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

Jalal Nasimi

About

Age: 26
Nationality: Iran
Religion: Unknown
Civil Status: Married

Case

Date of Killing: August 25, 1979
Location of Killing: Marivan Prison, Marivan, Kordestan Province, Iran
Mode of Killing: Shooting
Charges: Unspecified counter-revolutionary offense
Age at time of alleged offense: 26

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.

 

Detentions, interrogations, and trials: 1979-1980

Pre-trial detentions

The charges upon which the accused were arraigned were often extremely broad. Defendants generally had no access to legal counsel nor to their file and the evidence against them prior to the trial.

Trials

Witnesses might be called, or the statement of persons with relevant information read into the court’s record. Accusation witnesses could come forward the day of the trial to give evidence against the accused, but in most cases, defense witnesses were not allowed in court. There was no automatic right of a defendant to cross-examine witnesses or to know the source of the evidence against him. The defendant had an opportunity to state his side of the matter and attempt to refute what was said against him, but the final decision was solely up to the discretion of the religious judge.

Appeal processes

The judgments of the Revolutionary Courts were not subject to appeal. The convicts were generally executed within a few hours of the judgment.

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.

About this Case

Correct/ Complete This Entry

Mr. Nasimi was an elementary school teacher. He was a warm-hearted and genteel person and fervently participated in group activities.

News and information regarding the execution of Mr. Jalal Nasimi, son of Seddiq, was submitted to the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center on February 14, 2019, via electronic form. News of the execution of Mr. Nasimi and 8 other individuals was also published in Jomhuri-e Eslami newspaper (August 26, 1979), Kayhan newspaper (August 26, 1979), Ettela’at newspaper (August 28, 1979), and Komeleh Newsletter (Fall 1980). Additional information was obtained through a Boroumand Center interview with a person who knew Mr. Nasimi, conducted on February 25, 2019, Ettela’at newspaper (July 15, 1979), A Look at the Iranian Kurdistan Human Rights (no date), Worker-Communist Party Hekmatist website (August 20, 2017), Imam Khomeini Portal website (August 16, 2014), Sahifeh-ye Imam (“Imam’s Book”), Volume 9, (Declaration of August 18 and 19, 1979; Decree of August 18 and 19, 1979), Iran Global website (August 16, 2016), Kak Foad website(August 19, 2018), Iran Human Rights Documentation Center website (July 12, 2012), Communist Party of Iran (January 8, 2016), Navehkhet website(February 11, 2019).

Mr. Nasimi was an ethnic Kurd and was born on July 19, 1953, into a well-educated family, and had 5 brothers and 3 sisters. Mr. Nasimi was a graduate of [the town of] Bijar Teacher Training College, and an elementary school teacher in the village of Velegir near the town of Marivan. He was a kind, warm-hearted, and genteel people person and actively participated in addressing the villagers’ problems. Mr. Nasimi was fluent in Turkish and was interested in artistic activities and the theater. He had engaged in political activities some time before the 1979 Revolution. He was a member of the Revolutionary Organization of Working People in Kurdistan – Komala (1). (Boroumand Center interview with a person who knew Mr. Nasimi, Electronic form, Communist Aprty of Iran, Kak Foad website). 

Background of the Marivan Events, Spring and Summer 1979

On Saturday, July 14, 1979, protest demonstrations took place in the town of Marivan. These demonstrations resulted in fighting among the people, various political groups, members of the Revolutionary Guards Corps, and certain armed Kurdish groups based in the region; the outcome was 26 dead and 60 injured. Some reports have stated the reason for the demonstrations as being popular objection to the news broadcast by the State Radio and Television from the Kurdistan region. Other reports have attributed these demonstrations to the Marivan Farmers’ Union’s (2) objection to the tensions created by some of the region’s landowners under the guise of Islamic Revolution Komiteh (neighborhood militias). Still others have reported the objections of a group of people to the activities of the Koran School (3) or individuals affiliated with it, led by Mr. Ahmad Moftizadeh. There are also conflicting and different accounts of the cause of fighting and of the political groups involved in the incidents. According to some reports, some armed groups among the protestors instigated members of the region’s Islamic Revolution Komiteh, which resulted in bloody skirmishes. Other reports have declared members of the Revolutionary Guards Corps and certain Kurdich activists including members of the School of Islam and Qiadeh Movaghat (“Temporary Leadership”) (4) led by Messrs. Massud and Idris Barzani as the ones firing, as a result of which armed individuals among the protesters took reciprocal action. In addition to the Revolutionary Guards forces, Mr. Moftizadeh’s forces, and Mr Barzani’s forces, members of Komala, Kurdistan Democratic Party members (5) and persons affiliated with Mr. Jalal Talebani (6) were also present at these skirmishes, and later, in the city. According to certain sources, the protests in the city of Marivan had begun in June 1979, following skirmishes between major landowners and other group active in the region. (Ettela’at newspaper, Hekmatist website).

