Aquittal For Law Enforcement Officers Charged With 1999 University Dormitory Attack
Farhad Nazari and 17 more law enforcement officers were acquitted.
Excerpts of the Court's ruling regarding the law enforcement officers charged with assault and battery against the students in the university dormitories on July 9th, 1999.
"(....) Here, we turn to a few of the offences committed in the presence of the security officers:
1. A public gathering without license took place in Karegar Street
near " Kuye Daneshgah" [the university dormitory] at around 11:PM on 78/4/17 (8 July 1999). In objection to decrees passed by the Islamic Consultative Assembly [the parliament] a crowd gathered in street. This behavior is considered a violation of Article 610 of the Penal Code. As it has been explained before, if this type of behavior is conducted to disrupt public order and national security, the offender, upon the decision of the President of the Court, will be called "Mohareb" [at war with God, a crime punishable by death penalty][1]. However, if the purpose of this gathering was not to threaten national security, the offender will only be subject to 2 to 5 years imprisonment.
2. According to the letter No. 158982, issued on 74/2/25 by the Director-General in charge of security and public order at the Ministry of Interior, this demonstration was unlawful and was organized without the required permit for demonstration from the Ministry of Interior. The Interior Ministry in the above-mentioned letter has clearly expressed that any public gathering, for whatever reason must be organized under the supervision of the relevant authorities and be issued with a permit by this Ministry. Moreover, a permit should be obtained in advance. It is worth noting that it has been argued that student demonstrations are customary and have a long history. Several instances have been cited to support the customary character of student protests such as:
a) Student demonstrations in support of their presidential candidate on the 76/3/4 (25 May 1997)
b) On 76/3/6 (27 May 1997) student demonstrations against the concept of "al-'amr bilma'ruf wa al-nahy 'an al-munkar""[2] caused tensions in a dormitory and resulted in a Muslim sister being beaten. This sister was expelled from the dormitory by the former president of the student dormitory.
c) On 76/6/17 (8 Sep 1997) student protests during dorm allocations were accompanied by violence, including the breaking of windows at the dorm however, before officers dispersed the students.
d) On 77/7/18 (10 Oct 1998) student demonstrations against police misconduct in the dorms led to tensions and disrespect against the Sepah [Islamic Revolution Guard Corps, (IRGC)] and the Supreme Leader.
e) On 76/7/20 (12 Oct 1997) students demonstrated against poor conditions in the dorms.
f) On 76/7/20 (12 Oct 1997) there were protests against poor quality food in the universities.
g) On 76/8/10 (1 Nov 1997) the protests concerned a power outage in the dorms.
h) On 77/9/23 (14 Dec 1998) demonstrations concerned internal student strife.
i) On 77/10/5 (26 Dec 1998) there were protests in support of Karbaschi [former mayor of Tehran, whose arrest and trial was politically motivated].
j) On 76/10/12 (2 Jan 1998) there were more demonstrations concerning welfare and food for the students.
k) On 76/10/14 (4 Jan 1997) students demonstrated against the disconnection of water and poor quality food.
l) On 77/10/22 (12 Jan 1998) students demonstrated against the chain murderers and other political issues.
Many of these demonstrations were accompanied by criminal acts. Having said so, the frequency of an act and the impunity it has been granted is not at all indicative that the act is not crime. Secondly, most of the above mentioned demonstrations were concerned with students' welfare, education and administrative issues or political movements that benefit the country and thus were certainly acceptable. However, when the demonstration disrupts or weakens the system and insults the regime or sacred Islamic values, it cannot by any means be called a customary student protest!
3. Causing disturbances and other crimes committed by demonstrators at midnight infringed on the public's rest and tranquility. Article 2 of the statute passed in 1366 (1987) states that "anyone who takes away the public's rest and tranquility with actions that are not customary or actions which threaten people's lives, businesses, and freedom will be subject to imprisonment from 2 to 12 months.
4. In accordance with Articles 683 and 677, endangering public safety and damaging public property is a crime punishable with up to 5 years imprisonment.
5. Assaulting police officers and not following their orders is considered disobedience of law enforcement and the perpetrator will be subject to punishments entailed in Article 607 of Penal Code.
6. Insulting and swearing against Imam Khomeini and the Supreme Leader is an offence according to Article 514 of the Penal Code.
7. Insulting, defaming and swearing the high officials of the regime, the heads of the three powers and the commanders of the security forces of the Islamic republic of Iran was a crime obviously committed by the demonstrators.
