“[Reported by] Mohammadian – Two defendants, 17 and 19 years old, were sentenced to 80 lashes for consumption of alcohol, and another to four months imprisonment for disturbing public order.
According to Khorassan Jonubi (“South Khorassan”) [newspaper], some time ago, these two young men had [caused disturbances] and bothered several citizens on [the town of] Birjand’s Taleqani Street, after having consumed alcohol. After the police were informed and the plaintiffs pressed charges, a file was opened and the matter was referred to judicial authorities. At trial, which took place at Birjand’s Criminal Court Branch 101, one of the plaintiffs stated: “Around 7 PM, I was driving in the vicinity of Imam Reza Hospital when I noticed two young men, who were not behaving normally, pushing a turned off Pride [brand] automobile in the opposite direction, and falling down every few minutes.
I was driving in my own direction when they stopped me and prevented me from moving, and started screaming and insulting me, even beating me.” The 27-year-old plaintiff added: “Afterward, another young man who was with them and seemed to be doing better than they were, apologized and opened the way for me [to allow me to leave].”
Then the judge ordered “R. M.”, the 19-year-old defendant to take the stand and present his defense. Regarding the charge of consumption of alcohol, the defendant stated: “I accept the charge. We had had some drinks with my friend and then got into another friend’s car and insulted a few people on the street.”
Expressing regret for his behavior, he added: “I had never had alcohol before and I didn’t think it would have such a destructive effect. I apologize to every person for whom I created problems because of my drinking.” He added: “I also accept the charge of using insulting and offensive language, but not the charge of disturbing public order because I was under the influence of alcohol and committed the acts not of my own volition.”
In presenting his own defense, “M. F.”, the 17 year-old defendant, stated: “I do not accept the charges.” After being read and having understood the charges of consumption of alcohol, disturbing public order, and insulting a government employee in the course of performing his duty, “A. Y.”, the other defendant in the case, stated in his defense: “I had used pills but I had not consumed alcohol, and I request a reduced sentence.”
The judge then stated: “According to the police report, you were observed and found to be in an unstable state, moving a broken down car against the flow of traffic; that you had gotten into a scuffle with two citizens, who have since dropped the charges, and that you had insulted and bothered [as well as offended] them; that after the presence of the police on the scene, you had insulted them as well, and had refused to cooperate with them. Therefore, considering the confession, and given the other evidence and circumstances, especially the declared record, the court finds the three defendants guilty of the charges. Pursuant to Islamic Penal Code Article 165 and 174, the court sentences defendants “R. M.” and “M. F.” to 80 lashes each for consumption of alcohol, and, pursuant to Islamic Penal Code Article 609, to payment of a one-million-Rial monetary penalty for insulting government employees.”
Pursuant to Islamic Penal Code Article 619, defendant “A. Y.” was sentenced to four months imprisonment for disturbing public order. Given that sufficient evidence was not presented proving the charge of disturbing public order as to the first and second defendants, and that their conduct was a result of their unstable state caused by inebriation, they were acquitted of the charge.”
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."
