, the Iranian authorities had given assurance to the Dutch government that her sentence would be reconsidered (Wall Street Journal, 7 February 2011 and Radio Netherlands Worldwide, 27 January 2011)

Owing to the common practice of the Iranian government when it comes to dealing with executed political opponents, Ms. Bahrami's family encountered difficulties in collecting her body.

Although Ms. Bahrami's family had stated their intention to bury her in Fars Province, it was reported that the authorities buried her body, without the presence of her family, in Semnan, on 6 February 2011. Moreover, the family of the deceased were threatened against holding a public funeral ceremony for her. They were also told not to inform the Dutch government of the covert burial of Ms. Bahrami (Human Rights and Democracy Activists in Iran, 7 February 2011 and Amnesty International, December 2010). Furthermore, for some time her family had been banned from placing a tombstone on her grave. And security agents warned them that only up to 10 persons could visit her grave. Ms. Bahrami's family were also summoned to and interrogated by the Intelligence Ministry several times after her execution. They were threatened by the ministry not to contact the Dutch government or human rights bodies, or else they would broadcast television programs in which they would accuse Ms. Bahrami of moral corruption, and dishonor her whole family (Human Rights and Democracy Activists, 2 March 2011).

_________________________

*Other sources used in this document include: The Central News Unit (1 February 2011), Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA – 30 January and 1 February 2011), The 2030 Iranian TV news bulletin (Voice and Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 29 January 2011), International Campaign for Human Rights (26 January 2011), Radio Zamaneh (31 January and 3 February 2011), Keyhan (31 January 2011), Harana (4 April, 11 July, 18 August, 30 September, 28 October, and 25 December 2010, 5, 16, 22, and 29 January 2011), Rooz Online (6 and 30 January 2011), Human Rights and Democracy Activists in Iran (29 January, 7 February and 2 March 2011), Radio Farda (21 January 2011), Saham News (4 February 2011), Cheraq (7 February 2011), Committee of Human Rights Reporters (5 January 2011)

Correct/ Complete This Entry ❯