Negotiations between local forces and representatives of the central government who had come to the region to resolve the disputes failed. In order to prevent further conflict and bloodshed, and in protesting the presence of the Revolutionary Guards forces in Marivan, some Kurdish political activists in Marivan encouraged the residents to vacate the city. On July 20, 1979, assisted by active political forces, the city’s residents left town and went to the woods outside the city and settled at the Kanimiran camp. Political negotiations to return the residents back into the city bore no fruit until August 13, 1979. On that day, and at the same time Kurdish forces opposed to the central government were fighting the Armed Forces in the city of Paveh, the people of Marivan returned to the city. (Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, Navehkhet website).

From August 13 to August 19, 1979, and following the worsening fighting between Kurdish political activists and the central government in various regions of Kurdistan, especially the city of Paveh, Ayatollah Khomeini, as Leader of the Revolution, issued at least two public statements for the Police forces, the regular Armed Forces, and the Revolutionary Guards Corps, and as Commander in Chief, issued two orders to said forces to attack the region, more specifically the cities of Paveh and Sanandaj (7), and demanded that they arrest and try even those who have fled. From that time period until the end of the hostilities in November 1979, the armed forces firmly settled in various Kurdish regions. At least 58 individuals were tried in proceedings that lasted only a few minutes, and were executed in various cities of Kurdistan and in the city of Kermanshah. At least two Kurdish villages, Qarna and Qalatan, were attacked and a large number of their residents were murdered. This violent clash with the people of Kurdistan continued even after that: To this day, residents of these regions are subjected to various types of systematic violence and oppression. (Imam Khomeini Portal, Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, Iran Global). 

Arrest and detention

According to available information, on August 19, 1979, Mr. Nasimi was identified by Kurdish active forces affiliated with Mr. Moftizadeh near the Tourist Attraction Hotel, close to the Zarivar Lake to the west of the city of Marivan, and arrested by the Islamic Republic Revolutionary Guards Corps forces and jailed at the Marivan Military Base along with eight other individuals.

Mr. Nasimi played an active role in the people of Marivan’s great exodus in July 1979. When Ayatollah Khomeini issued an order for the armed forces to attack Iranian Kurdistan, the Revolutionary Guards Corps forces identified and arrested Mr. Nasimi with the help of certain local people. Upon his arrest, a number of women from Marivan conducted a sit-in which resulted in his temporary release.

A group of Marivani women conducted a sit-in in the city from the time of these individuals’ arrest. Mr. Nasimi was released on bail in the evening of August 24, 1979. The families of Mr. Nasimi and his ward mates took them food up until their release. A person who knew Mr. Nasimi said that he had shown his friends and family the signs of torture on his body after he was released, including cigarette burns on his back and the bottom of his feet, as well as signs of flogging on his body. On August 25, 1979, between 9 and 10 PM, several Revolutionary Guardsmen and some local Kurds took Mr. Nasimi from his home under the pretext of signing some paperwork and taking care of other administrative matters. Mr. Nasimi did not return home that night and his family had no news of him until the next day. (Hekmatist website, Kak Foad website, Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, Electronic form, Boroumand Center interview with a person who knew Mr. Nasimi).

Trial

Marivan Revolutionary Court tried Mr. Nasimi and eight others on August 25, 1979, after 10 PM. Jomhuri-e Eslami newspaper announced that Mr. Nasimi and his co-defendants were tried for “several hours”. According to available evidence, however, the trial of these individuals did not last more than half an hour. (Jomhuri-e Eslami newspaper, Boroumand Center interview with a person who knew Mr. Nasimi, Communist Workers Party website).

Mr. Nasimi did not have access to an attorney.

