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

Navid (Farshid) Afkari Sangari

About

Age: 27
Nationality: Iran
Religion: Islam (Shi'a)
Civil Status: Single

Case

Date of Killing: September 12, 2020
Location of Killing: Central Prison (Adelabad), Shiraz, Fars Province, Iran
Mode of Killing: Hanging
Charges: Murder
Age at time of alleged offense: 25

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 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 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 to be presumed innocent until found guilty by a competent and impartial tribunal in accordance with law.

ICCPR, Article 14.1 and Article 14.2.

Pre-trial detention rights

  • The right to know promptly and in detail the nature and cause of the charges against one.

UDHR, Article 9(2); ICCPR, Article 9.2 and Article 14.3.a

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

ICCPR, Article 14.3.b and Article 14.3.d; Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, Article 1, Article 2, Article 5, Article 6, and Article 8.

  • The right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defense case.

ICCPR, Article 14.3.b.

  • The right not to be compelled to testify against oneself or to confess to guilt.

ICCPR, Article 14.3.g.

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

ICCPR, Article 7; Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment, Article 1 and Article 2.

Trial rights

  • The right to a fair and public trial without undue delay.

ICCPR, Article 14.1, Article 14.3.c.

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

ICCPR, Article 14.3.d and Article 14.3.e.

  • The right to have the decision rendered in public.

ICCPR, Article 14.1.

Judgment rights

  • The right to appeal to a court of higher jurisdiction.

ICCPR, Article 14.5.

  • The right to seek pardon or commutation of sentence.

ICCPR, Article 6.4.

Capital punishment
  • The inherent right to life, of which no one shall be arbitrarily deprived.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 3; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 6.1; Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, Article 1.1, Article 1.2.

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

ICCPR, Article 7; Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment, Article 1 and Article 2.

About this Case

Correct/ Complete This Entry

Mr. Navid Afkari, Greco-Roman wrestling champion: “If we have kept silent thus far, it was in the hopes that justice would prevail, and nothing else. But from this moment on, my family and I need help. I am not talking only to Iran [and Iranians]; I’m addressing any human being that talks of humanity and has a shred of decency and integrity: Your silence is equivalent to supporting oppression and the oppressors.”

News and information regarding the execution of Mr. Navid (Farshid) Afkari Sangari, son of Hossein and Bahieh Namju, was obtained through an interview with a source with knowledge of the case (March 31, April 16, and 17, 2021, and June 16, and 17, 2021). News of this execution was also published in Mizan News Agency, affiliated with the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Judiciary Branch (September 12, 2020); United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights website (September 14, 2020); HRANA, news arm of the Human Rights Activists in Iran (September 14, 2020); BBC Persian website (September 16, 2020); Radio Zamaneh website (September 16, 2020); and Massih Alinejad’s Twitter page (September 14, 2020). Additional information about this case was obtained from Mizan News Agency (September 16, 2020); Fars News Agency (August 5, 2018; September 10, 2021); Iran International website (September 20, and 26, and October 15, 2020); BBC Persian website (September 17, 2020); Mr. Afkari’s brother, Mr. Sa’eed Afkari’s Twitter page (December 3, 2020); Mr. Afkari’s sister, Ms. Elham Afkari’s Instagram page (June 4, 2021); Voice of America YouTube Channel (September 10, 2021); Mr. Afkari’s family’s attorney, Mr. Sa’eed Dehghan’s Twitter page (September 12, 2021); Iran Human Rights Organization’s Twitter account (September 21, 2021); and from official documents including the Court’s Final Order; Police reports; Office of the Medical Examiner’s reports; various courts’ decisions; a portion of conversations that had taken place at Criminal Court One; Bill of Request for a de novo trial; audio of Mr. Navid Afkari and Mr. Vahid Afkari, Mr. Afkari’s brother and co-defendant; and other documentation including images of Mr. Afkari’s sentences. 

