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

Ehsanollah Ehsani

About

Age: 20
Nationality: Afghanistan
Religion: Islam (Shi'a)
Civil Status: Single

Case

Date of Killing: May 20, 2016
Location of Killing: Yazd Province, Iran
Mode of Killing: Death in custody
Charges: Robbery
Age at time of alleged offense: 20

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 to freedom of peaceful assembly.

UDHR, Article 20; ICCPR, Article 21.

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

UDHR, Article 20; ICCPR, Article 22.1.

  • The right, 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.

  • The right of a person not to be subjected to the capital punishment for an offence committed before the age of eighteen. The right not to be deprived of life while pregnant.

ICCPR, Article 6.5; Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 37.a.

About this Case

Correct/ Complete This Entry

Mr. Ehsani was a 20-year-old Afghan living in Yazd who liked to play soccer

News of Mr. Ehsanollah Ehsani’s death was published by HRANA News Agency on May 22, 2016. Additional information was obtained through Boroumand Foundation research and interviews conducted with persons with knowledge of the case including Mr. Ehsani’s brother.

Mr. Ehsanollah Ehsani, child of Ali Khan, was born on March 21, 1996 in Afghanistan’s Ghazni Province, Qarabagh District. He was 20 years old, an Afghanistan national, and of Hazara ethnicity. Due to the lack of security in Afghanistan, he migrated to Iran as a child with his mother, two sisters, and three brothers. Iran shares a 937-kilometer border with Afghanistan as well as a common language with a significant part of the people of that country: for this reason, Iran has absorbed through its borders one of the largest mass movement of populations in the world. Millions of people fled Afghanistan in order to escape war, oppression, and insecurity when Afghanistan was under Soviet occupation between 1979 and 1989, as well as during the country’s civil wars, especially after the Taliban’s rise to power in 1996. They took refuge mainly in Iran and Pakistan.*

Prior to his family’s migration to Iran, Mr. Ehsani’s father had been living in the country for years: he had a Basij membership card and had fought on the Iranian side during the Iran-Iraq war. Mr. Ehsani resided in Yazd’s Rahmatabad neighborhood and had a legal residence card and a work permit. Mr. Ehsani came from a large and relatively poor family and had a sixth-grade education, having dropped out of school due to discriminatory and degrading treatment. He subsequently started to work with his father and his brother to help out his family. He worked as a welder and mason and had started a coffee shop with one of his Iranian friends in the last months of his life where he worked in the afternoon. Mr. Ehsani was a quiet and fairly serious person. He loved his mother very much and tried hard to make her happy and comfortable. He did not want to leave Iran because of his mother, but he sometimes thought about leaving and said that he wanted to save money to go to Canada. He liked sports and football (soccer) and played on his neighborhood’s team. He would go to his brother’s home at times to watch football games with his brother’s family.

Mr. Ehsanollah Ehsani’s case is related to theft of a motorcycle and carrying an illegal taser.

Arrest and detention

Mr. Ehsani was arrested by Zarej Police Precinct officers on Friday, May 13, 2016, while he was sitting in a park waiting to join his friend for a football game. The officers realized he had an open case for the theft of a motorcycle while checking to ascertain his identification.

Five months prior to this arrest, several Yazd Criminal Investigations officers had gone to Mr. Ehsani’s home sometime in December 2015 at 9:00 PM in a silver Peugeot 405 automobile. They then arrested him without providing a warrant, handcuffed him, and took him to the Yazd Criminal Investigations Bureau located at Azadi Square. The Yazd Criminal Investigations Bureau identified Mr. Ehsani riding a motorcycle and carrying another person on his bike through city camera footage.

Mr. Ehsani’s mother and brother went to the Yazd Criminal Investigations Bureau after his arrest to follow up on his case. On the second day they went there, they met with him by chance for a few minutes in one of the administrative rooms. Mr. Ehsani told his family that he had been interrogated and tortured to make a confession. Mr. Ehsani’s brother recounted that his brother was in “very bad” shape during that visit and quoted his brother as saying: “They tell me that I have stolen; I have done nothing, I just picked someone up and took him somewhere. He was the thief, he had stolen the motorcycle, and they think I was his accomplice. They torture me without giving me food and water; they want me to admit that I have committed ten crimes and to confess to them so that they’ll stop torturing me. They say they will help me out and will tell the court that I cooperated and that because I’m young, they will ask the court to give me a lighter sentence.” According to Mr. Ehsani’s brother, he was extremely hungry, thirsty, and pale when they saw him. His mother wanted to give him a piece of cake she had in her bag but they did not allow him to eat it and said that it was prohibited. Mr. Ehsani’s mother and brother visited with him while he was being taken by four Criminal Investigations officers in a silver Peugeot 405 to identify several robbery locations. In response to Mr. Ehsani’s mother asking where they were taking him, the officers said: “We’re taking him for a drive.”

