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

Mohammad Shari'ati

About

Age: 54
Nationality: Iran
Religion: Presumed Muslim
Civil Status: Married

Case

Date of Killing: August 3, 2005
Location of Killing: Saqqez, Kordestan Province, Iran
Mode of Killing: Arbitrary shooting
Charges: Unknown charge

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, some or all of the following human rights may have been violated in this case:

  • 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 peaceful assembly.

    UDHR, Article 20; ICCPR, Article 21.

  • The right, as a member of a religious or ethnic minority, to enjoy one’s own culture or to profess and practice one’s own religion.

    UDHR, Article 18; ICCPR, Article 27.

  • The right to equality before the law and the right to equal protection of the law.

    UDHR, Article 7; ICCPR, Article 26.

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.

About this Case

Correct/ Complete This Entry

The information regarding Mr. Mohammad Shari’ati’s extrajudicial killing has been drawn from: interviews with individuals close to Mr. Shari’ati by the Boroumand Foundation (ABF, August 4, 2006); a Radio Farda interview with his daughter (August 11 and August 6, 2005); a Report of Human Rights Watch (August 12, 2005); a Report of Amnesty International (February 16, 2006); the Official Website of Kurdistan's Governor (August 6 and 7, 2005); and the Official Website of Fakhroddin Heidari, a member of Parliament from the Kurdish towns of Saqqez and Baneh (August 11, 2005). Fars News (August 4, 2005); Mehr News (August 6, 2005); Mr. Shari’ati’s name was also mentioned in the letter of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings, Summary and Arbitrary Executions to the Iranian State (September 13, 2005) and his final report on March 27, 2006 (E/CN.4/2006/53). His case was also reported by foreign-based media organizations such as the New York Times (August 14, 2005) and Aljazeera (August 3, 2005).

Mr. Shari’ati was born in the city of Saqqez in Kurdistan Province, located in the west of Iran. He was shot dead during the protests triggered by the death in custody of a Kurdish activist and construction worker, Kamal Esferem, known as Shwaneh Qaderi.

Following Mr. Qaderi’s killing in early July 2005 by security forces in Mahabad, some pictures of his tortured body were distributed on the internet. These pictures triggered an uprising in Mahabad. The protests soon spread to other Kurdish cities of Iran such as Sardasht, Baneh, Piranshahr, Sanandaj and Saqqez. According to the existing information, the protests began at 9 a.m. on August 3, 2005 following the distribution of a night letter in Mahabad. But the peak of the clashes occurred between 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Afterwards, the city regained stability after intervention from security and police forces. Many people were killed and a large number were wounded. In addition, many civil activists were arrested. The protests went on for weeks despite the harsh repression by the government’s security forces, during at which protesters destroyed various State-owned properties (Amnesty International, February 16, 2006).

Mr. Shari’ati had a degree in Persian Literature and was a retired school teacher. At the beginning of the Islamic Revolution and after the war in Kurdistan, he was fired from his job due to political issues. After 5 years of exile in Bostan Abad and Bukan, he returned to his job as school teacher. He had four children. His family remembers him as a popular teacher and a kind father who despite his numerous personal problems, always helped his students. He was a literature lover and wrote poetry. According to the persons close to him, Mr. Shari’ati was not a political activist at the time of his death, and he was not attending the protests (ABF interview, August 4, 2006).

Death

On August 3, 2005, Mr. Shari’ati went to buy fruits with his wife, and on his way home, he stopped in the street to watch the protest with a couple of his colleagues. Several members of the Shari’ati family were at the place of the protests. Shortly after they arrived to find the protest taking place, the shooting broke out. The rest of the family escaped the scene but lost Mohammad on their way home. Mr. Shari’ati was shot in the head and died instantly (ABF Interview, August 4, 2006).

Family’s Reaction

According to Mr. Shari’ati’s daughter, the family was informed about his murder shortly after the incident by the people who were present at the scene. They found the cadaver but they failed to retrieve the body. According to the persons close to him, Mr. Shari’ati was shot under the right eye. They do not know who exactly shot him because the area was full of police, plain-clothed forces, and low flying helicopters which were filming the protesters and shooting at them. After this incident, the Shari’ati’s filed a complaint in the General Court of Saqqez (ABF interview, August 5, 2006, Radio Farda, August 11, 2005).

Official Reactions

The official website of the Governor of Kurdistan, on August 5, 2005 declared that Mr. Mohammad Shari’ati was shot from behind in the head in an alley on his way back home. His death was instantaneous (The official website of Kurdistan Governor, August 5, 2005).

According to Human Rights Watch, the security forces had assaulted Mr. Shari’ati’s daughter and son (Hajir) while they were trying to retrieve their father’s body (Human Rights Watch, August 11, 2005). One of the officers even pointed his gun at Mr. Shari’ati’s son’s chest and threatened him to death. One of officers told them that if they so much as approached the body, he would kill them as well (ABF interview, August 4, 2006). Mr. Shari’ati’s body was then taken by the police who did not allow the family to accompany the body. The family collected the body two days after his death. The family reported that the authorities had asked them to pay for the bullet which killed Mr. Shari’ati but with the mediation of the Governor of Saqqez who was once a student of Mr. Shari’ati, the police officials withdrew the financial requirement. The body was ritually washed before returning to the family as is custom (Muslims wash the cadaver before its burial). The body was wrapped up completely. Before returning the cadaver, the security forces allowed the family to see a part of Mr. Shari’ati’s nose and mustache (ABF Interview, August 4, 2006 and Radio Farda, August 11, 2005).