Mr. Navid Afkari was born on July 22, 1993, in Sepidan, Shiraz, was single, and had a high school diploma. He was a welder and a plasterer, and worked with two of his brothers. He had four brothers and an older sister. Mr. Afkari started Greco-Roman wrestling at around the age of 9. He did not continue his education due to financial hardship, and started working. At the same time he continued wrestling at a high level, and although he was forced to stop the sport for a while due to financial issues, he had earned at least 11 titles until the summer of 2018 in province and national championship games, ranking first to third. For instance, he won the national youth championship in 2007, ranked second in the national youth championship games in 2010, and won the adults national championship in Greco-Roman wrestling in 2016. He was also a talented hairdresser and tailor; he also painted and did calligraphy, in addition to writing poetry. (Conversations at Criminal Court One; interview with the Boroumand Center, March 31, April 17, 2021; picture of championship plaques; Ms. Elham Afkari’s Instagram page; Voice of America YouTube Channel).

Mr. Afkari was passionate about and concerned with political and social issues. At the time of the 2013 [presidential] elections, he was serving his mandatory military service and refused to vote, even though he was threatened with “serving additional time in the military”. He had stated: “I will tear up my birth certificate (if I have to) but I will not vote and betray [my] people.” (Mr. Afkari’s sister, Ms. Elham Afkari’s Instagram page (June 4, 2021).

Mr. Afkari joined the protesters in the course of the summer 2018 protests against high prices and unemployment. According to his mother, he took to the streets “to fight oppression”. (Voice of America YouTube Channel).

Mr. Afkari was arrested in September 2018, and subjected to torture. He faced multiple charges, some of which were in connection with his participation in the protests. His case was heard at Shiraz’ Criminal Court Two and the Shiraz Revolutionary Court. Criminal Court Two sentenced Mr. Afkari to three years in prison and 74 lashes. Based on available information, the flogging sentence was probably carried out. The Shiraz Revolutionary Court case was still pending. (1) (HRANA, September 14, 2020; interview with the Boroumand Center, March 31, April 16, 2021).

Mr. Afkari’s case is related to the murder of an individual in Shiraz on August 2, 2018. 

Background of the Protests

In early August 2018, following an increase in the price of gold, a severe increase in the price of gold coins, and a severe drop in the value of the Rial against the Dollar, many major cities across Iran were in turmoil due to urban protests. These protests began in Esfahan’s Shahpur Jadid district and quickly spread to other cities such as Tehran, Karaj, Shiraz, and Mashhad. The August 2018 protests were among protests that occurred subsequent to the December 2017 - January 2018 waves of widespread protests that took over more than 100 cities across Iran. These protests began in the city of Mashhad in reaction to the spike in the price of goods, but as it quickly spread to towns across the country, they turned into political protests against the entirety of the ruling regime. (2)

A short time after the August 2018 protests, dozens of people were arrested in various cities, and received prison sentences. (3) Reports [of these arrests] focused mainly on those arrested in Tehran, whereas a great many protesters were arrested, tried, and imprisoned in other cities, including Shiraz. Mr. Afkari was one of those people. 

Arrest and detention 

According to Mizan News Agency, Mr. Afkari was arrested at his home at 6 o’clock in the morning of September 17, 2018. (Mizan News Agency, September 12, 2020). Six plainclothes officers of the Criminal Investigations Bureau, Shahid Fa’al [Branch], woke Mr. Afkari and his brother, Vahid Afkari, up and arrested them without presenting a warrant. (Mr. Afkari’s correspondence from prison, April 28, 2019; audio file of Mr. Afkari’s brothers; interview with the Boroumand Center, March 31, and April 16, 2021; Mr. Afkari’s complaint against the Criminal Investigations Bureau and the Information Administration agents, May 1, 2019).

Mr. Afkari spent 50 days (until early November 2018) at the city of Shiraz’ Shahid Fa’al Criminal Investigations Bureau detention center, and was then transferred to Shiraz’ Adelabad Prison. He was subsequently transferred to Shiraz Information Administration’s Building Number 100 [detention center] on November 26, 2018, where he was interrogated until February 7, 2019. (Mr. Navid Afkari’s audio file).

