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

Khadijeh (Shahla) Jahed

About

Age: 41
Nationality: Iran
Religion: Islam
Civil Status: Single

Case

Date of Killing: December 1, 2010
Location of Killing: Shemiranat, Tehran Province, Iran
Mode of Killing: Hanging
Charges: Adultery; Robbery; Murder; Drug related offense

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, the following human rights have been violated in this case:

  • The right to liberty and security of the person. The right not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention.

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 3; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 9.1.

  • 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 association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of one’s interests.

    UDHR, Article 20; ICCPR, Article 22.1.

The right to due process

    • The right to be presumed innocent until found guilty by a competent and impartial tribunal in accordance with law.

      ICCPR, Article 14.1 and Article 14.2.

Pre-trial detention rights

  • The right to know promptly and in detail the nature and cause of the charges against one.

    UDHR, Article 9(2); ICCPR, Article 9.2 and Article 14.3.a

  • The right to counsel of one’s own choosing or the right to legal aid. The right to communicate with one’s attorney in confidence

    ICCPR, Article 14.3.b and Article 14.3.d; Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, Article 1, Article 2, Article 5, Article 6, and Article 8.

  • The right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defense case.

    ICCPR, Article 14.3.b.

  • The right not to be compelled to testify against oneself or to confess to guilt.

    ICCPR, Article 14.3.g.

  • The right not to be subjected to torture and to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

    ICCPR, Article 7; Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment, Article 1 and Article 2.

Trial rights

  • The right to a fair and public trial without undue delay.

    ICCPR, Article 14.1, Article 14.3.c.

  • The right to defense through an attorney or legal aid. The right to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against one, and the right to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on one’s behalf under the same conditions as prosecution witnesses.

    ICCPR, Article 14.3.d and Article 14.3.e.

  • The right to have the decision rendered in public.

    ICCPR, Article 14.1.

Judgment rights

  • The right to appeal to a court of higher jurisdiction.

    ICCPR, Article 14.5.

  • The right to seek pardon or commutation of sentence.

    ICCPR, Article 6.4.

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.

  • The right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.

    ICCPR, Article 7; Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment, Article 1 and Article 2.

About this Case

Correct/ Complete This Entry

Introduction

Information regarding Ms. Khadijeh (Shahla) Jahed’s execution was collected from Amnesty International’s website (1, 25 November 2005, 11 March 2008, 23, 30 November and 1 December 2010), European Parliament (6 December 2010), The Islamic Human Rights Commission (4 August 2008), Guardian (30 November 2010), Dwiche Welle (1 December 2010), BBC (12 February 2009), Abdolsamad Khorramshahi’s Personal Website (quoting Eghtesad va Zendegi Magazine, 12 March 2011, quoting Ettefaghe No, July 2010, quoting Nasim Haraz Magazine, March 2008, quoting Ettefaq No, July 2010)(1) and a documentary named, Red Card.

Ms. Jahed was 41 year old and temporary wife of Naser Mohammadkhani, the Iranian famous soccer player in the 80s. She had a high school diploma and an associate’s degree in nursing. She was studying psychology long-distance in prison, and if she had not been executed, she could have obtained her bachelor’s degree after one semester (an interview with Ms. Jahed’s sister, Farhikhtegan, 1 December 2010).

According to Ms. Jahed, she was in love with Naser Mohammadkhani since she was 13. She met him at the same age once, but her relationship with him had begun 4 years before her arrest. She was temporarily married to him. According to Iranian law, a man and woman can be temporarily married for a certain amount of time with certain amount of cabinet. Ms. Jahed was working as a nurse and used to meet with Naser Mohammadkhani in an apartment which he bought for her (ISNA, 1 December 2010).

Ms. Jahed spent 9 years in detention waiting for her death. According to Ms. Fereshteh Ghazi, her cellmate, she was a nice, energetic woman who used to help new-comers in the prison (Guardian, 30 November 2010). She was an active, sociable woman who had different responsibilities in prison; for example, she worked in the prison’s supermarket (Abdolasamad Khorramshahi’s Personal Website quoting Nasim Haraz Magazine, March 2007).