8. There are complaints of kidnapping and hostage taking committed by rioters that are punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment under the Article 621 of the Penal code. Now, if on-duty security officers are present on the scene and witness these crimes, shouldn't they react? Is the security officers' entry into the dorm in order to stop the chaos and arrest the rioters considered an invasion of people's privacy that requires a warrant? Isn't their entrance in complete accordance with Article 23 of the criminal procedure? Now, either we should assume that insulting the regime and committing other similar acts are not a crime or we should make an exception for university students. Or maybe we should ignore the chaos brought forth by the students based on the fact that it occurred in the students' dormitory, a sacred place of knowledge and education. However, even the dear university students who are the elite of our society believe that they should not be exempted from obeying the laws and that all people are equal under the law. Especially when our respected President Khatami has always emphasized the importance of the rule of law.... Our dear students should not give an opportunity to a group of rioters to transform a sacred place of education to a shelter for criminals. Therefore, the named accused will be acquitted in accordance with Article 37 of the Constitution.
B. In reference to the allegation that the defendant disobeyed relevant instructions, it was alleged that General Nazari, after receiving an order from the Minster of Interior and NAJA( the Islamic Republic Security Forces) not to intervene, nonetheless went to the scene and orders his officers to intervene . In response, it should be explained that the defendant is denying the allegation in court and claims that the officers entered the dorm without orders. Secondly, General Ansari, in subsection d (5) on page 35 of the case, explained that during the third incursion that occurred at 7 in the morning of the 78/4/18 (9 Jul 1999), he was busy explaining the order to General Nazari, General Rajabzadeh, Mr. Sadr Al Islam and other officers: "The order, which came from the Interior Minister and the Supreme Leader, stated that there could not be any shooting, trespassing of the dorm or use of tear gas. I noticed that the students who were present at the Karegar Shomali [street] had attacked the security forces and that fighting had begun. Therefore, it was impossible for General Nazari to implement the order. I have on several occasions mentioned that General Nazari didn't disobey instruction but simply wasn't given the opportunity to implement the order. I personally did not hear him give any order to enter to the dorm. Neither have I heard from someone else that he ordered the entry."
The Regulatory Statuteorganizing the interaction between the commanders of security forces and the governors of the provinces, t/204/2/568 dated 76/8/25 (16 Nov 1997) and published by the armed forces of Iran, addresses four situations. The security forces of Tehran are exempted from those four situations by Article 4, which states that the defense and protection of the Tehran metropolitan area are not part of statute. We have to consider the fact that the capability to implement the order of the Interior Ministry was impaired. Furthermore with regard to security and public order, the four level of emergency situation alluded to above are as follows: a) Determining and declaring level one of emergency situation at the regional and provincial cities rests with the head of the Provincial Security Council; b) Determining and declaring level two of emergency situation rests with the Provincial Security Council with the approbation the Supreme Security Council; and c) Determining and declaring level three of emergency situation rests the Supreme Security Council with the approbation of the Supreme Leader. It is obvious that the events that occurred on 78/4/18 (9 Jul 1999) do not fall under any of the aforementioned situations. Therefore, the security officers should have acted in compliance with their inherent duties in reaction to the chaos they were confronted with and it seems they did exactly that. It is worth noting that it is impossible to impugn bad faith to the security forces and that bad faith is an element of the crime. It is impossible to even imagine that someone whose whole life has been about loving the regime, Islam, the Revolution and "velayat" [the absolute guardianship of the Supreme Leader], and has a record of serving the people or working in the underprivileged regions of Iran during times of crisis, and who was part of the major military operations during the Iran-Iraq war, including "sar pol zahab', "Gila -gharb', ‘Tarigh al Qods",. ‘Bostsan', "Chazabeh', "Beit Al moghadas', "Fat al-mobin'. " Moharam", " Ramazan", preliminary "VAlfajr", The third"Val Fajr" and the fourth "Val Fajr", and is a devoted person who is 65% disabled due to the war, could possibly disregard the order of the commander in chief and enter into the dorm! Therefore, because of the lack of the bad faith, and based on the Article 37 of the Constitution of Iran and the well- known principal that innocence is presumed until guilt is proven, I now announce the defendant not guilty.
