Abdorrahman Boroumand Center

Part Three, Chapter Two: Memoirs after the Revolution / 349

Section Two

A Sad Story

In the early days of the Islamic Revolution when I was chief judge at Tehran Criminal Court Branch Five, I came across an interesting case that I want to tell here as it is one that I will always remember.

A young student from Gilan Province had murdered his younger sister, also a student, and hanged her body in front of the entrance to a building on Nejatollagi (formerly Villa) Street. In explaining his motive for the murder, this student, who seemed like a very aggressive and fanatical person, had said that his sister had had “namashru’” relations (sexual relations prohibited by Shari’a) with a U.S. Embassy employee and had become pregnant by him, but the student had no specific evidence to prove such a claim.

As bad luck would have it, the American accused of having religiously prohibited relations with an Iranian girl, was among the hostages at the U.S. Embassy in [Tehran]. He had admitted to knowing the murdered student in preliminary interrogations, and said that she was learning English with him, and that she had relations with another man.

The American hostage denied having sexual relations with the murdered girl in all interrogation sessions. The Investigating Judge in the case (1) had dismissed the case for lack of evidence implicating the American hostage as the perpetrator, but had issued an order charging the accused murderer, the brother, given the existence of sufficient evidence.

The then Tehran Prosecutor had approved both final orders, issued an indictment against the man accused of murder, and had sent the case to the Criminal Court.

The preliminary Criminal Court session convened and a court-appointed attorney was assigned to the defendant. Trial date was set and the defendant and his lawyer were apprised thereof.

Many of the country’s high level officials, directors, and managers, especially of revolutionary institutions, demanded that the American be prosecuted and convicted, and wanted the murder suspect to be acquitted, because, from their perspective, the murder victim was a Moslem woman who had committed “zena” (“fornication”) with an infidel American, and was therefore “Mahduroddam” (a person whose blood is permitted to be spilled for committing a grievous act that is an affront to Islam) and should be sentenced to death and executed. With that argument, they considered the actions of the murder victim’s brother as legitimate.

My colleagues and I had a different view, however: Even assuming that the girl had committed “zena” and had become pregnant, her brother had no right to take her life. The brother had to be held accountable for his actions.

Even assuming that the girl had committed adultery and had become pregnant, her brother had no right to take her life. The brother had to be held accountable for his actions.

At the time, Islamic punishment laws, especially those related to Qesas, had not yet been promulgated, and in spite of the hoopla surrounding the case created by the government, my colleagues and I refused to acquit the defendant.

The pressures and threats increased daily to force us to exonerate the defendant, but we considered it demeaning to our status and dignity as judges to give in to pressure and coercion. There was no way for the defendant not to be punished, and his conviction seemed certain. As to what kind of punishment was awaiting him, we had to wait for the trial and the process to run its course.

Since the charge against the American had been dropped, the Criminal Court had no particular duty in that regard. Whether correct or incorrect, the order for non-prosecution was considered to be res judicata (a matter that has been adjudicated and closed and may not be reopened). Furthermore, the indictment concerned only the murder charge and the Court had no other duty than to hold a trial for that charge.

The case was in the middle of this back and forth when the Islamic Penal Code related to Qesas was passed and intentional murder became a crime where [the death penalty] could be forgiven [by the murder victim’s next of kin]. So the poor girls’ parents, who had already lost their daughter and saw their son about to be convicted, announced that they forgave [their son].

The Court’s hands were tied: An order of non-prosecution [and dropping of the charge] was issued. My soul is still tormented by that order.

 

Part Three, Chapter Two: Memoirs after the Revolution / 367

Section Five

Undue Influence with Weapons

I have a memorable story from the early months of the Islamic Revolution which is worth recounting. I was chief judge at the Tehran Criminal Court, Branch Five. In those days, crime was rampant in Tehran and its suburbs. The murder rate, in particular, had risen significantly. Every murder had its own particularities but the one I’m about to tell was different than other crimes and occurrences. It shows that the country was in chaos and that irresponsible individuals with no judicial position were trying to exercise undue influence on the judicial process and the functioning of judges.

*The story of one murder shows that the country was in chaos and that irresponsible individuals with no judicial position were trying to exercise undue influence on the judicial process and the functioning of judges.

