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

Mostafa Karim Beigi

About

Age: 26
Nationality: Iran
Religion: Islam (Shi'a)
Civil Status: Single

Case

Date of Killing: December 27, 2009
Location of Killing: Tehran, Tehran Province, Iran
Mode of Killing: Other arbitrary execution method
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 not to be punished for any crime on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time it was committed.

    UDHR, Article 11.2; ICCPR, Article 15, Article 6.2.

  • 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 or 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 due process

Pre-trial detention rights

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

    ICCPR, 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; Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, Article 8

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

    UDHR, Article 5; 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 9.3, Article 14.1, Article 14.3.c.

    • The right to examine, or have examined the witnesses against one and to obtain the attendance and examination of defense witnesses under the same conditions as witnesses for the prosecution.

ICCPR, 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

He had no political affiliation, but he was kind. What he could not stand to be was a person who keeps silent in the face of tyranny.

Information about Mr. Mostafa Karim-Beigi's case was taken from IRNA (December 27 & 29, 2009), ISNA (December 30, 2009), Fars News Agency (December 27 & 30, 2009), Iran Police News (December 29, 2009), Behesht-e Zahra Cemetery website, Rooz Online (March 14, 2010; January 10, 2011; September 26, 2010; December 14, 2010), the video of his father's interview with Voice of America (April 19, 2010), Green Path Movement –Jaras News Agency (May 22, 2011; December 29, 2009; January 4, 2010), Ayande News website (December 30, 2009; January 3, 2010), and Human Rights Activists News Agency, HRANA (December 30, 2009; December 27, 2013).

Mr. Mostafa Karim-Beigi was 26 years old and single, had a high-school diploma, and ran his own business.  He was not a member of any political party or group but, according to his family, was an outspoken and freedom-loving person.  As a student, he had formed a group named the Student Movement of Iran, and he would participate in all the annual commemorations of the vigilante attack on student dormitories in 1999.  Even though he had not voted in the 2009 presidential election, he took part in all the mass protests that ensued afterwards, always sporting a green scarf around his neck.  According to one of his friends, he had started debating with one of the Basij members during one of these protests, believing that "dialogue is our only weapon, the only way we can make our views known to the Basij so they will have an idea what it is we are asking for."  He underlined the importance of standing up against tyranny and was always critical of those who saw tyranny but did not raise their voices against it.  He had told his mother: "our blood has to be shed before things can start to get better."  He loved his country and said that he would be the first to go and fight for his country should there be a war.  He was a kind-hearted young man who helped the sick and those in need.  He had even registered as an organ donor, and his organs were donated for transplantation upon his death (his mother's interview with HRANA on December 27, 2013 and with Rooz Online on December 14, 2010, and his father's interview with Voice of America on April 19, 2010)

Based on the information available, Mr. Mostafa Karim-Beigi was shot in the forehead by the police and plainclothes forces near the College bridge on Enqelab (Revolution) Street at around 1 PM on Sunday, December 27, 2009 (the day of Ashura).  He was consequently thrown down from the bridge and killed.

The Officials' Reaction

Police and security forces did not inform Mr. Karim-Beigi's family of his death.  A statement issued by the Tehran Metropolitan Police Headquarters on December 29, 2009 announced the death of an unidentified individual as a result of falling from the bridge on the day of Ashura.  His family was finally able to identify his body in the forensic department of Kahrizak Detention Center after 14 days of searching for him in hospitals and prisons.  According to his mother, the forensic department declared the cause of death as "contact with hard object" and, in the death certificate, as "contact with sharp object in the chest" (Rooz Online, January 10, 2011).  Mr. Karim-Beigi's parents were pressured to accept the declared cause of death in order to receive their son's body.

The security officials allowed his burial in Behesht-e Zahra Cemetery under the condition that only his parents and sister could attend the burial.  This time the family did not accept the condition and decided to bury their son in the village of Jouqin near Shahriyar.  Mr. Karim-Beigi's body was buried at 8 PM on January 13, 2010, in silence and under strict security.  Before the burial, the security forces transported his body to Behesht-e Zahra Cemetery for the ritual washing, of which his family were not informed and which they could not attend, and then escorted the body to the burial place.  At the burial, the officers stood among and around the people present and took pictures and video (Rooz Online, March 14, 2010).  The place was filled with plainclothes forces.

According to his mother, the security officials had pressured the family to remain silent and stay away from interviews with the media.  Arriving at Mr. Karim-Beigi's family home with placards and flowers to commemorate the fortieth day of his death, the security forces had tried to claim Mr. Karim-Beigi as a praised Basij member, but his family, knowing that he had never been associated with the Basij, objected to this performance and decided to cancel the fortieth day ceremony for this reason.

The complaint filed by his family was abandoned with no results.  Ms. Shahnaz Akmali insists that this was due to the lack of serious will on the part of the authorities to find those who murdered protestors on the streets.  Their lawyer's attempts yielded no results either, and eventually the security police offered some blood money which was rejected by Mr. Karim-Beigi's family.  Threats and pressures by security officials have not left the family alone in the years following 2009.  A few weeks after his son's burial, Mr. Karim-Beigi's father was summoned to the Ministry of Information for interrogations.  The family was constantly threatened by the local office of the Ministry of Information in Shahriyar and pressured to change their son's grave stone which bore the words "the tyrannized martyr of Ashura."  Finally in 2010, a few days before Mr. Karim-Beigi's birth anniversary, unidentified individuals broke his grave stone.  Attending the birth anniversary of another victim of Ashura killings in Behesht-e Zahra Cemetery along with the family members of other victims, Mr. Karim-Beigi's mother and sister were arrested and interrogated by security forces.  During her detention and in all future communications, Ms. Akmali was explicitly threatened that if she continued contacting and communicating with mothers of other victims, her daughter's life would also be in danger (Rooz Online, December 14, 2010).