C. With respect to the allegation that the defendant's action has weakened the faith of the public in the security forces of Iran, it is an undeniable fact that since this incident people became more leery of the security forces in Iran, however, holding the general solely responsible for this state of affairs requires a dose of contemplation. We should examine the reason or reasons which made people to lose their trust in the security forces of Iran. When a statute concerning the security forces exists in a country and, in compliance with that law, the security forces are tasked with reacting to chaos in turbulent times, the security forces are accountable to act in that capacity and equip themselves with enough weaponry to respond effectively to riots and revolts and to protect the public's safety and security. This is security force's inherent duty and how could it possibly be considered an illegal action or an act that destroys people's faith? Moreover, if the media and press overreact and exaggerate the security forces' actions in hyping a case that makes it appear as if something wrong was done by the security services, and make it seem as if the rioters were victims in this situation, why would someone expect the public to remain confident about the security forces and not to have their faith shaken? Is it the security forces of Iran or the law evader and irresponsible media that try to present an ugly face for the Islamic Republic who has caused the people to loose their faith? It seems that in the incident of 9-13 July 1999 the security forces did not do anything that could destroy the public's faith and only acted in line with their assigned duties. The lead defendant also denies this accusation. Moreover, there is not any reliable evidence that connects the defendant to this situation. Therefore, since there is no reliable or probative evidence and based on the Article 37 of the Constitution, I now announce the General not guilty.
D. In reference to defendant Farhad Arjomandi, who was the commander of "Nopoo" at the time, and who is accused of assault, battery, and conversion, he has confessed in open court that he entered into the dorm. He stated that, "I personally entered the dorm and I also issued an order to enter the dorm and arrest the rioters." He clearly denied the commitment of battery, assault and conversion. Moreover there is no reliable evidence against the defendant that he committed the named offences. Considering Gen. Farhad Nazari's statement, his policy was not to trespass into the students' dormitory. "I say clearly that I did not order anybody to enter the dormitory area. If any of my forces did so, they disobeyed orders," said Gen. Nazari. In any military action, if the chief commander is present at the scene and his underlings disobey his order, the offense of insubordination is committed. Therefore, considering all probative and reliable evidence, policemen Farhad Arjomandi will be sentenced to two years imprisonment for refusing to obey orders based on the Article 23 of the Penal Code for the security forces.
With respect to the other defendants, accused as accomplices of assault, battery and conversion on the third, we will consider all reliable evidence and circumstances flowing from the following facts:
1. It is clear that several students have been beaten and injured.
2. It is clear that an unidentifiable number of the plaintiffs, whose medical records have been presented to the Court, did not resist the security forces and were injured for no reason.
3. It is clear that several members of the security forces encountered resistance and, following lawful pursuit of the rioters in Kargar street, on the university campus, and in the dormitory, were injured. Since the rioters challenged security forces who were acting in their legal capacity, and were injured while protesting and insulting the regime, throwing stones and firecrackers, and destroying public property, the above mentioned defendants cannot be convicted of any crimes in the indictment.
4. The dear injured students whose right should be respected have not complained about a specific defendant and the alleged assailant has not been identified. Furthermore, there were several unidentified interlopers who were not part of the security services but were present and attacked students. As mentioned above, the defendants were acting within their duties and deny the allegations. Moreover, because the complaint is not targeting a specific person, upon the denial of the defendants (even given that this is a Hagh Alnnas [people's right]), the Court cannot force any defendant to go through the swearing process. Therefore, I announce the defendants non guilty and base my verdict upon Article 332 of the Islamic Penal Code, which states that when a security or military official shoots a person while following a lawful order he will not be responsible for the victim's blood money. In those cases featuring fatalities, the Treasury will pay blood money to the family of the victim unless the victim is one of those persons whose blood can be shed with impunity (Mahdoor aldam). By analogy we will treat the plaintiffs in our case in a similar manner, with the Treasury being responsible for the blood money due the injured persons. Moreover, the implied confession of a few officials is the only evidence of battery and no specific defendants are named in the plaintiffs' summons and complaints. Also, because the officers' confessions were not made before the court but at the prosecutor's office, and was later retracted, there is not enough credible evidence for the court to convict the above mentioned defendants as accomplices to battery and assault. Therefore, based on the above mentioned reasoning, and considering the advisory opinion of the legal department of the Ministry of Justice, no. 7,7810 and 64/12/28 (19 Mar 1986), and in contemplation of chapter 6 of the "Vasael al shieh" (p. 110) where the third and the fourth Hadiths proclaim: Imam Ali said that, day or night, if someone is killed or injured due to the pressure of another in a crowd, then there can be no retaliation or blood money. Imam Sadeq conveyed the same message from Imam Ali and also added that blood money should be paid from the Treasury. Hence, based on the Article 332 of the Penal code and Articles 367, 375, 431, 442, 480, 481, subsection B of the Article 482, Articles 484, and 485 of the Penal Code, blood money for the following cases should be paid from the Treasury:
1) Mr. Mohsen Jamali who, based on the medical report No. 10/5/26298 dated 78/7/13, became blinded in right eye and whose right cheek bone was fractured, according to Articles 457, 480(7) of the Penal code, shall be paid half the blood money due a Muslim man for his blinded eye and 15% of the blood money due a Muslim man for his broken cheek bone.