When he went back on the third day, the Criminal Investigations officers told Mr. Ehsani’s brother that they had transferred him to Yazd Central Prison. During his detention, Mr. Ehsani visited with his family on Sundays from behind a glass window for less than half an hour. He had told his brother during the first such visit: “They beat me until I was near death; I had no other choice but to accept whatever they said.” Mr. Ehsani’s brother explained: “They had told him: ‘You must take the blame for these crimes, otherwise we will continue to beat you to a pulp…No one can help you here. We will just keep beating you, we don’t care.’ My brother would tell me ‘…First they calmly tell you to do this, to do that. Then they tell you so many things that you can’t say anything anymore. And then they beat you. They will beat you even more if you want to say something; they force you to accept it. They scare you.’” Mr. Ehsani had told his brother that when he was riding his motorcycle on the street, a passenger had raised his hand at Abazar Square, and he had given him a ride to the Thursday bazaar without knowing who he was. Based on available information, Mr. Ehsani had bought the motorcycle from an individual to whom he had made partial payment for the bike, with the remainder to be paid upon delivery of the deed of title. Based on available information, that bike and other motorcycles were stolen by the seller, who would then switch the tags and subsequently sell them to unsuspecting buyers.

Mr. Ehsani’s family hired an attorney for him. After following up on the case, the attorney told his family: “The Criminal Investigations people said that there are several other people who have tricked these guys and they’re the ones we’re looking for. You can post a deed of title as bail and release him until we find those other people.” Being Afghan citizens (and therefore not allowed to own real property in Iran as foreigners), Mr. Ehsani’s family did not have a deed of title to put up in lieu of the 120 million-Tuman bail the Court had required. They were able to borrow a deed of title to a property owned by one of their Iranian friends after a month in order to secure their son’s release. After the deed was presented, Mr. Ehsani was transferred to the Foreign Nationals Police, then to a camp in the town of Bafgh for two days, and then released temporarily. From the time he was temporarily released until he was arrested again, Mr. Ehsani was summoned to the Criminal Investigations Bureau twice in order to identify the accused in the case, and returned home within about an hour.

Stating that Mr. Ehsani had admitted under torture to complicity in stealing four motorcycles, his brother remarked on his physical and mental state after the detention: “He had become thin. He wasn’t himself… He was very young and he had gotten scared. My father would ask him: ‘What did you do, and tell the truth.’ He would say: ‘I haven’t done anything, I swear I haven’t done anything. They beat me so much that I had to say something but I would not admit to stealing more than four motorcycles.’”

Based on available information, Mr. Ehsani met with his lawyer twice: once in prison, and another time when he was free on bail. His attorney had told him that because he had confessed, he had to wait until they arrested the thieves. He said that he had talked to the Criminal Investigations officers and they had said that they had to arrest four other people and that Ehsan had cooperated with them. They thought he was their partner because they had seen him ride the bike.

Mr. Ehsani was arrested for the last time by Zarej Police or Criminal Investigations officers on Friday, May 13, 2016, in Yazd’s Zarej Park. According to Mr. Ehsani’s brother, quoting the last witness that was with him, Mr. Ehsani and said witness (who was his friend and lived in the same neighborhood) were sitting in Rahmatabad neighborhood when someone called Mr. Ehsani and asked him to go to a park in Zarej, 18 kilometers from Yazd. His friend wanted to go with him but Mr. Ehsani said that he had to go alone. Based on available information, someone called Mr. Ehsani’s home that same day and told his mother that Ehsanollah was dead. They called from that same phone number again, and this time, Mr. Ehsani was on the line and told his family that he had been arrested and was at the Zarej police Precinct, and that the officer who had called earlier had been “joking” with them.