Ms. Jahed’s case was one of the most controversial and complicated murder cases in Iran. A documentary, Red Card, was made about this case which was banned in Iran (Guardian, 29 November 2010). A great number of human rights activists, artists, etc at the national and international level tried to stop the execution. This execution also caused a severe international response in that many foreign media outlets covered the case as well as many human rights and political institutions that protested the Iranian government. For instance, the European Parliament condemned this execution as an example of torture and other inhumane and cruel acts (European Parliament, 6 December 2010).

Arrest and Detention

Ms. Jahed was arrested on 19 October 2002 for the murder of Ms. Saharkhizan, two weeks after the incident. She was arrested by the 10th Circuit of police force of Tehran. The detectives found out that on the day of Ms. Saharkhizan’s murder, a woman cashed a blank check of Mr. Mohammad Khani in a bank. This clue led the detectives to Mr. Mohammadkhani’s affair with Ms. Jahed and thus made her a primary suspect (Fars News, 24 September 2006; Roozonline, 30 November 2010; Etemad, 7 July 2007; Entekhab, 25 September 2010).

Trial

The first judge of Ms. Jahed’s case was off the case for unknown reasons. In January 2003, another judge was assigned to the case as a temporary substitute for the first judge who traveled to Saudi Arabia for Haj, but he completely took charge of the case afterwards (Roozonline, 30 November 2010).

The first session of Ms. Jahed’s trial was held on 6 June 2004 in Branch 1154 of Tehran Criminal Judicial Complex. This trial lasted four sessions, from which, 3 sessions were public and one session was not (ISNA, 1 December 2010, Amnesty International, 23, 30 November and 1 December 2010).

Afterwards, Ms. Jahed’s case became very complicated and vicissitudinous. According to Article 223 of the Criminal Procedure, it was referred to Branch 15 of the Supreme Court and afterwards was sent for the Authorization of Ayatollah Shahrudi, the Head of the Judiciary (2). But in the fall of 2005, Ayatollah Shahrudi refused to authorize the execution and according to Article 18 of the Criminal Procedure, he declared the case clearly against Islamic Shari’ah and sent it to another court (3). Ms. Jahed’s case was resent to Branch 3 and 7 of the Supreme Court using this mechanism. At last, the case was sent to Branch 1147th of Be’sat Judicial Complex (Amnesty International, 1 and 25 November 2005, 11 March 2008, 23, 30 November and 1 December 2010).

On 22 and 23 February 2009, another trial was held for Ms. Jahed. The court was closed. According to Mr. Khorramshahi, Ms. Jahed’s lawyer, the trial was held not publicly with the judge’s discretion. The defendant and her lawyer made several efforts to have a public trial but failed (Asr-e Iran, Ebrat, 16 March 2009). (4)

Charges

Ms. Jahed’s charges were Ms. Saharkhizan’s murder, theft of her properties, having an illegitimate affair with Naser Mohammadkhani, and purchasing opium for him (ISNA, 29 November 2010).

Evidence of guilt

The verdict against Ms. Jahed was issued on the basis of the “judge’s knowledge” which is one of the four ways to prove murder according to Article 231 of the Penal Code (Roozonline, 30 November 2010). It seems that the basis of the judge’s knowledge was the defendant’s confession, crime scene reconstruction, testimonies of witnesses, etc.

Ms. Jahed denied the murder charges for 11 months after the incident but in spring 2003, after meeting Naser Mohammadkhani in the yard of the 11 Circuit Police Station during her pre-trial detention, she confessed to murder (Ettela’at, 17 June 2004, Roozonline, 30 November 2010). She said:

“Naser went to Germany with Perspolis (a soccer team in Tehran). I decided to use his absence for my benefit and get rid of Laleh forever. The night before the incident, I went into Naser’s apartment with the key that I possessed and hid behind the radiator. I saw from there that Laleh, her two kids, and a friend of hers came home. I remained behind the radiator until the next morning. When the kids went to school and her friend left, Laleh was lying on the bed. I got my knife ready and put on my gloves. I picked a badminton racket and hit her in the head with its handle. Then we grappled together and I stabbed her until she died” (ISNA, 1 December 2010). According to a report against her, immediately after the murder, she called a number in Busher, a city in the south of Iran, smoked a cigarette and stole some jewelry to mislead the police (Sharq, 21 June 2010).