2) Mr. Gholamreza Mahmoudi who, based on the medical report No. 10/5/15926 dated 78/4/30, had the last third part of his right ulna broken, shall be paid 8% of the blood money due a Muslim Man based on the Article 442 of the Penal Code.
3) Mr Ramin Karimi who, based on the medical report No. 10/5/44506, suffered a bruised chin and broken leg , shall, based on the Articles 442, 480, 484, of the Penal code, be paid one and a half "dinars" and 8% of the blood money due a Muslim Man . Furthermore, he is entitled to, 0.5% of the blood money for "H_Rreseh" (scratching of skin without bleeding) of his right leg.
4) Mr. Saeid Kord who, based on the medical report No. 10/5/16/548 dated 78/5/2 suffered from "D_M_Yeh"( a scratch which passes skin and slightly enters the tissue and causes bleeding.) according to the Article 480(2) of the Penal Code, shall be paid 2% of the blood money due a Muslim man.
5) Mr. Sabzian Molabi who, based on the medical report No. 10/5/23030 dated 78/6/17 had a bruised left hand shall be paid one and a half dinars and based on the Article 480 and 484 of the Penal Code, and for the "H_Reseh"(, scratching of skin without bleeding) of his hand and leg, 1% of the blood money due to a Muslim man will be awarded to him.
6) In regard to Mr. Ghodrat Farzi who, based on the medical report No. 10/3732 dated 78/4/28 had a scratch on the inner side of his right leg will be paid 2% of the blood money due a Muslim man for the "D_M_Yeh" in accordance with Article 480(2) of the Penal Code.
7) In regard to Mr. Farid Azadbakht who, based on the Medical report No. 10/5/16685 dated 78/5/17 had three scratches on the back of his left hand, in accordance with Article 480(2) of the Penal Code, shall be paid for three "D_M_Yeh", which is 3% of the blood money for a Muslim man.
8) In respect to Mr. Navid Moghareb who, based on the Medical report No. 10/5/14902 in accordance with Article 484(2) , 485 and 480, shall be paid 2% for one "D_M_Yeh" in his lip and 500,000 Rial for the swollen nose and 0.9% for 6 bruises in areas other than his face and 0.3% for one blackened eye and 3% of money due the Muslim man for three "H-Reseh" in areas other than his head and face.
9) In regard to Mr. Hossein Kamandi who, based on the Medical report No. 10/5/16689 dated 78/5/2 had four bruises in areas other than face in is entitled to 0.6% of the money blood in accordance with Article 484(b),
10) With regard to Mr. Farid Bayati who, based on the Medical report No. 10/5/3790 dated 79/2/20 had the "H_Reseh" in his face, based on the Article 480, shall be awarded 1% of the blood money due to a Muslim man.
11) With regard to Mr. Fardin Taghihzadeh who, based on the Medical report No. 10/5/3790 dated 79/2/20 had two "H_Reseh" in his head will be awarded 2% of the blood money due to a Muslim man in accordance with Article 480.
12) With regard to Mr. Siavash Akhtari who, based on the Medical report No. 10/5/3790 dated 79/2/20 suffered from one "D_M_Yeh" in his forehead, will be awarded 2% of the blood money due to a Muslim man in accordance with Article 480(2).
13) With regard to Mr. Shahram Zarrini who, based on the Medical report No. 10/5/3790 dated 79/2/20 suffered from a swollen neck will be awarded 500,000 Rials in accordance with Article 485.
14) With regard to Mr. Javad Ebraghi who, based on the Medical report No. 10/5/3790 dated 79/2/20 suffered from one "D_M_Yeh" , he will be awarded 1% money blood in accordance with Article 480(b) and 484.
