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

Ali Reza Madadpur

About

Age: 38
Nationality: Iran
Religion: Islam
Civil Status: Single

Case

Date of Killing: August 27, 2016
Location of Killing: Central Prison (Nedamatgah), Karaj, Alborz Province, Iran
Mode of Killing: Hanging
Charges: Drug possession
Age at time of alleged offense: 34

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 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.

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

Alireza Madadpur, a senior student of accounting, was hired as a janitor to provide for his family and his education.

News of  Mr. Ali Reza Madadpur’s execution was published on the Boroumand Foundation website (August 27, 2016), and by HRANA (August 27, 2016). Additional information about this case was obtained from research and interviews conducted by the Boroumand Foundation and from HRANA’s report (August 26, 2016).

According to available information, Mr. Ali Reza Madadpur, son of Bayramali, was born on June 20, 1978. He was single and resided in the city of Karaj. He came from a poor family. His father, who was a simple laborer, had become unable to make a living following a work accident. Mr. Madadpur was an accounting student in his senior year in college and performed manual labor in order to pay for his educational expenses and to provide for himself and his family.

The case against Mr. Madadpur was based on the discovery of illicit drugs at a house in Karaj’s Fardis neighborhood where he had gone for the first time to perform janitorial and custodial work (Boroumand Foundation research).

Further, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Iran issued an appeal to Iranian authorities to stop the implementation of the death sentence issued for 12 drug-related defendants, including Mr. Madadpur (U.N. website, August 26, 2016).

Arrest and Detention

Mr. Madadpur and two other individuals were arrested on the morning of November 12, 2011, by Police Force Drug Enforcement agents and Information Administration agents in the Fardis neighborhood, Karaj, Alborz Province. Mr. Madadpur spent a few weeks being interrogated at the Drug Information office in Karaj’s Azimieh neighborhood, during which time the authorities kept his family in the dark about his whereabouts. Mr. Madadpur’s family did not even know that he had been arrested.

He had gone to a house for the first time to do some janitorial work but was arrested even before he had started the job.

After the period of interrogation, Mr. Madadpur was transferred to Karaj Central Prison and was then able to inform his family of his arrest. According to a witness, he had lost so much weight during interrogations that he “looked like a skeleton.” Mr. Madadpur was deprived of his right to an attorney during interrogations and during detention. He could not afford to hire an attorney due to poverty. A few days prior to his trial, the court appointed a lawyer for him. Mr. Madadpur had become addicted to drugs while in college, an addiction he kicked while in prison (Boroumand Foundation interview with a person with knowledge of the case).

Trial

According to available information, Mr. Madadpur’s trial took place on July 17, 2012, at Karaj Islamic Revolutionary Court Branch Four, presided over by Judge Farajollahi. The session, where four defendants including Mr. Madadpur were tried, lasted only 20 minutes. Mr. Madadpur’s court-appointed attorney was present at the trial (Boroumand Foundation interview with a person with knowledge of the case).

Charges

The charges against Mr. Madadpur were “possession of drugs, and possession of drug manufacturing paraphernalia”.

The validity of the criminal charges brought against this defendant cannot be ascertained in the absence of the basic guarantees of a fair trial.

Evidence of Guilt

The charges against Mr. Madadpur were based on the discovery of 990 grams of methamphetamine along with manufacturing paraphernalia at the location of the arrest, and the evidence against the other defendants was their confession at the interrogation stage.

International human rights organizations have repeatedly condemned the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran for its systematic use of severe torture and solitary confinement to obtain confessions from detainees and have questioned the authenticity of confessions obtained under duress.