Ms. Jahed reconstructed the crime scene, during which she showed a blood stain on the back of the mattress which the police had not noticed before. She also explained in details the dialogue between Ms. Saharkhizan and her friend, the color of their clothes, etc. The crime scene reconstruction was filmed, and the film was shown at the court as an evidence of guilt (Red Card Documentary).

Another piece of evidence against Ms. Jahed was Naser Mohammadkhani’s testimony. He confessed that Ms. Jahed had a key to his house, which he shared with Ms. Saharkhizan, and had been there several times (Aftab News, 1 December 2010).

In addition, Ms. Saharkhizan’s mother and sister testified that an unknown woman used to call her in the middle of the night and tell her that she did not deserve to live with Naser Mohammadkhani. These phone calls continued even when Ms. Saharkhizan was on a trip. Some attributed these calls to Ms. Jahed and held it against her (BBC, 12 February 2009; Raja News, 8 December 2010).

Since Naser Mohammad Khani was in Germany, Ms. Jahed was in contact with him constantly but from 8:30 a.m. in the previous day to 10:30 a.m. of the day of the incident, she did not contact Naser Mohammadkhani even once (Aftab News, 1 December 2010).

In addition, Ms. Jahed mentioned Ms. Saharkhizan with bad nicknames in her diaries (ISNA, 1 December 2010). She used to write regularly and neatly in her diary; however, at the day of the incident, in her notebook, she crossed out many things. It seemed that she had wanted to fake events for the day (Aftab News, 1 December 2010).

Defense

Experts at the Iranian judiciary and Ms. Jahed’s lawyer, Mr. Khorramshahi, criticized the “judge knowledge” and confession of the defendant (Ebrat, 16 March 2009). In addition according to them, there were numerous flaws in the procedure and content of this case which can be categorized as the following:

1. Claim of Torture and Denial of the Confession:

Ms. Jahed denied her confession in the trial court and stated that she confessed under physical and psychological pressure at the police station. She said everybody knew under which conditions, she confessed (Red Card Documentary, Amnesty International, 1 December 2010). Also, Ms. Jahed’s sister stated that Shahla was incommunicado during her first 11 months of detention (Farhikhtegan, 20 December 2010).

None of the several courts, which tried Ms. Jahed, paid any attention to her claim of torture. She denied killing Ms. Saharkhizan and stealing her things until the last day of her life. She just accepted purchasing opium for Naser Mohammad Khani (ISNA, 1 December 2010).

As it was mentioned before, one of the judges issued an order for visitation of Ms. Jahed with Naser Mohammadkhani in the police station (Roozonline, 30 November 2010). According to Ms. Jahed and her lawyer, Naser Mohammadkhani used Ms. Jahed’s feelings for him and encouraged her to confess. According to Ms. Jahed, he told her that it was going to be his wife’s anniversary in one month and if Ms. Jahed accepted the murder, he would be freed to attend the anniversary of his wife, otherwise his reputation will be gone in the sport world (Abdolsamad Khorramshahi’s Personal Website, 27 February 2009). Ms. Jahed said in the court:

“When the police officers saw that I would not confess, they made Naser a mediator. I had not seen Naser for one year and everybody knew that I was crazy about him. A couple of days before my confessions, they showed me a picture of him blindfolded in a newspaper. I was so upset by his degradation…Everybody knew that I could not control myself in front of Naser. When we were left alone in the room, he told me that he still loved me and asked me to confess” (Red Card Documentary). According to Ms. Jahed’s cellmates, she was having long romantic conversations with Naser Mohammadkhani until the last moment. He promised her that he would get Ms. Saharkhizan’s family’s consent (Abdolsamad Khorramshahi’s Personal Website quoting Eghtesad va Zendegi Magazine, 12 March 2011). Naser Mohammadkhani declared in an interview that the Saharkhizans promised that if Ms. Jahed confessed, they would consent (Goal, 16 April 2011). Naser Mohammadkhani, himself asked the court to executed Ms. Jahed as the father of his children (ISNA, 1 December 2010). According to Iranian laws, in the case of murder, the culprit should be subjected to Qisas i.e. death punishment. It is the right of the owner of blood (the family of the victim except for the spouse) to ask for the culprit’s death or forgive him/her.