Mr. Afkari’s family did not know where he was being kept nor what he had been charged with until September 29, 2018, and their efforts in obtaining information regarding his condition and whereabouts did not bear fruit. Mr. Afkari’s family saw him in person for the first time on November 6, 2018, at Shiraz Criminal Investigations Bureau in the presence of two officers, and were only able to chit chat and ask how he was doing. (Mr. Afkari’s correspondence from prison, April 28, 2019; audio file of Mr. Afkari’s brothers; interview with the Boroumand Center, March 31, and April 16, 2021).

In an audio file that he sent from prison to the media, Mr. Afkari stated that they would hang him from the ceiling in the torture room, and inform him that his brother, Mr. Vahid Afkari had been taken to solitary confinement and had subsequently committed suicide, that his family members, including his father and his brother-in-law (his sister’s husband) had been arrested; they would show him an arrest warrant for his other brother and threaten that they would arrest and torture his mother and sister. According to Mr. Afkari, they would tell him “there is no God at the Criminal Investigations Bureau”. (Mr. Afkari’s complaint form against the Investigating Judge at Criminal Affairs Prosecutor’s Office, Branch 8, April 28, 2019).

Regarding the torture he endured at the Information Administration detention center, Mr. Afkari stated: “They would pull a plastic bag over my head and drive me to the brink of asphyxiation and death. They would severely beat me on my arms, legs and stomach with clubs and other hard objects, and would repeatedly insult me using the vilest language. They would tie me up and pour alcohol down my nose. (Mr. Navid Afkari’s audio file). A source with knowledge of the case told the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center that Mr. Afkari had several heart attacks because of the severity of the physical and psychological pressure resulting from the torture he endured. Information Administration agents subsequently transferred him to the general ward. (Mr. Afkari’s complaint, the Judiciary letterhead, September 13, 2019; Boroumand Center interview, June 16, 2021).

According to the Boroumand Center’s source with knowledge of the case, the Criminal Investigations detectives and the Investigating Judge in the case did not initially allow Mr. Afkari’s family to hire an attorney. Afterward, the family obtained permission on September 30, 2018, to hire a lawyer that had been introduced to them by Mr. Afkari’s arresting authority, who continued to represent him until December 25, 2018. Mr. Afkari’s attorney met with him one time when he was being interrogated at the Criminal Investigations Bureau, and after he had been informed by Mr. Afkari’s family that he had been tortured; Fars Province Chief of Criminal Investigations Bureau’s Murder Unit was also present. At this meeting, Mr. Afkari denied that he had been tortured, and his lawyer signed a paper stating that Mr. Afkari had refused to go to the Office of the Medical Examiner. According to the Boroumand Center’s source, Mr. Afkari was not sure during this meeting that the person who stood in front of him was in fact his attorney. (Boroumand Center interview, March 31, 2021; Mizan News Agency, September 12, 2020). His attorney resigned on December 25, 2018, without the family’s knowledge, citing what he called “pressure by the security [apparatus]”. (Boroumand Center interview, March 31, 2021).

Mr. Afkari did not have access to an attorney from December 25, 2018, until April 24, 2019.

Mr. Afkari was detained at Shiraz’ Adelabad Prison from February 7, 2019, to September 12, 2020. Mr. Afkari’s family were able to visit him in prison starting on February 11, 2019. The women in Mr. Afkari’s family were able to have in-person visitations with him twice and the men only once; the rest of the visitations were weekly cabin visitations. (Boroumand Center interview, April 16, 2021). 

Trial 

Fars Province Criminal Court One, Branch One (previously, Fars Province Criminal Court One, Branch Four) initially convened on August 3, 2019, to hear the case related to the murder of an individual. The hearing did proceed, however, because the regulation requiring that the case file be put at the disposal of the defendant and for the latter to have 10 days to prepare his defense, had not been observed. The court heard Mr. Afkari’s case again on September 24, 2019. (HRANA, September 14, 2020; BBC Persian, September 17, 2020; Mr. Navid Afkari and his brother, Mr. Sa’eed Afkari’s audio files; Boroumand Center interview, April 16, 2021).