Three days later, on Sunday, Mr. Ehsani told his father in a phone conversation: “Father, please come here; they’re beating me and telling me to admit to these things. They’re beating me so much. I haven’t done anything. Please just come and tell them not to beat me.” Based on available information, through followup and persistence, Mr. Ehsani’s father was able to locate his son at the Prosecutor’s Office. Mr. Ehsani had told his father: “I was sitting in the park waiting for my friend to come so we could go to the football field on the bike when three or four officers asked for my identity card. I showed them my work permit but I didn’t have my residency card with me. They did not accept that from me and proceeded to arrest me. Later at the Precinct, they realized that there was an open case against me and they turned me over to Criminal Investigations.” When his father saw him at the Prosecutor’s Office Mr. Ehsani was handcuffed, shackled, and wearing slippers. His elbow and ankle were injured and it was clear that he had been beaten with something like a cable. Based on available information, Mr. Ehsani’s father had asked the Criminal Investigations officer why they had beaten his son and he had been told: “We have to beat him. We’ll beat you too if you talk too much.”

On Wednesday, an officer had gone to Mr. Ehsani’s home and asked his family whether he suffered from any particular illness and was told that he did not. The officer had then told them that their child was hospitalized at Mehriz’ Fatemeh Zahra Hospital and that they should rush to see him before it was too late. According to a witness, his health had taken a turn for the worse on Tuesday afternoon and the agents had taken him to Yazd’s Shahid Rahnamun Hospital, which was a well-equipped facility, where he had stayed around six hours until about midnight. Then, for some unknown reason, he was taken to Fatemah Zahra Hospital in the town of Mehriz, which is located about an hour from Yazd.

According to Mr. Ehsani’s brother, Criminal Investigations officers had taken him there while he was in a coma, where he was hospitalized in the Intensive Care Unit. The doctors at Mehriz’ Fatemeh Zahra Hospital had told Mr. Ehsani’s family: “They brought him here all beaten and bloodied. There is a tear in his heart; he has internal bleeding; he has a hemorrhage in his head and his skull is bashed in. Just pray; there is a small chance he might stay alive.”

According to a person with knowledge of the case, quoting Mr. Ehsani’s doctor, his heart and brain had stopped functioning. He was severely hemorrhaging from his nose and mouth, so much that removing the cotton from his nose or mouth would cause the bleeding to continue. His doctor had said that they had given him several packs of blood but that it was of no use. From the time his family was informed, Mr. Ehsani spent one day in the ICU and his family was only able to see him behind the window. They were not even allowed to take his picture: the officers accompanying Mr. Ehsani deleted the only picture his brother had taken on his cell phone.

Mr. Ehsanollah Ehsani passed away on the morning of Thursday, May 19, 2016, at Fatemeh Zahra Hospital in Mehriz.

Trial

No trial was convened for Mr. Ehsani since his case was still in the investigations stage.

Charges

Mr. Ehsani was charged with “complicity in stealing 10 motorcycles”. The officers told his father that the reason for his last arrest was “carrying a taser.”

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

For the first arrest, the city camera footage on which Mr. Ehsani had been seen in the vicinity of where the theft had occurred was used against him as evidence in the course of investigations conducted by the Criminal Investigations Bureau. No further detail is available on evidence used against Mr. Ehsani.

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. In the case of political detainees, these confessions are, at times, televised. The National Television broadcasts confessions during which prisoners plead guilty to vague and false charges, repent and renounce their political beliefs, and/or implicate others. Human rights organizations have also pointed to the pattern of retracted confessions by those prisoners who are freed.

Defense

Mr. Ehsani denied all the charges to his family and his attorney and said that he had confessed and admitted to participating in the theft of four motorcycles under torture. He never got a chance to defend himself in court.

A Summary of the Legal Defects in the Adjudication of Mr. Ehsanollah Ehsani’s Case

It can be ascertained from the contents of this case that Ehsanollah Ehsani was tortured by police officers. The fact that Mr. Ehsani was tortured and coerced for the purpose of extracting a confession has been thoroughly proven and established, and the Investigating Judge at the Prosecutor’s Office in the town of Mehriz found police officers at fault for beating Ehsanollah Ehsani and causing his death. This judicial official labeled the murder unintentional, however, and the Mehriz Prosecutor agreed with that finding. The Prosecutor’s Office [Investigating Judge’s] ruling, which is in the possession of the Boroumand Center, states that the officers beat the defendant in the course of interrogations and that the Medical Examiner’s Office confirmed the existence of injury marks on his body; the Investigating Judge, however, found that the beating was not intentional. This is the biggest error and defect of this case. Pursuant to a general principle of criminal law, a crime takes place when criminal behavior and the criminal act have taken place with intent and purpose on the part of the person who commits the act. If the Investigating Judge has found the defendants in the case guilty of beating and torturing the victim, then it follows that these individuals carried out the beating intentionally; otherwise the Investigating Judge should have found the defendants not guilty. Furthermore, it is impossible to imagine a beating that is unintentional: it is not possible for a person to beat and torture another unintentionally and accidentally. The Investigating Judge has confirmed the same, as mentioned above.

