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

Habibollah Tanha'ian

About

Age: 45
Nationality: Iran
Religion: Non-Believer
Civil Status: Married

Case

Date of Killing: December, 2003
Location of Killing: Sanandaj, Kordestan Province, Iran
Mode of Killing: Death in custody
Charges: Sympathizing with anti-regime guerilla groups
Age at time of alleged offense: 45

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 may 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 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 not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honor and reputation.

UDHR, Article 12, ICCPR, Article 17.1.

  • 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, 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.

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 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.

  • The right not to be tried or punished again for an offence for which one has already been

convicted or acquitted.

ICCPR, Article 14.7.

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

Because the village of Gelin was a disenfranchised and underprivileged area, and because there was conflict between Kurdish opposition parties and government forces, Mr. Tanhaian was deprived of an education as a child and had only completed elementary school

Information about Mr. Habibollah Tanhaian’s murder while in custody, was obtained from Rooz News and Analysis Website (October 1, 2013) and from Mr. Yasser Goli’s testimony [published] by the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center (May 11, 2012). Additional information was obtained from the Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation’s interview with Mr. Ammar Goli, a person who was close to Mr. Tanhaian and saw his body after he had been murdered.

Mr. Tanhaian was a 45-year-old Kurd from the Ourami-speaking village of Gelin, located in [the city of] Sanandaj’s Javrud region. He was married, had four children, and resided in Sanandaj’s underprivileged neighborhood of Ghafur. Because the village of Gelin was a disenfranchised and underprivileged area, and because of the clashes between Kurdish opposition parties and government forces, Mr. Tanhaian was deprived of an education as a child and had only an elementary school education. He was a tile and stone installer and at times engaged in beekeeping (Boroumand Foundation interview).

According to Mr. Ammar Goli, Mr. Tanhaian did not hold any religious beliefs. He had been accused of “atheism and heresy” by Darvish groups, extremist religious individuals and groups, and local forces dependent on and associated with the regime, because of the conversations he had with his friends and the people around him, criticizing religious and political issues in Kurdistan (Boroumand Foundation interview).

According to Mr. Goli, Mr. Tanhaian was a quiet and generous man. He was known among his entourage and the residents of the village of his birth as a person who helped others. Mr. Tanhaian had a fighting spirit and was faithful to his ideals and political beliefs, which he defended “with logic, not other means” (Boroumand Foundation interview).

Based on available information, Mr. Tanhaian had been arrested several times for his political party-related activities but had been released without being convicted. He was a supporter of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, and participated in party activities by distributing party pamphlets, announcements, books, and CD’s in Sanandaj. Mr. Tanhaian’s brother was a member of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan who was killed in the clashes between the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan forces and the Army of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards forces between 1985 and 1987 (Boroumand Foundation interview).

The Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan was founded in 1945 with the goal of obtaining autonomy for Kurdistan in northwestern Iran. After the Islamic Revolution, the disagreements between the Shi’a government of the Islamic Republic and the mainly Sunni-inhabited Kurdistan Province regarding the rights and roles of minorities in drafting the Constitution, designating the Shi’a religion as the country’s official religion, and the issue of Kurdistan’s autonomy in particular, led to severe clashes, at times armed, between the Revolutionary Guards and the Peshmerga (the armed forces of the Democratic Party of Kurdistan). The Democratic Party of Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan boycotted the April 1 referendum [on the establishment of the Islamic Republic (April 1, 1979)]. On August 19, 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini declared the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan “unofficial and illegal” and called it “the party of the Devil”. Mass executions and heavy armed battles continued in the region for months. Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan lost its power in the region to a great extent in the course of the following four years, and several of [its] leaders were assassinated. In 2006, there was a split in the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan following internal disputes, which divided the Party into two separate organizations, “Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan” and “Kurdistan Democratic Party”.

Arrest and detention

On December 12 or December 13, 2003, following a report by a person close to him to the effect that Mr. Tanhaian had a secret warehouse where he kept the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan’s pamphlets and announcements, Sanandaj Information Administration forces arrested Mr. Tanhaian in Sanandaj’s Ghafur neighborhood. The agents took him to one of Sanandaj Information Administration’s detention centers. Mr. Tanhaian was at that detention center for 9 days (Boroumand Foundation interview).

Ammar Goli: “A man with a motorcycle, that nobody knew, would go to his house twice a day and threaten his wife and family, insult them, and tell them ‘We’ve killed your husband and we will give you his corpse soon’.” 

According to Mr. Ammar Goli, after Mr. Tanhaian’s arrest, Information forces took him and the person who had reported him to Mr. Tanhaian’s home where they discovered and confiscated pamphlets and announcements pertaining to the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (Boroumand Foundation interview).

After Mr. Tanhaian’s arrest, his wife’s efforts in obtaining information about his condition bore no fruit in spite of her going to Sanandaj Information Administration Information Headquarters, Sanandaj Police force, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards’ Shahramfar [Military] Base in Sanandaj (Boroumand Foundation interview).