Charges

Mr. Nasimi played an active role in the exodus of the people of Marivan on July 20, 1979, in protesting the conduct of the Islamic Republic of Iran Revolutionary Guards Corps forces in that city. According to the person who knew Mr. Nasimi, after Ayatollah Khomeini issued a decree to quash Kurdistan’s political activists, the government agents dispatched to Marivan were looking for Mr. Nasimi and other activists who had played a role in those protests. (Boroumand Center interview with a person who knew Mr. Nasimi, Iran Human Rights Documentation Center). 

The validity of the criminal charges brought against this defendant cannot be ascertained in the absence of the basic guarantees of a fair trial.  International human rights organizations have drawn attention to reports indicating that the Islamic Republic authorities have brought trumped-up charges, including drug trafficking, sexual, and other criminal offences, against their opponents (including political, civil society activists, as well as unionists and ethnic and religious minorities). Each year Iranian authorities sentence to death hundreds of alleged common criminals, following judicial processes that fail to meet international standards. The exact number of people convicted and executed based on trumped-up charges is unknown. 

Evidence of guilt

The report of this execution does not contain information regarding the evidence provided against the defendant.

Defense

No information is available on Mr. Nasimi’s defense.

Judgment

On August 25, 1979, Marivan Revolutionary Court sentenced Mr. Jalal Nasimi and his eight co-defendants to death.

Mr. Jalal Nasimi and his eight co-defendants were shot by firing squad at Marivan Military Base before midnight on August 25, 1979. (Jomhuri-e Eslami newspaper, electronic form).

According to eyewitnesses, after the execution, government agents placed the bodies of Mr. Nasimi and his eight co-defendants in the back of a compressor truck and emptied the bodies in front of a hospital in the city of Marivan. According to some of the eyewitnesses, blood was flowing from the back of the truck as it was going to the hospital. Some of the individuals who saw the bodies of the deceased stated that many bullets had penetrated each person and the bodies were bloodied and mutilated. (Boroumand Center interview with a person who knew Mr. Nasimi, Iran Human Rights Documentation Center).

Mr. Nasimi’s family buried his body and the body of another one of the people who were executed in the north of the city of Marivan and held a wake for him. (Boroumand Center interview with a person who knew Mr. Nasimi).