Additionally it is clear based on the order that Ehsanollah’s death was caused by the beating committed by the officers, because the Investigating Judge charged Defendant Number 1, Alireza Ghafuri Bidakhuidi, with manslaughter, citing Islamic Penal Code Article 616. The Article provides: “In the event that manslaughter occurs due to carelessness or a lack of caution, or to commission of an act in which the perpetrator was not skilled, or to lack of observance of laws and regulations, the perpetrator shall be sentenced to imprisonment from one to three years and to payment of Diah if demanded by the next of kin, unless [the act] is purely a mistake.” By way of explanation, manslaughter occurs when a person does not intend to kill another, and the blow is not typically lethal, but the victim dies anyway. In this case, the Investigating Judge believed that the blows perpetrated by the police officer, which were intentional, caused Ehsanollah’s death, but since he did not intend to kill, the killing amounts to manslaughter. Based on available reports, however, including statements made by members of Ehsanollah’s family, police officers took Ehsanollah to the hospital when his condition deteriorated. The victim’s family visited him in the ICU, where he was in a coma and signs of beating and injury could be seen on his body. The blows were so severe that he had lost blood and passed out. The Medical Examiner’s report confirms the existence of wounds and injury marks on his head and body. All of these blows were obviously capable of killing a person and were typically lethal. How can the Investigating Judge believe that the blows were not typically lethal and that the victim died accidentally? How is it possible for an individual to have hemorrhaged severely and gone into a coma, and for the Investigating Judge to consider such blows “not typically lethal”? All of the evidence indicates that the officers who beat Ehsanollah committed intentional murder. It seems that judicial authorities, under the influence of the Criminal Investigations Bureau and taking advantage of the fact that Ehsanollah was not an Iranian national, illegally opened the case based on a manslaughter theory from the start.

Furthermore, regarding the late Ehsanollah’s theft case, it seems that the Criminal Investigations officers did not have enough evidence to charge him with theft, since they tried to get him to admit to the charge and extract a confession through torture. The fact that the stolen motorcycles were not found and identified is further proof of lack of evidence.

Judgment

No trial was ever convened for Mr. Ehsani and no sentence was, therefore, issued.

Government Officials’ Actions and Statements

Based on available information, Information Ministry agents did not allow Mr. Ehsani’s family to take his body to their home and neighborhood prior to burial, as was their custom. Also, according to an eyewitness, three or four motorcycles, each with two riders, as well as five Information Ministry automobiles with plainclothes individuals wearing black and carrying walkie talkies and weapons, were present at the burial but did not take any action; they just watched the services and made sure no one did anything or took any pictures or videos. Furthermore, Mr. Ehsani’s family was not allowed to view his face one last time for fear that someone would take pictures of the torture injuries.

Four Criminal Investigations officers were arrested and charged with Mr. Ehsani’s voluntary manslaughter 

Based on available information, in the course of followup by Mr. Ehsani’s family after his death, the Yazd Criminal Investigations Bureau officials told them, “We are in shock ourselves and we don’t know how this could have happened.” They told Mr. Ehsani’s family that their child was detained at Zarej Police Precinct 19. In further followup by the family, the chief of Zarej Police Precinct 19 showed them the Precinct’s closed-circuit camera footage, put his hand on the Qoran and swore by it that their son had left the Precinct “healthy and on his own two feet” and that he did not know where the agents had taken him. Yazd Criminal Investigations Bureau officials also showed the family what was said to have been closed circuit camera footage and told them, “Your son left the Criminal Investigations Bureau healthy.”