At the time of the trials, Mr. Afkari had a court-appointed attorney. Mr. Afkari saw his lawyers for the first time at the first Criminal Court One session, and did not even know their names. (Recorded audio from the Criminal Court One session, August 3, 2019). According to the Boroumand Center’s source with knowledge of the case, since Mr. Afkari had lost confidence in his lawyers and had not even met with them, he emphasized at trial that he must personnally approve any bills or evidence presented to the court by his attorneys. He ultimately fired his lawyers and the court appointed other lawyers for the next session. Mr. Afkari’s family hired an attorney at the de novo hearing stage. (Boroumand Center interview, March 31, and April 16, 2021; Recorded audio from the Criminal Court One session, August 3, 2019; Court transcript, September 2019).

The Judge cut Mr. Afkari off numerous times, that is, every time he attempted to ask questions of the Prosecutor and question the allegations contained in the indictment. The trial session was not recorded and none of Mr. Afkari’s witnesses were allowed to testify in court.

The audio file of the Criminal Court One sessions indicates that the judge had no desire to shed light on the truth.  He cut Mr. Afkari off numerous times, that is, every time he attempted to ask questions of the Prosecutor and question the allegations contained in the indictment. The trial session was not recorded, spectators were prevented from taking notes on the conversations in court, no opportunity was given to show the footage relied on in the case, and none of Mr. Afkari’s witnesses were allowed to testify in court. (Audio recording from the Criminal Court One session, August 3, 2019; Court transcript, September 2019).

At the beginning of the Criminal Court One session, Mr. Afkari asked that those who had tortured him during the interrogations appear in court. The Judge said: “That’s a separate [issue]. The court is impartial.” From that moment until the end of the proceedings, Mr. Afkari insisted on the implementation of Article 3 of the Law on the Rules of Criminal Procedure providing for the requirement that the court be impartial and requiring the investigation of claims of torture. However, regarding the claim of torture, the judge told Mr. Afkari : “These issues have nothing to do with this hearing”, and further stated “we will write down and take note of any defense you present with regards to the charge against you.”

Mr. Afkari: “Was torture with regards to the charge against me too?”

The Judge: “No.”

Mr. Afkari: “Then what was it with regards to?”

The Judge: “You just wait … Give it some time.”

Mr. Afkari: “I’ve been counting the seconds for ten months for this trial.”

The Judge: “Have you come here to speak nonsense?”

“I’m being very logical and very reasonable.”

The judge also left unanswered Mr. Afkari’s request that his brother’s motorcycle’s gas tank be evaluated by an expert, since it had been used by the prosecutor as evidence for the commission of murder; when faced with Mr. Afkari’s insistence on the matter, the judge said: “Sit down for now.”

Next, the judge asked the murder victim’s family to state whom they had a complaint against. They stated that it was the first time they were seeing the defendants and that they had a complaint against the person who had “hit” the victim. The judge asked them, however, to state the defendant’s name. In the audio recording of the Criminal Court One session, someone tells Mr. Navid Afkari’s name to the victim’s father, which the latter then repeated.

Then the judge asked Mr. Navid Afkari: “Do you accept these charges or not?”

Mr. Afkari spoke of the implementation of the principle of impartiality once again.

The Judge: “I am not concerned with these things … Do you accept the charges against you or don’t you?”

Mr. Afkari: “I’m speaking.”

The Judge: “Don’t speak, just answer my question.”

Mr. Afkari: “You asked me a question and I’m giving you the answer I know … YOU don’t tell me what to answer, I am the one who gives you the answer.”