The local officials did not allow the family to hold a funeral or distribute leaflets to inform people about the funeral as is tradition in Iran. Local officials forced the family to bury the body at night and in the presence of numerous police forces. Accordingly, the body was buried at 10 p.m., Friday, August 4, 2005 (ABF Interview, August 4, 2006 and Radio Farda, August 11, 2005).

State officials did not formally accept any responsibility for Mr. Shari’ti’s death but due to the widespread protests, they were compelled to react.

On August 3, a special commission presided by the Political and Security Deputy of the Governor of Kurdistan was sent to Saqqez. This commission went to Saqqez at the request of the Governor of Saqqez and the Governor General of Saqqez’s order. The mandates of this commission were declared as: investigating the killings in Saqqez; preparing the cadavers to bury; trying to release the detainees; interviewing the wounded; and investigating the causes of the incidents (The official website of Kurdistan Governor, August 5, 2005). According to Radio Farda, this commission declared that the bullet, which killed Mr. Shari’ati, was shot from a close distance and by a Klashikov (Radio Farda, August 11, 2005). There is no other information available about other findings of this commission or any follow up for its probable findings.

Following Mr. Shari’ati’s death and other incidents which led to lots of human casualties, Fakhroddin Heidari, a Member of Parliament from Saqqez and Bukan, wrote a letter to President Ahmadinejad in August 2005 criticizing the frequent uses of violence against the people of the region. His letter was sent to other high ranking national and local officials and was also read in the Parliament. He wrote in a part of this letter, “The first measure, taken against the people of Saqqez in this recent unrest (shooting) is in fact a last resort measure in other regions”. He also mentioned Mr. Shari’ati and requested some measures with this regard such as the propitiation of the victims’ families, deploying an expert commission to the region to investigate about the causes of the incidents, and using police restraint in confrontations with protesters (Fakhroddin Heidari Personal Website, August 11, 2005).

On August 5, 2005, the Official Website of Kurdistan's Governor General published the statements of local officials who had denied the police’s responsibility in these killings. The Governor of Saqqez and the Governor General of Kurdistan, Hassan Firuzi confirmed Mr. Shari’ati’s case as murder but declared that the culprit was not identified (the Official Website of Kurdistan Governor General, August 5, 2005).

The Governor also declared that the shooting was obviously not enacted by the police forces. He also added that the Council of Ta’mine Ostan (Governor General’s intelligence unit) did not authorize any shooting. Later, all the members of the Council agreed on that no authorization was made. He stated at another occasion that nobody ordered the shootings and it should be determined who was responsible for these shootings. He requested collaboration from the people of the region and the local the officials in order to find the people who were responsible (the Official Website of Kurdistan Governor General, August 6, 2005).

The Political and Security Deputy of the Governor General of Kurdistan stated that the officers present at the scene all claimed that none of them used a firearm. He also stated that an expert commission was investigating the bullet and the crime scene. The government would hold the culprits responsible if the matter was cleared (the Official Website of Kurdistan Governor General, August 5, 2005).

One year after Mr. Shari’ati’s death, the state officials have not declared any news about the details of the killings and investigations about them. There is no information available about the findings of the deployed commission. In response to the complaint of the Shari’atis, the court stated that Mr. Shari’ati was killed by anti-revolutionists (ABF interview, August 4, 2006).

Simultaneously, Mr. Shari’ati’s family was under immense pressure to drop the charges and were threatened that if they did not do so, they would get hurt. Up to 2006, the court had not accept the responsibility of the state officials for the shooting and asked the family to introduce the murderer. But because the family does not know the culprit the case had been suspended. None of the eye witnesses wanted to testify out of fear (ABF interview, August 4, 2006)

International Reactions

Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reported Mr. Shari’ari’s case and asked the Iranian authorities to conduct a thorough investigation as to why he was killed. On August 11, 2005, Human Rights Watch reported the facts of the repression dealt upon the protests within the aforementioned Kurdish cities and included the murder of Mr. Shari’ati by stating, “the government's response must be lawful and governed by the standards set out in the U.N. Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the U.N. Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. These principles state that the intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.” (Human Rights Watch, August 11, 2005).

The Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings, Summary and Arbitrary Executions, Mr. Philip Alston, on March 27, 2006, in his final report to the UN General Assembly referred to an allegation letter about the Kurdistan killings including the extrajudicial killing of Mr. Shari’ati and 16 other people which he received and subsequently sent to the government of Iran on August 14, 2005. In this letter, he was reported that 17 people were killed in Mahabad, Saqqez, Baneh and Sardasht. He particularly noted that the Revolutionary Guards Special Forces reportedly surrounded and shot the protesters directly, and in Saqqez, they murdered some people including Mr. Shari’ati. He then referred to the position of the Islamic Republic which called the protesters “hooligans and criminal elements” and that “public and state-owned buildings, including banks, were damaged.” The Special Rapporteur reminded Iran of its obligations regarding the use of lethal force and that its use should only be implemented as a last resort when there are no alternatives available. Mr. Alston asked the government of Iran some questions: Are these allegations correct? The Iranian government should provide some details and documents about these deaths such as forensic reports, etc. It should also provide some information about the investigations about these killings. Could the Iranian police force have used non-lethal means to disperse the crowd? And if yes, why did they still decide to use the lethal forces? The Special Rapporteur reiterated that: “The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran failed to cooperate with the mandate he has been given by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.” Five years after the Special Rapporteur report to the General Assembly, the Iranian State still had not cooperated with him about these killings (E/CN.4/2006/53).

Correct/ Complete This Entry ❯