After Mr. Ehsani’s passing, the town of Mehriz General and Revolutionary Investigative Judge’s Office sent his body to the Coroner’s office for an autopsy and determination of the cause of death. According to available documentation, after an autopsy was conducted, the Coroner’s Office determined the cause of death to be “irreversible shock following a blood clot inside blood vessels and rhabdomyolysis resulting from hyperthermia and damage to soft tissue.” Based on available information, there is also a report issued by Tehran Medical Examiner’s Office in the case file which was not provided to the family’s victim or his attorney.

The Afghanistan Embassy in Tehran wrote a letter to the Islamic Republic f Iran’s judicial authorities asking for a just investigation by relevant Iranian judicial officials into Ehsanollah Ehsani’s murder case while in detention. Noting Mr. Ehsani’s father’s complaint, it stated that “His 20 year-old-son dies while in questioning and due to the severity of the torture he endured in Yazd’s town of Mehriz; the family’s complaint has been referred to Yazd Assistant Prosecutor’s Office Branch Two but so far, not even their attorney has been able to take the case on and obtain any information.”

Only one officer was found guilty of beating the deceased with a ruler and preventing him from getting out of the car by locking the doors and windows 

Based on available information, following the complaint lodged by Mr. Ehsani’s parents, four Yazd Criminal Investigations Bureau employees by the names of Hamed Fotuhi Shahabad, Vahid Akbari Raisabadi, Elias Yar, and Alireza Ghafuri Bidkhovidi were introduced as the defendants in the case. The charges brought against them were “voluntary manslaughter and harming Mr. Ehsani in order to extract a confession.” On the charge of “voluntary manslaughter, Mehriz General and Revolutionary Investigative Judge issued an order of non-prosecution for Vahid Akbari, Elias Yar, and Hamed Fotuhi Shahabad and dismissed the charge against them. He also issued an arrest warrant for Vahid Akbari and ordered that the judicial process be continued in his case for another charge, that of “harming the defendant in order to extract a confession” which had resulted in the bruising of the left shin, left ankle, the inside of his left foot, the sole of his left foot, the sole of his right foot, and the outside of his right foot. On the charge of voluntary manslaughter, Yazd General and Revolutionary Investigative Judge only found one of the defendants by the name of Alireza Ghafuri Bidkhovidi guilty and stated that, based on the police report, Mr. Ghafuri “had beaten the deceased with a ruler and prevented him from getting out of the car by locking the doors and windows.” Having determined the charge to have been proven in his opinion, the Judge issued an arrest warrant for Ghafuri on that basis and ordered that the judicial process be continued in his case. Based on available information, no sentence has been issued for these people yet.

The Family’s Objections and Statements

Based on available information, Mr. Ehsani’s parents hired an attorney one day prior to his death while he was still in a coma at the hospital and brought a complaint before the Mehriz Military Tribunal. According to Mr. Ehsani’s brother, his family wants to know how, why, and by whom their son was killed. According to a person with knowledge of the case, the Military Court Judge has seen Mr. Ehsani’s body from up close and has confirmed the injuries to his head and face but the Yazd Medical Examiner’s Office has not recorded these injuries and its report differs from the reality the family observed. The judge has said that he cannot record what he has seen in the case file until the Medical Examiner confirms the same.

According to Mr. Ehsani’s brother, following his parents’ complaint, “four criminal Investigations officers were arrested, then there were three, then they said only two were accused of having tortured Mr. Ehsani. Now it is not clear where the case stands.” Stating that in the span of only one day they had tortured Mr. Ehsani so extensively at Yazd Criminal Investigations Bureau that he ended up in the hospital, his brother added: “They show videos of my brother at the Criminal Investigations Bureau and say that my brother was not beaten there like that. What about when Criminal Investigations officers were taking my brother to the hospital? How can they say nothing happened at the Criminal Investigations Bureau? Did someone come from the outside and beat my brother to a pulp like that? How is that possible? My brother’s skull was fractured and dented in at the hospital.” According to Mr. Ehsani’s brother, quoting Mehriz’ Fatemeh Zahra Hospital nurses, when Criminal Investigations officers brought him in, his clothes were all bloodied and had nothing else with him. Quoting the family lawyer, he said: “The nurses said that the Criminal Investigations officers had taken him to the nearest hospital first, which was the Farrokhi hospital (Shahid Rahnamum Hospital located on Farrokhi Street) but they had not accepted my brother there. Then they took him to Mehriz, which is about an hour’s drive from Yazd. We must find out why the Farrokhi hospital did not accept him and why they took him to the Mehriz hospital which was far away.”