2. Deprivation of Right to Enjoy Legal Assistance of a Lawyer:

Mr. Khorramshahi also refers to the fact that he started to represent Ms. Jahed one year after she was arrested and reiterated that if a lawyer could accompany the defendant in the entire pre-trial levels, she would not have confessed like that. This deprivation of the right to enjoy the legal assistance of a lawyer was due to Article 128 of the Criminal Procedure which prevent the defendants from having a lawyer because it sets broad exception to the this right (If presence of a lawyer causes corruption), hence it prevents the presence of a lawyer at pre-trial levels in practice (Abdolsamad Khorramshahi’s Personal Website quoting Ettefaghe No, July 2010).

3. Inconsistency Between Ms. Jahed’s Confession and Other Contents in the Case and Flaws in the Investigations:

According to Mr. Khorramshahi and some other sources, Ms. Jahed’s confession was in contrary to the other issues in the case (as it will follow in the flaws in the investigation) and should be disregarded (Abdolsamad Khorramshahi’s Personal Website quoting Nasim Haraz Magazine, March 2008).

One of the police officers in charge of Ms. Jahed’s case who fled Iran, in an interview with some news agencies such as Jaras numerated some of the flaws and ambiguity of the case. He mentioned that two or three months before the incident, there were disturbances at Ms. Saharkhizan’s house; unknown individuals would throw stones at the house’s windows, but this issue was never investigated throughout the process. Moreover, shortly before the murder, the late Ms. Saharkhizan was constantly expressing fear and unease of being in the house and insisted that the family should move to Qatar (Jaras, 28 November 2010).

In addition, there are some findings in the crime scene which are not compatible with Ms. Jahed’s confession: According to this detective, Ms. Jahed confessed that she had stabbed Ms. Saharkhizan 3 times, whereas she was stabbed 27 times and the quality of these stabs are in a way that they are probably done by a male (Jaras, 28 November 2010). This issue was confirmed by the judge who was first called to the crime scene. This judge who was in charge of the case for a short period of time, believed that the culprits were a man and a woman (Etemad, 7 July 2007). Moreover, the weapon and the stolen properties have never been found. The victims’ clothes was not torn at all which is not consistent with Ms. Jahed’s confession to grapple with Ms. Saharkhizan and stabbing her (Jaras, 28 November 2010). Ms. Jahed confessed to hitting the victim with a badminton racket, but the forensic report said that the blow on the head was with something sharp not like racket. In addition, Ms. Jahed confessed that she hit the victim in the adnominal area but that is neither consistent with the forensic report (Asre-No, 15 July 2004). According to Ms. Jahed’s lawyer, she described the weapon as knife which tears, whereas the forensic report mentioned that the Ms. Saharkhizan’s neck was riddled with something like a nail (Roozonline, 1 December 2010).

According to the above-mentioned detective, there was a shirt covered in blood in the crime scene to which an owner could not be identified. There was a wet towel in the bathroom—the detectives believed that the murderer dried his/her body with it after washing her/himself, but it was never examined. In addition, there were three cigarette butts at the crime scene; on one of them, there was lipstick but not on the other two but Shahla was not a smoker. This evidence was ruined because the judge in charge of the case, travelled to Mecca and the substitute judge never issued an order to examine them (Etemad, 7 July 2007, Jaras, 28 November 2010).

Also, the blood on the walls and carpets was washed off with this excuse that if Naser Mohammadkhani came home and saw this, he would be shocked despite the fact that the crime scene should remain untouched. According to this detective, it was very curious that the detectives had not noticed the blood stain under the mattress and Ms. Jahed showed it to them in reconstruction of the crime scene (Jaras, 28 November 2010).

According to this detective, you could see the security forces role in this murder. According to him there was always a person from the Herasat (intelligence unit) of the Tehran Province Water and Wastewater Organization during the process of investigations which is very odd in the police investigations. He claimed: “The victim’s father is one of the most famous contractors in Qatar and according to late Ms. Saharkhizan and Naser Mohammadkhani, her uncle worked in Qatar intelligence system. Also, M. Saharkhizan’s suspicious contacts and her insistence to her husband for moving to Qatar, etc. These are the issues which make us think that the murder was related to intelligence issues…” (Jaras, 28 November 2010, Dwiche Welle, 1 December 2010).