15) With regard to Mr. Karam Karimi who, based on the Medical report No. 10/5/3790 dated 79/2/20 suffered from a laceration in his hand, will be awarded 2% of the blood money due to a Muslim man in accordance with Article 480(2).
16) With regard to Mr. Mohammad Ramazani who, based on the Medical report No. 10/5/3790 dated 79/2/20 had a bruise on his forearm, in accordance with Article 484(b) and 425, will be awarded one and half dinar and for the bruised knuckle of the pinkie of the right hand he will be paid for 1/10th of 0.1/5% of the full a man money blood.
17) With regard to Mr. Hamid Tohidi who, based on the Medical report No. 10/5/3790 dated 79/2/20 suffered from one "H_Rreseh" in his head, will be awarded 1% of blood money in accordance with Article 480(1).
18) With regard to Mr. Reza Sorji who, based on the Medical report No. 10/5/3790 dated 79/2/20 suffered from a swollen arm, will be awarded 500,000 Rials in accordance with Article 485.
19) With regard to Mr. Ayat Javadi who, based on the Medical report No. 10/5/3790 dated 79/2/20 had two of his bones fractured, will be awarded 16% of blood money in accordance with Article 480(2) and 442.
20) With regard to Mr. Sadegh Koutik who, based on the Medical report No. 10/5/3790 dated 79/2/20 suffered from laceration on his back, will be awarded 1% of the blood money due to a Muslim man in accordance with Article 480(2).
21) With regard to Mr. Mohammad Hassan Karkhaneh who, based on the Medical report No. 10/5/3790 dated 79/2/20 had two scratches on his head, he will be paid 4% of the blood money in accordance with Article 480.
22) With regard to Mr. Ghorbanali Faraji who, based on the medical report No. 10/5/3790 dated 79/2/20 had his second Vertebra broken, will be paid one hundred dinars in accordance with Article 431.
23) With regard to Mr. Abbas Khodabakhshian who, based on the Medical report No. 10/5/3790 dated 79/2/20 had "H_Rreseh" in his lip and nose, will be awarded 2% of blood money, in accordance with Article 480. Also for the bruise under his eye 0.3% blood money will be paid based on Article 484.
24) With regard to Mr. Gholamali Khosravi who, based on the Medical report No. 10/5/3790 dated 79/2/20 had a cut on his forehead, will be awarded 5% of blood money in accordance with Article 480(5).
25) With regard to Mr. Ali akbr Bolandi who, based on the Medical report No. 10/5/3790 dated 79/2/20 had a cut on the forehead, he will be awarded 2% of blood money in accordance with Article 480(2).
26) With regard to Mr. Ali Soleimani who, based on the Medical report No. 10/5/3790 dated 79/2/20 his forehead was injured, in accordance with Article 480(2) will be awarded 2% of blood money.
27) With regard to Mr. Siamak Masoudi who, based on the Medical report No. 10/5/3790 dated 79/2/20 was injured, will be awarded 500,000 Rials in accordance with Article 485.
28) With regard to Mr. Reza Shabani who, based on the Medical report No. 10/5/3790 dated 79/2/20 received a bullet wound in his upper right chest will be awarded 1/3rd of the blood money in accordance with Article 482(a).
29) With regard to Mr. Reza Faridzadeh who, based on the Medical report No. 10/5/3790 dated 79/2/20 suffered from a swollen nose, in accordance with Article 484(b), will be awarded 0.3% of the blood money. Also another 0.3% of the blood money will be awarded for bruises on the area on places other than his face.
30) With regard to Mr. Abdolmajid Naderi who, based on the Medical report No. 10/5/3790 dated 79/2/20 was injured in the incident, 0.15% of the blood money is awarded to him in accordance with Article 484.
31) With regard to Mr. Abdollah Khosravi who, based on the Medical report No. 10/5/3790 dated 79/2/20 suffered from injuries on his back, in accordance with Article 480 (1), 0.5% of the blood money is awarded to him.
32) With regard to Mr. Jeno Mikaeili who, based on the Medical report No. 10/5/3790 dated 79/2/20 had the cut on his left knee, he shall be awarded 1% of money blood in accordance with Article 480 and 481 for and also an 8% for the fractured left kneecap.
33) With regard to Mr. Mehrdad Ansari who, based on the Medical report No. 10/5/3790 dated 79/2/20 was injured. In accordance with Article 485, he will be awarded 500,000 Rials.
34) With regard to Mr. NourMohammad Safari who, based on the Medical report No. 10/5/3790 dated 79/2/20 had bruises on his back, in accordance with Article 484(2) he will be awarded one and half dinar.