Ehsani was locked in the trunk of a car for four hours in 111 degree Fahrenheit (44 Centigrade) weather. He was bleeding severely from the nose and mouth when he was brought out 

According to a person with knowledge of the case, Criminal Investigations officers took Mr. Ehsani outside the Criminal Investigations Bureau, severely beat him up, and put him in the trunk of a car where they kept him enclosed for four hours in 111 degree Fahrenheit (44 Centigrade) weather while the car was running. Mr. Ehsani’s condition was so grave that when they got him out of the trunk, he was bleeding profusely from the nose and mouth.

Mr. Ehsani’s family has also gone to the office of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran to voice their complaint. An official there has told them to wait for the court’s decision.

Based on available information, Mr. Ehsani’s family has been threatened and told that if they pursue the case, “things will go badly for them and their legal resident status will be taken away from them.” Furthermore, a person connected to one of the defendants in Mr. Ehsani’s murder case who has stated that he is an Information Ministry agent has threatened Mr. Ehsani’s family, telling them, “I know what to do with you.” The family nonetheless continues to pursue the case. Another person has told Mr. Ehsani’s father, “If you don’t withdraw your complaint, I will run your entire family over with a car and destroy them. It’s easy for us; you are Afghan and no one will care or say anything. I will make life very hard for you and I won’t let you have a minute of peace.”

According to an eyewitness, Mr. Ehsani’s family is suffering from depression after this event, and do not leave their house. His mother cries every day and his father does not feel like talking to anyone.

Afghan Migrants in Iran

Iran has long been host to one of the largest displaced populations in the world due to its 937-kilometer border with Afghanistan and the language it shares with a large part of the Afghan population. Millions of Afghans who fled conflict and repression during the 1979-1989 Soviet occupation and later civil war, particularly following the Taliban’s 1996 rise to power, sought refuge in Pakistan and Iran.

Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, stressed the necessity of hosting Afghans in 1979. Therefore, Iran gave asylum and some forms of assistance to Afghan refugees from 1979 to 1992. After the Afghan Mojahedin came to power in 1992, however, the Iranian government began encouraging and pressuring Afghans to return to Afghanistan through various measures, including the implementation of onerous procedures for renewing refugee papers, refusal to register newly arriving Afghans as refugees, and denial of public services to refugees. As a result, about a million Afghans returned to their homeland in a short period. This policy has continued up to now despite increasing emigration from Afghanistan caused by dire security conditions in the country since 2008. Authorities arrest undocumented Afghans and detain them in camps assigned for aliens before returning them to their country. Meanwhile, the United Nations has offered financial assistance to the Iranian government in order to support minimum living conditions for refugees and to assist their voluntary return.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that a total of 2.5 million Afghans, including 1.5 million registered refugees and 1 million undocumented, were living in Iran as of November 2015. The latest governmental statistics, published in May of 2015, indicate that about one million Afghans live in Iran legally and somewhere between 1 to 1.5 million illegally. Most of them have lived in Iran for a long time, have married in the country, and have worked difficult jobs such as construction work. Most Afghan refugees live in urban areas or are concentrated in certain provinces such as Khorasan-e Razavi, Tehran, and Esfahan.

Since 2004, Iran has imposed severe restrictions on freedom of movement for Afghans. Their movement is totally forbidden in some provinces, and partially in others. Even though Iran signed the 1951 Refugee Convention, it has imposed some discrimination against Afghan refugees. For example, the Iranian government has made it difficult for many mixed Iranian - Afghan couples to marry, denied citizenship to Afghan husbands of Iranian women, and created barriers to citizenship for the children of such couples. Since 2006, mixed marriages are not officially recognized. Iranian women cannot officially marry Afghan men unless they go through a difficult process.

According to various reports by human rights defenders, instances of discrimination against Afghan migrants include fees charged to children seeking education and various excuses given by school officials to deny their registration. Afghans are restricted to working in specific professions, all of which are menial and many of which are listed as dangerous by the Interior Ministry. They cannot obtain drivers’ licenses nor purchase property in their name. Finally, both documented and undocumented Afghans experience a range of abuses, and many who are deported also face police abuse including violence, theft, unreasonable deportation fees, forced labor during detention prior to deportation, and poor conditions in detention facilities.

Correct/ Complete This Entry ❯