Angered, the judge ultimately said to Mr. Afkari: “You don’t seem to understand where you are … this is Criminal Court One where we adjudicate intentional murder cases … You’re saying you don’t accept [the charges]. I ask you a bunch of questions, [you answer and] you sit back down. What is all this nonsense?” Ultimately, Mr. Afkari alluded to the legal provisions related to the time where the notice of the trial date and the introduction of the court-appointed attorney was served, and stated to the court: “We ask that the court observe our legal rights so that we can submit all the defects [in the case] and our objections within 10 days to the clerk of the court.” The clerk of the court then contacted the Prison and it was confirmed that notice of the time of the hearing and the appointment of an attorney had not been served [on the defendants], whereupon the Criminal Court One judge was forced to adjourn the hearing and postpone it for another time.  (Audio recording from the Criminal Court One session, August 3, 2019; Court transcript, September 2019).

It is clear from the audio and the notes related to Criminal Court One’s first and second sessions (Audio recording from the Criminal Court One session, August 3, 2019; Court transcript, October 2019) that the judge is trying to prevent what’s going on in the proceedings from leaking outside the courtroom. Early in the Criminal Court One’s second session, the judge addressed one of the spectators and told him to stop taking notes. Mr. Afkari and his brother argued with the judge in this regard, whereupon the judge said: “What law says a spectator can take notes?”

Mr. Afkari: “What law says he can’t?”

The Judge: “Don’t argue with me … A spectator is supposed to watch and listen … That’s it …”

Mr. Afkari: “Based on what law?”

The Judge: “Based on the court’s order.”

Mr. Afkari: “It’s an order in violation of the law.”

The Judge: “You’ve studied the law well, haven’t you … You had nothing else to do, and you sat down and learned the whole thing by heart!”

Mr. Afkari kept insisting on the implementation of the principle of impartiality and reminded the judge that in the previous session, he had guided the plaintiffs to lodge a complaint against him and his brother, when the plaintiffs did not even know them. The judge denied that. Mr. Afkari asked that the judge play those conversations [in open court]; it became clear, however, that those conversations had not been recorded.

And when Mr. Afkari began enumerating and pointing out the legal defects in the case and asked the judge that the evidence that proves he is the murderer be presented in court, the judge cut him off several times and told him to read his bill of defense.

Every time Mr. Afkari wanted to refer to provisions in the law, especially regarding torture, the judge would not let him speak. At one point, when Mr. Afkari objected to being repeatedly cut off, the judge said: “Well, you’re not putting on your defense.” Alluding to his questions and requests remaining unanswered, particularly the request to show the footage from the closed circuit camera, Mr. Afkari stated: “What am I supposed to defend [against and how am I supposed to defend myself]?”

Furthermore, Mr. Afkari repeatedly asked the court to summon his witnesses to court, and to face the witness who had testified against him. The judge either would not respond or promise that that would happen at some point in the future, which it never did.

At the conclusion of the session, Mr. Afkari repeated his requests for the appointment of an expert, hearing witness testimony, addressing the claim of torture, as well as the lack of impartiality on the part of the court for having guided the plaintiffs, citing the audio recording of the first session. In response to the judge who stated that there was no such recording, he said: “That’s due to your negligence.” (Audio recording from the Criminal Court One session, August 3, 2019; Court transcript, September 2019). 

Charges 

The charge brought against Mr. Afkari in Criminal Court One was “intentional murder of a Moslem”.

At 11:32 PM on the night of August 2, 2018, a security employee of the Fars Province Water and Sewage Administration was coming back from a mission when he was stabbed twice and killed near his home in Shiraz’ Shah Daiallah District. According to the Medical Examiner’s report, there were signs of further injuries on his body. According to information contained in the murder indictment, Mr. Torkamaan [the murder victim], had been present at the 2018 protests in Shiraz as part of a government force to quash the protests. (Investigative Judge’s Final Order, May 16, 2019; Plaintiff’s Complaint form, victim’s spouse’s complaint, August 3, 2018).

There are conflicting accounts of this murde. According to the account available in the murder indictment, the victim’s colleague had accompanied him close to his home, prior to the killing. (Investigative Judge’s Final Order, May 16, 2019; Plaintiff’s Complaint form, victim’s spouse’s complaint, August 3, 2018). In a documentary published on its website on September 12, 2020, Mizan News Agency stated that the victim had been killed “when he had left his house to do some shopping”. (Mizan News Agency, September 12, 2020).