This detective was off the case two months after it was opened. He believes that because he insisted to investigate the victim’s familial history and because he protested to the presence of the Herasat member, he was called off the case (Jaras, 28 November 2010).

In addition, the examiner judge of Branch 1604 of Tehran Prosecution Office numerated 10 accounts of ambiguity and flaws in the investigation of this case. His letter mostly confirmed the statements of the above-mentioned detective and added some other issues to it. For example: Ms. Jahed claimed that she called from the victim’s land phone to somewhere, such a number did not exist on the print of the victim’s home phone’s calls. Moreover, the locksmith whom Ms. Jahed claimed that she copied the keys to the victim’s house could not identify her (Vatan Emruz Daily, 13 February 2008).

This examiner judge also reiterated that semen was found in the victim’s genital which strengthened the probability of rape before the murder (Jaras, 28 November 2010). According to Ms. Saharkhizan’s lawyer, the forensic report changed in order to say that Ms. Saharkhizan “May” have been raped (Roozonline, 1 December 2010). In the letter of the Head of Judiciary to the last judge of the case, these issues were discussed (Islamic Human Rights Commission, 4 August 2008).

Mr. Khorramshahi, Ms. Jahed’s lawyer, mentioned other issues briefly which were never investigated. For example, Ms. Saharkhizan’s friend who spent the night of the incident, or the bank clerk who cashed Mr. Naser Mohammadkhani’s check for Ms. Jahed, were never interrogated (Abdolsamad Khorramshahi’s Personal Website quoting Ettefaq-e No, July 2010, Roozonline, 1 December 2010). In addition, a locksmith in the neighborhood testified that on the day of the incident, he saw a man and a woman went out of the victim’s place but the court never examined this testimony (Khabaronline, 30 November 2010).

Also, there was Mercedes Benz car in the vicinity of the victim’s house at the time of the murder but it was never examined (Abdolsamad Khorramshahi’s Personal Website quoting Ettefaq-e No, July 2010, Roozonline, 1 December 2010). Naser Mohammadkhani confirmed the existence of the car in a more recent interview. He stated: “I saw a pride or Peugeot which was watching my house closely. I even shared this with my mother-in-law. My mother in law and Laleh (the victim) also agreed. They said that they saw those men and women several times.” (Goal, 16 April, 2011) According to Ms. Jahed, the finger prints at the crime scene were never examined. There were also two hairs at the scene. It is not clear whose they were (Kayhan, 17 June 2004).

On 23 November 2010, the International Committee of Human Rights Lawyers claimed in a statement that the evidence on behalf of Ms. Jahed was not collected on purpose. This committee quoted the detective who was quoted before: “there was some evidence in favor of Ms. Jahed which were not collected purposefully...The evidence which showed Ms. Jahed was innocent was eliminated by a number of officers under the supervision of the Deputy of Tehran Police Chief” (Roozonline, 1 December 2010).

4. Flaws in the “judge’s knowledge”:

As it was mentioned before, Ms. Jahed’s verdict was issued on the basis of the “judge’s knowledge.” Mr. Khorramshahi mentioned that the “judge’s knowledge” must be obtained through normal methods (Article 120 of the Islamic Penal Code). This means that the judge should obtain his knowledge through common ways such as forensic evidence, testimonies, etc; and it should be mentioned in the verdict how he obtained that knowledge. But in Ms. Jahed’s case, the basis of this knowledge was not mentioned. The judges issued a verdict despite all the ambiguity and flaws in the case. This is even in contrary to Iranian law (Abdolsamad Khorramshahi Personal Website quoting Nasim Haraz Magazine, March 2008).

5. Flaws in the Procedure:

According to Mr. Khorramshahi, Ms. Jahed’s lawyer, she was named as the murderer even before the first trial; the judge of the case declared on the first day that she was the murderer and it was quoted by many media. Although the judge denied that he had ever said that, Mr. Khorramshahi claimed that these quotations are still archived by the media (Abdolsamad Khorramshahi’s Personal Website quoting Ettefaq No, July 2010).