---------------------

1- Several remaining members of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran established the Revolutionary Organization of this party in Iraq in the mid 1960s. Esma’il Sharifzadeh, Abdollah Mo’ini, and Molaavareh were among the leaders of this organization who, inspired by the Cuban Revolution, began an armed guerrilla struggle in Kurdistan. When this group was defeated in 1969 and several of its members were arrested, armed struggle was criticized and the Maoist trend overcomes. When some of its leaders were released in 1978, the Revolutionary Organization of Working People in Kurdistan – Komala was established. Based on Marxist theory, Komala was against the capitalists and landlords and encouraged workers and peasants in Kurdistan to an armed uprising against them and the central government. This organization considered the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (PDKI) as the rich party and campaigned against it, resulting in several armed conflicts and hundreds dead. In 1982, Komala joined another Marxist group, Sahand, which was basically a theoretical group, and established the Communist Party of Iran. Then it became called the Kurdistan Organization of the Communist Party of Iran – Komala. Years later, this organization separated from the Communist Party of Iran and faced several schisms. The Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan, led by Abdollah Mohtadi, Komala, and the Kurdistan Organization of the Communist Party of Iran led by Ebrahim Alizadeh are some of these factions.
2- The farmers’ struggle against feudal and large landowners began at the time of Land Reforms of 1963, led and supported by leftist political groups. These struggles continued in certain parts of Kurdistan in a more cohesive way. Immediately after the 1979 Revolution, members of Komala in Marivan established an entity called “Marivan Farmers’ Union”. (Navekhet website).
3- The Koran School – Ahmad Moftizadeh. The Koran School was established in 1977 by Mr. Ahmad Moftizadeh. The activities of this School began in the city of Marivan and expanded to several other cities in Kurdistan. In the course of the 1979 Revolution and during the events of subsequent years in Kurdistan, some of the local activists accused the members of the Koran School of military activity against the Kurds opposed to the central government, and equated them with government military forces such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and the regular Armed Forces. Mr. Moftizadeh was arrested in Tehran in 1982 and spent ten years in prison.
4- Qiadeh Movaghat (“Temporary Leadership”) (Iraqi Kurdistan Democratic Party) – Massud and Idris Barzani. Messrs. Massud and Idris Barzani were Mostafa Barzani’s children and were among the leaders of Iraqi Kurdistan. Mr. Massud Barzani became the leader of the Iraqi Kurdistan Democratic Party or the Kurdistan Democratic Party after his father. Prior to the 1979 Revolution, Mr. Idris Barzani established the Temporary Leadership group. After the 1979 Revolution, these groups played an active role in the events in [Iran’s] Kurdistan Province. The Barzani family had contacts with Iran’s central government after the 1979 Revolution, and some of the region’s Kurdish activists consider them instrumental in quashing their struggles against the central government.
5- The Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (PDKI) was founded in 1945 with the goal to gain autonomy for Kurdistan, in north-western Iran. After the Revolution, conflicts between the new central Shiite government and mainly Sunni Kurdistan regarding the role of minorities in the drafting of the constitution, specification of Shiite as the official state religion, and particularly the autonomy of the region, ended in armed clashes between the Revolutionary Guards and the peshmerga (the militia of the PDKI). The PDKI boycotted the referendum of April 1, 1979, when people went to polls to vote for or against the Islamic regime. On August 19, 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini called the PDKI the “party of Satan” and declared it “unofficial and illegal.” Mass executions and fighting broke out and continued for several months in the region. By 1983, the PDKI had lost much of its influence in the region. In the years since various leaders of the PDKI have been assassinated. Following internal disputes, the party split in 2006 and two organizations were established as “The Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan,” and “The Democratic Party of Kurdistan.”
6- The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (Ettehadieh Mihani Kordestan) was formed in 1975 by Mr. Jalal Talebani. This party was one of the active groups in the post-revolution Kurdistan conflict. 
7- Ayatollah Khomeini’s Declarations and Decrees
Declaration: August 18, 1979, Imam’s Book, Volume 9:
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the MercifulFrom all across Iran, various groups of the Armed Forces, the Revolutionary Guards, and the proud and zealous people of [this country] have asked me to issue an order for them to go to Paveh and put an end to the unrest. I thank them and warn the government, the Army, and the Gendarmerie that if they do not move toward Paveh with tanks, artillery, and full military equipment in the next 24 hours, I will hold them all responsible.As Commander in Chief, I order the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of the Armed Forces to depart immediately to the region with full military equipment, and I order all Army and Gendarmerie bases to move toward Paveh with all their equipment without waiting for an order from one another and without wasting time, and I order the government to immediately make preparations for the departure of the Guards.Until further notice, I consider the armed forces responsible for these violent killings, and I will act in revolutionary manner if they disobey this order. News repeatedly comes from the region that the government and the Armed Forces have done nothing. If positive action is not taken in the next 24 hours, I will hold the Chiefs of the Armed Forces and the Gendarmerie responsible. That’s it.
Decree: August 18, 1979, Imam’s Book, Volume 9:
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful
I strictly order the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of the Armed Forces and the Head of the Gendarmerie of the Islamic [Republic, and the Head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards to order the forces dispatched to the Kurdistan region to pursue the wicked insurgents and aggressors who are fleeing and arrest them and immediately turn them over to the competent courts, and to immediately close the region’s borders so that these wicked insurgents do not flee abroad. And I strictly order that they act authoritatively and arrest and turn over the leaders of the wicked insurgents [to the competent courts]. Carelessness in carrying out this order will be considered dereliction of duty and will be severely punished. That’s it.
Decree: August 19, 1979, Imam’s Book, Volume 9:
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful
I just got word that in the city of Sanandaj, their “Democratic Party” has surrounded the armed forces and their organizations and that they will take all the weapons if help does not get there in half an hour. They have informed us from the Sanandaj Mosque that the Democratic Party has taken our women hostage. I strictly order the armed forces to order military bases in [province] centers to move toward Sanandaj in sufficient numbers and quash the wicked insurgents with full force. Revolutionary Guards, wherever they are, must move toward Sanandaj and Kurdistan (by air) in sufficient numbers and quash the wicked insurgents with full force. Any delay, even an hour, will be considered dereliction of duty and will be severely punished. I ask the people of Iran to be mindful and immediately report any official or officer who disobeys [these orders]. I expect to receive news of a general mobilization from the armed forces in half an hour. That’s it.

Correct/ Complete This Entry ❯