Some local eyewitnesses have talked of two people on a motorcycle, who had apparently been keeping an eye on Mr. Torkamaan and his colleague prior to the murder. (Investigative Judge’s Final Order, May 16, 2019; Plaintiff’s Complaint form, victim’s spouse’s complaint, August 3, 2018).

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 evidence used against Mr. Afkari is stated to have been “analysis of communications data and tracing Mr. Afkari’s phone lines at the scene of the murder; Mr. Afkari and his co-defendant’s confessions; the murder victim’s family’s complaint and the statements of witnesses, including one person who was accompanying the victim; Abbasieh District 13thPrecinct Police 110 officers’ report; the Medical Examiner’s report on the victim’s cause of death; closed circuit footage from the 110 Supermarket’s camera located on Dariush Avenue that is from about one hour prior to the murder and is about 3 kilometers (about 2 miles) from the scene of the crime, and the identification of Mr. Afkari in this footage by his wrestler friends; pictures of the motorcycle and the t-shirt [worn] in the incident; pictures related to the motorcycle’s changed gas tank and the statements of the motorcycle repairman; and the reconstruction of the scene pf the murder”.

Defense

At the first Criminal Court One session, Mr. Afkari stated that Articles 387, 388, and 389 of the Law on the Rules of Criminal Procedure (4), providing for the appointment of an attorney, being informed of the contents of the case file, and having a 10-day period for the defendant to present the defects as well as any objections, had not been observed, and asked the court to set another date for the hearing. He also asked the court that the trial be open to the public and given television coverage; all the eyewitnesses named in the case file be summoned to court; Mr. Vahid Afkari’s motorcycle be inspected by an expert trusted by the Judiciary Branch; and the defendants’ witnesses and informed individuals also be summoned to court. Mr. Afkari further asked the court to make an audio recording of the proceedings, in accordance with the law. He repeatedly asked the court to summon the individuals who had tortured him to court and ask them: “Didn’t you have evidence? Then why did you resort to torture?” Citing Principle 38 of the Constitution prohibiting torture, and alluding to his complaint against the investigating judge and the interrogators for having tortured him, Mr. Afkari asked the court: “Admissions under torture are not acceptable and we must receive the response to my complaint [and that issue must be resolved]. Why did you convene this hearing?” In response to the judge who told him that “that complaint will be examined in due time and at the right place”, Mr. Afkari stated: “I have been waiting for 10 months for this hearing so that the truth can come to light”. Without directly answering the judge’s question “do you accept the charges or not?” Mr. Afkari alluded to the principle of the impartiality of the court and said: “I want the truth to come out”. The judge cut him off numerous times, however, and would not let him speak. Mr. Afkari had a court-appointed attorney at this hearing, but they had not met before the trial. According to the Boroumand Center’s source, Mr. Afkari’s attorneys had not put forth a request to judicial authorities either to meet with their client or to read the case file. (Audio recording from the Court session; Boroumand Center interview, arch 31, and April 17, 2021).

Mr. Afkari’s request for a de novo trial, containing statements of eyewitnesses who had seen him at another location at the time of the murder, evidence of his torture, procedural and substantive defects in the indictment and in the evidence [relied on by] the trial court, as well as Mr. Afkari’s 700-page case file, were summarily rejected by the Supreme Court after only three business days.

Based on Mr. Afkari’s statements in the second Criminal Court One session, his statements in the brief for an appeal subsequent to the hearing, audio files that he published himself, as well as the brief submitted in connection with a request for de novo hearing, his defense was as follows:

  • Lack of access to an attorney

According to Articles 48 and 190 of the Law on the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Paragraph 3 of the Single Article of the Law on the Safeguarding of Citizens Rights (5), access to an attorney at the preliminary investigations stage is mandatory. Mr. Afkari was neither apprised of his right to an attorney nor did he have access to an attorney during interrogations and investigations at the prosecutor’s office. (Brief requesting de novo hearing). According to Mr. Afkari’s attorney, the court-appointed attorney entered the case only after the bulk of the investigations had been conducted, and there is no sign of said court-appointed attorney’s statements and specific briefs in the case file that would lead to the discovery of the truth. (Brief requesting de novo hearing). 