According to Mr. Khorramshahi, after the mistrial and repealing the procedure, the judge should restart investigations and collecting data; but in this case, the judge refused to do so and issued the verdict according to his “knowledge.” Although the case had numerous flaws, the verdict was issued disregarding the flaws and only in two days (ISNA, 1 December 2010). For example, the Head of Judiciary sent 14 pages of flaws and ambiguities in the case to the judge but none of them were considered (Islamic Human Rights Commission, 4 August 2008).

6. Other Flaws:

Ms. Jahed’s lawyer believes that her behavior right after the murder is not explainable if she was the culprit because right after the murder, she went to bank, her nephew’s school, and some other places. Everybody agrees that she was not a professional criminal. Amateur criminals like her, would become anxious or excited after the crime and cannot act normally (Abdolsamad Khorramshahi’s Personal Website quoting Nasim Haraz Magazine, March 2008).

Judgment

Branch 1154 of the Provincial Criminal Court of Tehran sentenced Ms. Jahed to death for Ms. Saharkhizan’s murder, to three years of imprisonment, returning the properties for theft, 74 lashes of flogging, and 5000 dollars fine for purchasing opium. Regarding her charges of illegitimate affair, she was exonerated since she and Nader Mohammad Khani were temporarily man and wife (Fars News, 10 January 2007). This verdict was upheld in Branch 15 of the Supreme Court and in previous rulings from other courts. Therefore, the sentence could not be mitigated (Amnesty International, 23, 30 November and 1 December 2010).

At last, the judge presiding Branch 1114 of Be’sat Judicial Complex denied the mistrial. He said in his verdict that the objection of the defendant’s lawyer was not sustained and trial court’s ground to issue the verdict i.e. the confession, the crime scene reconstruction, and the judge’s knowledge were not erroneous; therefore, the verdict was upheld (Roozonline, 30 November 2010, Raja News, 8 December 2010).

Abdolasamad Khorramshahi criticized the officials’ manner of his client’s execution. He said that he heard the date of her execution in the news; he called the prosecution office, but they denied the news. Days after that, at 11 a.m. on 30 November 2010, he was informed by phone about the execution which was going to happen in less than 24 hours. But according to article 5 of the Code of Execution of Verdict, the execution of Qisas should be informed to the lawyer 48 hours before the execution (Sharq, 1 December 2010).

There was a session of negotiations in order to get the consent of the family of the victim on 30 November 2010 at Executive Branch of the Prosecution Office, but there was no result. Only the family of the victim and their lawyers were present and the defendant, her family or her lawyer were not invited to the session.

The execution was carried out at dawn on 1 December 2010 in presence of the victim’s family and Naser Mohammadkhani, Ms. Jahed’s lawyer, and others. Ms. Jahed said her prayers before the execution. Lastly, she willed her properties. At 5:45 a.m. the rope was put around her neck and the verdict was read out. After that Ms. Saharkhizan’s brother, acting as the representative of the victim’s family, pulled the stool under Ms. Jahed’s feet and killed her (ISNA, 1 December 2010, Amnesty International 1 December 2010).

_____________________________________________________________

(1) ISNA (1 December 2010), Farhikhtegan (1 December 2010), Fars News Agency (24 September 2006), Roozonline (29, 30 November and 1 December 2010), Etemad (7 July 2007), Asre No (15 July 2004), Vatan Emruz Daily (13 February 2008), Kayhan (17 June 2004), International Committee of Human Rights Lawyers (23 November 2010), Khabaronline (30 November 2010), Raja News (8 December 2010).

(2) According to Article 205 of the Penal Code, all the Qisas cases must be authorized by the Head of the Judiciary.

(3) Legal Explanation: according to former Article 18 of the Criminal Procedure, the Head of the Judiciary had the power to declare a mistrial and move for a new trial –the current Article 18 also gives the Head of the Judiciary the same power with more restrictions.

(4) According to Article 188 of the Criminal Procedure, trials must be held publicly unless they fall within the meaning of one of the defined exception in the code, i.e. against public morality, religion, national security or are regarding private and family issues of individuals at the parties’ request.

Correct/ Complete This Entry ❯