One day, an Islamic Revolution Committee (simply known as “Committee”; these were neighborhood armed militias formed around the time of the Revolution purportedly to enforce Islamic tenets and moral standards) member had been trying to get a cab to go from Tupkhaneh (Imam Khomeini) Square to Rah-Ahan Square. He had stopped a cab and had wanted to get in but the driver had not let him because he already had four passengers and on top of that, he was not going in the same direction as the prospective new passenger.

Since the new passenger was extremely impatient and quickly wanted to get to his destination and had no other means of transportation at his disposal, he had asked the passengers to let him get in and let the driver take him to his destination first and then drive the others to where they wanted to go. Seeing his worried and hurried demeanor, the kind-hearted passengers of the cab had agreed to his request.

Upon arriving at his destination, the new passenger had decided to take revenge on the driver because of his initial hesitation in letting him ride in the cab. So he had started arguing with the driver about the cab fare. Then in the utmost anger, he had drawn his weapon concealed under his jacket, and had fired two shots at the poor, misfortunate driver, thereby killing him.

The four passengers, all of whom had the requisite conditions to provide testimony, had been administered an oath, made aware of the regulations for providing testimony and of the punishments for bearing false witness, and had all recounted the events as they had seen them.

Furthermore, the defendant himself had repeatedly admitted to the events as they had occurred. And in the end, he had added that he was on a mission that day.

It must be noted that the defendant was not wearing a uniform at the time of the murder, and his weapon was concealed.

The Tehran Investigating Judge had initially conducted very thorough, valuable, and lawful preliminary investigations. He had questioned each and every eyewitness thoroughly, observing all legal requirements and regulations. He had asked the ballistic expert’s and the coroner’s opinion about the case, conducted a crime scene investigation and questioned other witnesses, and interrogated the defendant. He had tried to get the next of kin to forgive and forego Qesas but to no avail, and had therefore issued a mandatory detention order and turned him over to the detention center. The Tehran Prosecutor had approved the detention order and the Court overruled the defendant’s objection to the detention order.

The Investigating Judge had then very wisely and thoroughly completed preliminary investigations, and, upon obtaining the defendant’s last defense and assessing the evidence of the commission of the crime, had issued an order (opinion) for the case to be sent to trial.

Tehran Prosecutor had agreed with the order to send the case to trial, and, upon issuance of an indictment, the case was sent to Tehran Criminal Court, Branch Five, and ended up in our hands.

In a matter of days after the case had gotten to the clerk of the court’s office, we started being coerced and threatened. Most of the demands and coercion revolved around dropping the detention order and releasing the defendant. Furthermore, they claimed that since the defendant was a member of the Islamic Revolution Committee and had committed a crime while on duty, the Revolutionary Guards Corps Military Tribunal had jurisdiction over the case and the Tehran Criminal Court was not the competent authority to hear the case.

They claimed that since the defendant was a member of the Islamic Revolution Committee and had committed a crime while on duty, the Revolutionary Guards Corps Military Tribunal had jurisdiction over the case and the Tehran Criminal Court was not the competent authority to hear the case.

In the meantime, the Office of the Court had received a letter from the Rah-Ahan Square Islamic Revolution Committee (Committee Number 10) to the effect that “Brother A, a member of the Committee, has committed manslaughter (unintentional murder), that the crime is within the jurisdiction of the Revolutionary Guards Corps Military Tribunals, that the Tehran Criminal Court is not the competent authority to hear the case” and had demanded that the Court issue an order declaring that it was not the competent court to try the case and send the same to the Revolutionary Guards Corps Military Tribunals as soon as possible.

Obviously, if it could be proven that the defendant was on duty at the time of the commission of the crime, and that the crime was committed as a result thereof, the Court would immediately have to issue an order of lack of jurisdiction and send the case to the relevant authorities.

The problem was that the question of lack of jurisdiction had not been presented at the Prosecutor’s Office. Furthermore, the defendant had not been wearing a military uniform and did not have a letter attesting to his mission.

In any event, we had to be careful not to violate anyone’s rights. We responded to the Islamic Revolution Committee asking them to declare what particular mission the relevant agent was on at that particular time and at that particular location, and to send us a copy of his mission letter.

A few hours after we had dispatched the response, we received an answer the summary of which is as follows:

“At the time of the murder, Brother A was on a mission and on duty at Rah-Ahan Square.” The mission letter was attached to the response.