Defense

According to available information, Mr. Madadpur never accepted the charges brought against him and emphasized in interrogations that he had not gone to the house for purposes of manufacturing drugs. The residents of the house were themselves asleep, and no drugs were manufactured during the two hours Mr. Madadpur was there. All three other defendants testified in the different stages of adjudication, including at trial, that he had no part in manufacturing drugs, and confirmed Mr. Madadpur’s statements. Mr. Madadpur had no prior criminal record and had never been arrested; no evidence whatsoever of any connection to the residents of the house was produced at trial. In addition, subsequent to the court finding him guilty, Mr. Madadpur’s co-defendants wrote letters from inside prison confirming that they did not know him and that he had played no part in manufacturing the drugs discovered at the house (Boroumand Foundation interview with a person with knowledge of the case, Court Decision, Boroumand Foundation research).

Mr. Madadpur’s co-defendants testified in the court and wrote letters from inside prison confirming that they did not know him and that he had played no part in manufacturing the drugs but the Judge did not take it into consideration.

Mr. Madadpur was deprived of the right to an effective defense. His court-appointed attorney was designated at most two weeks prior to trial and had no meetings with Madadpur whatsoever during that time. The lawyer did not have the opportunity to speak at trial and to defend his client, and was only able to read aloud the brief he had written (Boroumand Foundation interview with a person with knowledge of the case).

Prison authorities also presented to the court a letter certifying Mr. Madadpur’s good behavior, and emphasized that during his five-year incarceration, he regularly participated in Koran classes and mass prayer, that he was an effective member of the prison’s drug rehabilitation society, and that he had thus helped many young people in jail to kick their drug addiction (Prison records, Boroumand Foundation research).

Mr. Madadpur had retained an attorney during the review trial which followed his attorney’s protest of the original verdict. According to available documents, his attorney emphasized Mr. Madadpur’s innocence citing the law (Boroumand Foundation interview with a person with knowledge of the case).

International human rights organizations have repeatedly condemned the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran for its systematic use of severe torture and solitary confinement to obtain confessions from detainees and have questioned the authenticity of confessions obtained under duress.