All motioned fine should be paid off from the treasury. With respect to defendant Aroujali Babrzadeh, who has been accused of stealing a student's property, the defendant claimed that he took an electric razor and gave it to an officer named Seyed Mohsen Borhani. He added that he had the intention of informing the officers in charge (his allegations are on the page 170, 7th Volume). However, he didn't have the intention to posses the electric razor. Then why did he take that electric razor in the first instance? Even assuming that he had changed his mind about stealing, why would he give that device to officer Borhani? The defendant was not able to present to the court any evidence of his effort to report the incident. Therefore, based on the defendant's unreliable statement in his own defence and on all the other, the defendant is considered guilty of theft. Based on Article 661 of the Penal Code he is convicted to 91 days of imprisonment and also 1 million Rials in leau of lashes. The stolen property should be returned to its real owner.
With respect to the complaints, case number 7/47/563/57/78 dated 78/12/15 and case number 7/47/563/55/78 dated 78/12/12, filed by Mr. Mohsen Rohami, attorney for the student plaintiffs, against Mr. Farhad Nazari, Khodabakhshi, Arjomandi, Ramin Nazari, Babrzadeh, Dalvand, Seyed hossein Ahmadi, Hassan Ahmadi, Jalili, Mehdian, Moradian, Ghazizadeh, Emdadi, Pezeshki, Bagheri, Fallah Hamidi, Ali PourNozari, Shojaie, Broon and Bardehbaznodehei, alleging 5.950 Billion Rials and 2 Billion Rials, respectively, and Mr. Azarbyejani, head of the legal department of Tehran University who filed on behalf of Tehran University for a provisional remedy against the same defendants for the amount of 5.950 Billion Rials on 79/3/1, and also in regard to case number 7/47/563/12/79, dated 78/12/15, filed by Dr. Moin, Minister of Education, Research and Technology and Dr. Farhadi, Minister of Public Health, against the security forces requesting compensation for the emotional distress, the Court will disregard the substance of all three allegations in accordance with Article 12 of the criminal procedure of Iran, which states that "once legal proceeding against have begun, the plaintiff shall present the Court with all original or duplicate evidence he has in his favour. Moreover, in cases involving a misdemeanour, the plaintiff has until the preliminary hearing to present the court with all evidence. In cases involving felonies, the plaintiff has until the first day of trial to present all evidence. The strict requirements of civil procedure are not applied here." Therefore, if there was any complaint about the damages it must have been filed before the time lapsed. However the first case was filed on 78/12/12 and the first hearing was on 78/12/10. It is certain that the parties and their lawyers have been notified about the court's date in advance. The Court must consider the advisory opinion number 7/1526, dated 63/4/2, regarding Article 12 of the criminal procedure, which states that complaints for damages in misdemeanours shall be presented to the court by the preliminary hearing and on felony cases compliant should be filed by the first date of trail. In case at bar, no complaint on damages was filed even at the end of first trail and therefore the court must dismiss the complaints. Subsequently, since the Tehran University request for the provisional remedy was subsequent to the main complaints for damages, which above was dismissed, it must also be dismissed. The plaintiffs can pursue their allegation in civil courts upon the court's verdict.
The verdict has been issued and the parties have twenty days to appeal."
[1] Islamic Republic Penal Code: 3- The Hadd for Muharabah and Ifsad fi al-Ardh
The Hadd for muharabah and ifsad fi al-Ardh shall be one of the following:1. Beheading ; 2. Crucifixion ;3. Amputation of right hand and left foot ; 4. Banishment. The choice of any of these four punishments rests with the judge, but in case there is some evil factor (mafsadah) for the convict in the choice of any of these four punishments, the judge shall not make the choice of that punishment, whether the convict has killed, or injured any person or has stolen the property of a person, or has not done any of these acts.
[2]The religious principle of "enjoining the good and forbidding the evil" is the object of an article in the
harassment and the students protest against it. The Article 8 [Community Principle]
In the Islamic Republic of Iran, "al-'amr bilma'ruf wa al-nahy 'an al-munkar" is a universal and reciprocal duty that must be fulfilled by the people with respect to one another, by the government with respect to the people, and by the people with respect to the government. The conditions, limits, and nature of this duty will be specified by law. (This is in accordance with the Koranic verse "The believers, men and women, are guardians of one another; they enjoin the good and forbid the evil." [9:71])