The Family's Remarks

According to Mr. Karim-Beigi's parents, during the 14 days that they were kept uninformed about their son's death, they received suspicious silent calls made from Mostafa's cellular phone every night around 2 AM.  These calls continued until the day they identified their son's body. After lodging their complaint with the police and being referred to the criminal court, Mr. Karim-Beigi's parents were sent to the Shapour police station, where his mother identified her son in the photographs of dead bodies.  Even though she had made the identification, the officials deceived her into believing that she was wrong and that the photographed body she identified as her son had already been identified as someone else.  Finally, on January 11, 2010, the family identified their son's body with a bullet mark on the left side of his forehead and a scar running down from his neck to his abdomen from the autopsy at the Kahrizak forensic department.  According to his mother, the officials, though they orally agreed that Mostafa had been shot, refused to put that in writing on his death certificate and forensic report.

Having sought justice within the legal framework of the Islamic Republic, Mr. Karim-Beigi's family has come to believe that justice was denied to them.  They have published their objections and remarks publically and in the form of interviews and expositions, and have repeatedly pointed out inconsistencies in the officials' remarks and the security pressures imposed on the family.  Ms. Shahnaz Akmali has stated clearly several times that she is not after retaliation and only asks for those who ordered and those who carried out his son's murder to be identified.  In an interview with Rooz Online, she has explained her reasons for not accepting blood money for her son from the authorities:

"It was my son's goal and his path that mattered; would I trade my child's blood for money?  My son's blood money is the freedom of Iran.  My son's blood money is the freedom of political prisoners, and I do not want any other blood money but this.  My son's blood was shed and his life lost because of his goal.  My son's blood money is the comfort of my people.  I am an Iranian and my son was proud to be an Iranian.  His blood money is the freedom of his country and his people; the freedom of the prisoners." (Rooz Online, September 26, 2010)

"I have asked God to keep me alive until the day I see my son's murderers in court.  Many of us families who have lost loved ones are not after retaliation and the continuation of the cycle of violence in Iran.  I do not want to contribute to this violence, but I do ask that the murderers be identified and that my other children who are now sitting in prison will be freed, because this is what our martyrs wanted, they wanted the cycle of violence in Iran to stop, and now we have become their voice." (Jaras, May 22, 2011)

Background

Following the presidential election of June 2009 and the widespread protest against its result, the government tried to prevent demonstrations by labeling them “illegal” and by violently suppressing demonstrators. Despite the intimidating circumstances, protesters poured into the streets on various religious and official anniversaries – Qods Day, Ashura, the anniversary of the Iranian Revolution (February 11) and that of the occupation of the U.S. Embassy (November 14) – rallying and marching to show discontent with the regime.

On the Day of Ashura (December 27, 2009), protests in Tabriz and Tehran turned violent, with at least eight individuals killed. State-run news agencies, such as Fars and Mehr, reported that banks and other public and private property were destroyed and burned. The Tehran Police Department issued a statement on the same date stating, “unfortunately a limited number of conspirators… disrupted public order through their presence in the streets during the religious ceremonies while chanting digressional slogans.” In an interview with Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation, an eyewitness who participated in the Ashura demonstration stated, “On the night before, we contacted friends to see who would come for the demonstration the next day. We did not expect killing, due to the honor accorded to this day. Compared to the first days after the election, some people were afraid, having seen the victims and heard about torture in the prisons. People were more careful not to be arrested. At 10 a.m., we went to such streets as Hafez, Taleqani, and Enqelab and stayed there until 1 p.m. Most of the clashes took place on those three streets.

“Police started the violence. At one point, we were walking on Taleqani Street, when a police vehicle came and passed some protesters. We thought that they were going toward Vali’asr Square, but [the vehicle] stopped a hundred meters ahead of us. The police officers got out and began shooting tear gas at people. In the past, the police would wait for people to become a crowd and then shoot at them, but this time, they did not wait, at all. Demonstrators were moving toward Vali’asr Street, but the police began shooting immediately, to prevent the crowd from arriving there.

“However, the people were ready for violence this time. When police began attacking, people first fled but then started to throw stones at the police. The destruction was greater on the Day of Ashura [than on previous days]. Protesters did not damage buildings much, but garbage cans were set on fire in the middle of the streets. A police vehicle was also set on fire, which had happened before. Many people in the streets were religious people who were mourning, beating their chests, and chanting slogans against the government at the same time. Around 2 o’clock in the afternoon, my friend’s cousin informed us that a person had been thrown off Hafez Bridge and that shooting had been heard from Vali’asr Square. When the number of protesters gradually diminished in the afternoon, the pro-government forces increased and controlled Hafez Street. Then, about fifty covered women appeared, chanting slogans in support of the government.”

Several video clips posted to YouTube and to other websites showed victims being killed. On one of these clips, a police vehicle was shown running over a protester several times. Names of at least five individuals who were run over by vehicles and died have been reported.

High ranking police officers made confusing statements about the number of casualties on Ashura. They denied that police vehicles ran over protestors. Deputy Chief of Police confirmed, however, that 300 persons were arrested on that day. A Tehran Police Department statement emphasized that “police forces… will harshly counter any infringement of religious dignity and principles, of values of the Islamic Republic’s holy regime, and of beliefs deeply rooted among the Muslim Iranian nation.”

Correct/ Complete This Entry ❯