A Summary of the Legal Defects in Mr. Ali Reza Madadpur’s Case

  1. In this case, Ali Reza Madadpur claimed that he had no connection whatsoever with the other defendants and that he had gone to the location only two hours prior to his arrest and had no knowledge of the manufacture of drugs there. It was necessary for the prosecutor’s office to ascertain the veracity of this claim, especially since the other defendants had repeatedly confirmed Madadpur’s assertions. The prosecutor’s office, however, did not take the necessary steps in this regard. The investigative official could have easily ascertained the veracity of this claim. Questioning the people who lived in the neighborhood about whether Madadpur had ever been seen before at the location of the crime or not, looking at various cameras in the surrounding areas, such as traffic cameras, shopping centers cameras, houses, etc., in order to find out about Madadpur’s comings and goings to the location where drugs were being manufactured, were among steps the prosecutor’s office could have taken but did not. It was undoubtedly not possible to render an opinion on Madadpur’s claim absent thorough and specific investigations. The prosecutor’s office, however, hastily found the charge against him to be valid and Revolutionary Court Branch Four sentenced Madadpur to death without taking [his claim] into consideration.
  2. In accordance with legal principles, the court’s decision must be based on the evidence, and criminal action must be specified with proof thereof. In his ruling, Judge Farajollahi states Madadpur’s charge as being participation in manufacturing methamphetamine and states the defendant’s clear admission and confession as the basis of such finding, whereas, nowhere in this case has the defendant made any self-incriminating admissions and has denied any participation in manufacturing meth. Furthermore, the statements of the other defendants in the case clearly indicate that Madadpur’s did not participate in manufacturing drugs. The court found the crime as having been properly proven in spite of the lack of evidence.
  3. According to Iranian law, including the Islamic Penal Code and the Rules of Criminal Procedure, admissions and confessions have legal validity only if made before the ruling judge. In other words, even though admissions to [individuals] other than the judge are considered a type of evidence, if such admission is to be the basis of issuing a decision, however, the ruling judge must personally hear said admission. Therefore, admissions obtained by law enforcement and/or the investigating judge cannot be the basis of the judge’s decision. Information obtained in the present case indicates that Ali Reza Madadpur made absolutely no self-incriminating admissions or confessions before the trial judge. This can be ascertained from the text of the court decision itself. In his decision, the Revolutionary Court Branch Four judge expressly states that the defendants had accepted the charges of manufacturing and possession of drugs in the preliminary stages. This means that even if an admission were made, it was in the preliminary investigations stage, not in court and before the trial judge. The judge makes the defendants’ confession the basis of his ruling in spite of this and contrary to the law. In other words, the court decision itself admits to being illegal.
  4. Being an accomplice in the commission of a crime has meaning only when an individual participates in the criminal act. In other words, even if Madadpur had knowledge that meth was being manufactured at said location, one cannot conclude that such knowledge, in addition to presence at the location of the crime, amounts to being an accomplice in the commission of the crime; one must actually partake in the criminal act in order to be an accomplice. One who cooperates with the criminals or intervenes in the crime without partaking in the criminal act cannot be considered an accomplice. Madadpur was arrested when he was taken to the location by another defendant in the case first thing in the morning. He was present at the location for only two hours and the other defendants were asleep at the time of the arrest. In other words, the manufacture of methamphetamines had not yet begun that day when the agents arrested Madadpur. In other words, the criminal act, which was the manufacture of methamphetamines, had not yet started. Even if the judge believed that Madadpur cooperated with the other defendants, it was necessary for him to clearly determine whether this cooperation was in the criminal act, i.e., the manufacture of methamphetamines, or in incidental tasks. It seems the court decision was contrary to the law in this regard as well.
  5. Based on available information, Ali Reza Madadpur was not able to have access to the services of an attorney in many stages of the adjudication. A court-appointed attorney was assigned to him only two weeks prior to trial at the Revolutionary Court; even then, he did not have an opportunity to meet with the lawyer. The law provides that for crimes such as the crime in question which carry the death penalty, the presence of an attorney in the adjudication process is necessary in order to defend the accused. Pursuant to the Law on the Rules of Criminal Procedure for General and Revolutionary Courts, Note 1 to Article 186, “If in crimes for which the law has mandated the punishments of Qesas of life, execution, stoning, and life imprisonment, the defendant does not personally introduce an attorney, it is mandatory that a court-appointed attorney be designated.” This Article means that it is mandatory for the defendant to have access to a lawyer not only in the adjudication stage, but in all stages, including preliminary investigations and during court proceedings and trial.  Ali Reza Madadpur was interrogated without any legal knowledge, and sufficient preliminary investigations were not conducted. He was deprived of an attorney in this very important stage. Lack of access to an attorney has created many defects in the case, including not conducting the necessary investigations. Had he had access to an attorney, many of these defects would undoubtedly not have occurred and the case would have taken a different turn. His right to a defense has been jeopardized due to the court not designating a court-apponted attorney and depriving Madadpur from access to counsel for the greater part of the proceedings. This is of such importance that it can render preliminary investigations as well as the court decision completely invalid. 

Judgement

Karaj Islamic Revolutionary Court Branch Four sentenced Mr. Madadpur to “5 million Rials monetary penalty, 30 lashes, death, and expropriation of the property obtained from the crime”. However, since Mr. Madadpur had played no role in manufacturing drugs and there was no property so acquired, the judge declared the part of the sentence alluding to “expropriation” inapplicable.

Mr. Madadpur’s request for a new trial was denied by judicial authorities in 2015, as was his request for a pardon.

At dawn on the morning of August 27, 2016, Mr. Ali Reza Madadpur was hanged in the yard of Karaj Central Prison along with 11 other prisoners. He had visitations with his family the day before his execution. His body was turned over to his family. Mr. Madadpur was buried on the grounds of the Emamzadeh Ebrahim mausoleum in Malard, Alborz Province (Boroumand Foundation research).

Correct/ Complete This Entry ❯