What drew the attention of the Criminal Court judges was that the order for the mission had been issued two months after the commission of the crime, and even after the Court had requested a copy of the mission letter. So it was questionable and could not be easily accepted.

In any event, what we wanted to do was get to the truth and we had no other intention than implementing the law. We therefore asked the Rah-Ahan Square Islamic Revolution Committee to explain why the date of the mission order was after the date the crime had been committed!

Their response is worth reading:

“Brother A was on a mission at the time of commission of the crime. The fact that the date of the mission order is subsequent to the date of commission of the crime does not mean that he was not on a mission on that day. The Committee’s administrative affairs are not in order, since only a short time has elapsed since the establishment of the Islamic Revolution Committees.”

“Brother A was on a mission at the time of commission of the crime. The fact that the date of the mission order is subsequent to the date of commission of the crime does not mean that he was not on a mission on that day.”

On the other hand, the next of kin came to the Office of the Court every day and raised hell and demanded that the defendant be punished as soon as possible, and believed that there was no room in delaying implementation of punishments in the era of the Islamic Republic.

Nevertheless, the Court had to do its job in carrying out the law. Neither the Islamic Revolution Committee’s demands, nor the next of kin’s requests could affect our function or our competence.

Upon expiration of the legal deadlines, selection of a court-appointed attorney for the defendant, and preparation of a report by the Court’s investigating member, the Court immediately convened a preliminary session. In that preliminary session, much discussion took place concerning the Court’s jurisdiction over the matter and, with the unanimous decision of the judges, the Court deemed itself competent to hear the case. Since preliminary investigations were thorough and did not seem to have any defects, it was decided to set a trial date and summon the parties for the proceedings.

The pressure on the Court had increased ever since the Islamic Revolution Committee’s demand had not been met and the Court had declared itself competent to hear the case. (2) A few weeks before the start of the trial, the clerk of the Court received and registered a letter which was attached to the case and submitted to the judges for their information and issuance of necessary orders.

The head of the Rah-Ahan Square Islamic Revolution Committee, a man named “Alamolhoda”, had written a letter to Ayatollah Rabbani Amlashi, the country’s Prosecutor General wherein he had roughly stated (3):

“We had a Revolution so that the likes of Dr. Akhundi would not sit on the bench. The presence of such people is an affront to Islam’s Holy Shari’a and to the Islamic Revolution. He and his cohorts want to hang our fellow warrior, Brother A, a [true] Moslem and a revolutionary. Dr. Akhundi is a misguided [and deviant] man. If action is not taken immediately, it might be too late.”

The late Rabbani Amlashi, the then Prosecutor General, may God forgive his sins, had written in the margins of the letter:

“Honorable Rah-Ahan Islamic Revolution Committee,

There was to be no delay, such an express order having been issued by the country’s Prosecutor General. The defendant was transferred from the Judiciary’s detention center to the Revolutionary Guards’ detention center that same day. The defendant was no longer under the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court to hold a trial at all.

A few days later, several agents from the Rah-Ahan Islamic Revolution Committee stormed the Court’s office and tried to take the case file by force.

Frightened and shaken, the Office’s chief administrator reported the matter and awaited instructions. The Court’s judges thought it best to have a conversation with the Committee agents, and that was what we did.

The Islamic Revolution Committee agents claimed that the country’s Prosecutor General had ordered to obtain the case file from the Court “in the appropriate manner” and that they were the ones entitled to interpret what “the appropriate manner” was. And they would occasionally point to the trigger on their weapons.

It was explained to them that the country had laws and that we had to act in accordance with those laws, and that it was best that the Committee correspond with the Court and ask for the case file in that fashion so that the necessary actions could be taken.

In all fairness to them, the Committee agents turned out to be discerning people with common sense and showed great respect for the judges. They ended up accepting our reasoning and left with a view to initiate correspondence.

Our panel of judges was waiting to hear from the Islamic Revolution Committee to pronounce our legal opinion on the matters at hand.

The country’s Prosecutor General’s order was obviously illegal, of course, as was the Islamic Revolution Committee’s request and there was no way that the Court would heed such orders. Our waiting turned out to be in vain, however. All of a sudden, we received a letter from the Judiciary High Council dissolving the Court!