  • Disregard for the Medical examiner’s opinion

The Medical Examiner’s report on the examination and autopsy of the victim’s body identified 4 instances of injuries and wounds, whereas the indictment against Mr. Afkari only addressed two of them. No investigations were conducted regarding the possibility of the infliction of these wounds and injuries by a person riding a motorcycle. This information does not conform to Mr. Afkari’s statements contained in the indictment and at the time of the reconstruction of the crime scene, alluding to a single blow/stab. The number and extent of the blows are indicative of an altercation that correspond to the victim’s father’s statements in the indictment quoting the only eyewitness, to the effect that the rider of the motorcycle had gotten off the bike and had engaged in an altercation with the victim. (Brief requesting de novo hearing). 

  • Evidence obtained after the issuance of the indictment

In the brief requesting a de novo hearing, Mr. Afkari’s attorney submitted multiple documents, including the official statements of witnesses testifying in favor of Mr. Afkari and his brothers. Several of these witnesses testified that Mr. Afkari and his brothers were somewhere else at the time of the murder. Several other documents were related to an individual who stated that he had made admissions incriminating Mr. Afkari under pressure and duress. (Brief requesting de novo hearing). 

  • The defects in the case
    • Disregard of the matter of the motorcycle; the Police investigations began with this vehicle

The Plaintiffs’ statements are based on the account of eyewitnesses to the scene and allude to a motorcycle with a tag number that is different than Mr. Vahid Afkari’s. This motorcycle, which is the main piece of evidence in the case, was returned to its owner one day after the latter’s statement was obtained, which was one week after the commission of the crime. Although it was determined that one of the motorcycle owner’s employees usually used the bike and that said employee had not come to work the day before the murder and for five days thereafter, he was neither questioned nor investigated simply because it was stated that his cell phone had no reception at the scene of the crime. (Brief requesting de novo hearing).

The replacement of the gas tank on Mr. Vahid Afkari’s motorcycle was used as evidence of murder by the [person riding that] bike, based on the claim that “a sound gas tank [that had nothing wrong with it] was replaced”. Mr. Afkari and his brother asked the court that the bike’s gas tank be examined by an expert trusted by the Judiciary. The motorcycle repairman from whom an admission was obtained regarding the “replacement of [Mr. Vahid Afkari’s motorcycle’s] sound gas tank”, later officially testified that it is not possible to determine whether there is anything wrong with a gas tank or not with the naked eye and without carrying out specific tests, and that he “may have made a mistake in rendering an opinion”. (Official Testimony submitted at Official Documents Notary, October 30, 2019; Audio recording of the court session, September 2019).

  • Not reviewing the video footage from the poultry shop located at the scene of the crime in which it was claimed that the alleged murderers’ faces were clearly visible

This footage was shown to Mr. Ghaznavian who was with the victim and had seen the faces of the defendants. He did not identify Mr. Navid Afkari and his brother in a face to face meeting. (Brief requesting de novo hearing).

This video footage was not shown to Mr. Afkari’s attorney, and the judge disregarded Mr. Afkari’s repeated requests to show the video, under various pretexts, including saying “these are just formalities”. (Audio recording of the court session, September 2019).

  • Relying on defective evidence

Whereas according to the final order issued and read in Criminal Court One, and based on the Medical Examiner’s report and Mr. Vahid Afkari’s statement, it was said that the knife with which the murder was committed was thrown in a well (Audio recording of the court session, October 2019), in the video footage of the reconstruction of the crime scene, the investigating judge shows Mr. Afkari a knife with a white handle and asks him “is the knife you gave us the same knife?” to which Mr. Afkari responds and confirms that he had killed Mr. Torkamaan with the knife shown in the video. (Mizan News Agency, September 12, 2020). 