According to Mr. Ammar Goli, quoting Mr. Tanhaian’s spouse, during the time Mr. Tanhaian was in custody, “a man with a motorcycle, that nobody knew, would go to his house twice a day and threaten his wife and family, insult them, and tell them ‘We’ve killed your husband and we will give you his corpse soon” (Boroumand Foundation interview).

According to Mr. Ammar Goli’s testimony, who had seen Mr. Tanhaian’s body after it was turned over to his family and [in preparation for burial], was being washed at Imam Hossein Mosque located in the Ghafur neighborhood, Mr. Tanhaian had been subjected to torture while in custody. Mr. Goli stated: “Both his arms had been broken, his right clavicle, that is, the bone in his right shoulder, had been broken, his right leg, if I’m not mistaken (because I witnessed the body)… His neck was broken. There were burn marks on his back in three areas, larger than what one would get with an iron. In short, there were horrendous signs of torture on his body. There were signs of electric shock on his hands. There were horrible bruises on his body. He was not the man that I had seen exactly two days prior to his arrest” (Boroumand Foundation interview).

Mr. Yasser Goli, another person who saw Mr. Tanhaian’s lifeless body, described the signs of torture on the latter’s corpse in his testimony: “…We saw his corpse. There was a wire [mark] around his neck; his body was [covered in] bruises, like polka dots. It was very clear and obvious that it was the marks of electric shock. His neck had the marks of laceration by a wire, not the marks of suffocation with carpeting; because they had said that he had hung himself with carpeting…” (Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, May 10, 2012).

Mr. Tanhaian was deprived of visitation and contact with his family, and of access to an attorney, during detention.

Trial

There was no trial in connection with Mr. Tanhaian’s arrest. He was killed in Sanandaj Information Administration detention centers less than nine days after his arrest.

He was killed in less than nine days at the Sanandaj Information Administration detention center

Charges

According to Mr. Ammar Goli, it is possible that the charges brought against Mr. Tanhaian were “possession of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan’s pamphlets and announcements”. There is no information about the details of the possible charges brought against Mr. Tanhaian.

Evidence of guilt

Based on available information, the report by a person close to Mr. Tanhaian that he kept the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan’s publicity announcements, books, and CD’s, and discovery and confiscation thereof at his home, were among the reasons for Mr. Tanhaian’s arrest and detention.

Defense

Since no trial ever took place to consider the charges brought against Mr. Tanhaian, he did not get a chance to officially defend himself.

Mr. Tanhaian was not armed and had not participated in any armed operations

According to Mr. Ammar Goli, Mr. Tanhaian was not armed and had not participated in any armed operations. Additionally, at the time of his arrest, the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan did not have any armed activities and “had sidelined its armed tendency for 7 or 8 years, and was not involved in any armed clashes in the region either, to allow us to say that [Mr. Tanhaian had cooperated with the [armed] teams that were [active] in the region” (Boroumand Foundation interview).

Judgment

No official sentence was issued for Mr. Tanhaian.

On the night of December 22, 2003, Sanandaj Information Administration forces turned Mr. Tanhaian’s body was over to his family in front of the Imam Hossein Mosque located in Sanandaj’s Ghafur neighborhood. His family washed Mr. Tanhaian’s body at the Imam Hossein Mosque and wrapped him in the [traditional] shroud. According to Mr. Goli, security forces did not allow Mr. Tanhaian’s family to conduct his burial during the day, and, under severe pressure from Information forces, and in spite of severe cold, they buried his body at Sanandaj’s Behesht Mohammadi Cemetery at 1:30 in the morning (Boroumand Foundation interview).

Mr. Tanhaian’s family was not permitted to conduct his burial during the day, and, in spite of severe cold, buried his body at night

Based on available information, Mr. Tanhaian’s family held services for him in their home. However, few people attended the services due to the presence of security forces around the location where they were being held. Security forces allowed Mr. Tanhaian’s family only one day to hold services. According to Mr. Goli, a number of people who were close to Mr. Tanahaian did not partake in his funeral services because they deemed him to be “an atheist and an infidel” (Boroumand Foundation interview).

Based on available information, security forces made threats against Mr. Tanhaian’s family in order to prevent them from following up on his arrest and murder. In spite of these threats, however, Mr. Tanhaian’s wife followed up on his case but her efforts bore no fruit. Security forces arrested Mr. Tanhaian’s wife for two days because of [her insistence on] pursuing her husband’s case, and she was given a suspended sentence at trial (Boroumand Foundation interview).

Following Mr. Tanhaian’s murder in custody, his [family and relatives] made pleas to Sanandaj representatives in the Islamic Consultative Assembly (“Majless”, the Iranian parliament) and requested that they follow up on his murder, but their efforts were futile. According to Mr. Ammar Goli, one of Sanandaj’s Majless Members who was from the same village as Mr. Tanhaian and knew him had told his relatives “I don’t know. They told us that the Information [Ministry] has said that he committed suicide; and I hear they say he was a heretic,” and had not pursued his case.

Correct/ Complete This Entry ❯