Abdorrahman Boroumand Center

for Human Rights in Iran

Promoting tolerance and justice through knowledge and understanding
Amputation and Blinding

Forced Blinding in Karaj: Man Blinded in One Eye for Acid Throwing; Blinding of Second Eye Postponed

Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA) / ABF translation
March 4, 2015

“The Head of the Special Public Prosecution Office for Murder offered some explanation regarding Iran's first retribution sentence [Qesas] for acid throwing. During an interview with the legal reporter of the Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA), Judge Mohammad Shahriari stated, 'In 2009, a woman hired someone to throw acid on the face of her husband, who lost both his eyes as a result.'

He explained that the retribution [Qesas] ruling was only carried out for one of the defendant's eyes on March 3, 2015. He said further that all medical facilities were made available during the process. The retribution [Qesas] punishment for the defendant's other eye was postponed at the plaintiff’s request.

The Head of the Special Public Prosecution Office for Murder remarked that the sentence was carried out in the presence of a medical team and by a technique other than acid throwing.

Regarding the retribution [Qesas] ruling in the case of acid throwing against Davud Roshana’i, Judge Shahriari said: 'Mr. Roshana’i gave the defendant two months' time for the upcoming Fatemieh Days [a religious period]."

ABF note: The defendant who lost his eye was named Mojtaba, 25, and was condemned to the punishment of forced blinding for alleged acid throwing resulting in blindness of a man named Alireza. According to the Javan Online website on March 4, 2015, the defendant had been transferred from Qom Prison to Raja’ishahr Prison for the enforcement of retribution [Qesas] punishment for his both eyes.

In another case, a man was condemned to retribution [Qesas] punishment for his eyes for the charge of alleged acid throwing against a man named Davud Roshana’i. The enforcement of this ruling was postponed for two months due to the plaintiff’s request.   

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."