The reason for the dissolution of the Court was that the other judges and I held our positions in permanence. Back then, being a judge had much prestige and judges were held in high respect; they could not simply dismiss us from the bench. As a result, they decided that dissolution was the way to go. I was forced to retire. They had finally reached their objective and they subsequently sent the case to the Revolutionary Guards Military Tribunal.

Back then, being a judge had much prestige and judges were held in high respect; they could not simply dismiss us from the bench. As a result, they decided that dissolution was the way to go.

 

Section Ten

Violence in Carrying Out the Death Penalty

Prior to the victory of the Islamic Revolution, affection and kindheartedness played a great and valuable role in the social life of Iranians: They were human beings who would not wish or bring the least bit of harm to each other. In fact, they heeded the advice of the great Persian poet, Ferdowsi, whose famous poem says:

“On the ant carrying a grain bring not strife,

It breathes and lives, and joyous is sweet life.”

There were very few instances of violence. Although the death penalty existed in the laws, very few death sentences were issued in practice. Most of our judges were inspired by liberal and humanist schools of thought and were protective of human beings’ lives. Respect for human dignity was among the chief characteristics of a great many members of our society.

Our judges were not inclined to issue death sentences. If something happened where the law absolutely required them to issue a death sentence, they would do so after extremely thorough and impartial investigations, and with the utmost sense of responsibility and with great care.

In the town or neighborhood where the death sentence was to be carried out – which was among the duties assigned to the Police Force – most officers would go on leave or would excuse themselves, or come up with any pretext to not be available to carry out the sentence and not carry the weight of such an arduous responsibility, and not have such an act on their conscience. At times, the officer charged with carrying out the sentence would make himself unavailable and, as a result, on numerous occasions, the persons sentenced to death would stay alive because there was no one to implement the sentence.

Our judges were not inclined to issue death sentences. If something happened where the law absolutely required them to issue a death sentence, they would do so after extremely thorough and impartial investigations, and with the utmost sense of responsibility and with great care.

I distinctly remember that in all of Azarbaijan Province, which was a very large province before it was divided into West Azarbaijan, East Azarbaijan, Ardabil, and Zanjan Provinces, there was only one policeman who performed that duty. And he too was very reluctant and did it [because he had to] and not because he wanted to.

I had seen that policeman. He was tall, had an ugly face, and seemed very aggressive. Let me be clear about it: You could easily tell from his appearance that he was ill-tempered and violent.

This violent policeman was assigned to carry out the sentence any time there was a death sentence issued. But even though he seemed like an aggressive man, he did not do it for the love of God: He was paid handsomely for his work. I think he got paid sixty Tumans for every hanging.

Even then, as soon as he got to the gallows, he would come up with various excuses and would say that he was unable to carry out the sentence. Sometimes he would say that he had been having bad dreams the last few nights, that his body was shaking, that he did not have the courage to do this, etc. Ultimately, he would ask for a bottle of vodka to drink and work up the courage and not know exactly what he was doing.

When he would drink the vodka, his eyes would turn red and he would start sizing up the convict as he was staggering [from being drunk]. He would then lower his head, wait for a moment, grab the rope and say “Get Kapak Oghli” (4) and would pull the rope.

And our citizens would cover their children’s eyes so they would not bear witness to that atrocious dance of death. Yes, that was how our citizens were.

I do not know what the results of any current sociological studies are in this area. Are people who volunteer to carry out death sentences still few in numbers in today’s circumstances as well, or have they increased? I’ve heard that in certain institutions there are actually people who [sign up] for a turn to implement the death penalty. I hope to God that this is not true.

Have kindness, affection, and tender human emotions been locked away in the dark back rooms of our collective conscience?

___________________________________________

(1)   The late Mr. Parvaneh, Tehran Prosecutor’s Office, Branch Three Investigating Judge

(2)   I remember someone named Ebrahim, who was apparently a relative of the head of the aforementioned Islamic Revolution Committee, kept coming to the Court for days and asked about the outcome of the case. This man who had an Islamic appearance and also pretended [to be a good Moslem], had numerous arguments with the Office staff and was thrown out many times, but he would not learn his lesson [and kept coming back].

(3)   Not exact words but the gist of what was said.

(4)   Azari expression meaning “Go away, you devil (or evil, fiendish man)!”