  • Invalidity of the confessions obtained from the defendants

Mr. Navid Afkari had stated at the investigations stage at the Prosecutor’s Office Branch 8 and Branch 10, as well as in front of the Criminal Court One judge at the September 24, 2019 session that his confessions had been obtained under torture. A Western Shiraz Medical Examiner’s report dated May 14, 2019, about 9 months after Mr. Afkari’s arrest and alleged torture, confirmed an old breakage in his hand. The testimony of the person who had witnessed Mr. Afkari’s torture, as well as that of a person who had seen him “healthy” when he was brought into the detention center, are both available. (Brief requesting de novo hearing; Medical Examiner’s report, September 13, 2019). 

According to Article 119, Note 2, of the Law on the Rules of Criminal Procedure (6), confessions and admissions obtained under torture cannot form the basis for the issuance of a sentence, and only confessions made before the judge issuing a sentence in the case can be the basis of the issuance of a sentence. Mr. Afkari never admitted before the court to committing the murder. 

Mr. Afkari and his brother asked the court to implement Article 169 of the Islamic Penal Code (7) which provides for initiation of new investigations in the event torture has taken place [to obtain a forced confession]. Mr. Afkari asked the judge to clarify why the indictment stated his confession was given “before a judicial authority, [that is, a judge or an investigative judge]” whereas his confession had been obtained “under torture” at the Criminal Investigations Bureau. He requested that the investigating judge in the case [be summoned and] clarify: “Was the judicial order an order to torture?” (Audio recording of the court session, September 2019). The eyewitness to Mr. Afkari’s torture was not summoned to appear in court; on September 11, 2020, he was taken from Shiraz’ Adelabad Prison and turned over to the Police Force Information Section and taken to an unknown location. (IRNA, September 19, 2020; Witness interrogation form, October 14, 2019). On September 21, 2021, the Iran Human Rights Organization quoted a source with knowledge of the matter as saying that Mr. Shahin Nasseri, the witness to Mr. Afkari’s torture, had died at the Greater Tehran Penitentiary “under suspicious circumstances”. (Iran Human Rights Organization’s Twitter account, September 21, 2021 ). 

Amnesty International reported that the Fars Province Criminal Court One had denied Mr. Vahid Afkari, Mr. Navid Afkari’s brother and co-defendant’s requests to set aside his “confessions” obtained from torture and conduct investigations in that regard, and had stated in its Decision that he and his brother, Mr. Afkari, had put forth the torture complaints “based on what they had learned in prison, and thinking that they would be freed by denying the truth”. (Amnesty International, June 7, 2021). 

In his complaint lodged against the Investigating Judge at the Criminal Affairs Prosecutor’s Office, Branch 8, Mr. Afkari stated that he had retracted all of his previous admissions during the last interrogation session, but that the Investigating Judge had refused to note his statement in the file in writing. (Mr. Navid Afkari’s audio file). 

  • Exclusion of the evidence relied upon in the Supreme Court Branch 39’s Decision 
  1. Defendants’ cell phone reception at the crime scene 

According to the report available in the indictment, Mr. Vahid Afkari’s cell phone had no reception even in proximity of the scene of the murder. Mr. Navid Afkari’s cell phone only had reception on a street about 3 kilometers (approximately 2 miles) away from the crime scene, which was where his brother lived and was where various individuals had testified to have seen him at the time of the murder. (Brief requesting de novo hearing). 

  1. The informed source’s statements 

The indictment and the Court Decision repeatedly refer to the statements of a person with knowledge of the murder. He later officially, and before the judge at Revolutionary Court Branch One, declared that his statements at the Investigating Judge’s Office had been given under duress. During the entire time confessions were being obtained, Mr. Arjmand was in solitary confinement, without the possibility of getting in touch with the outside or visitation with anyone, and was therefore under duress. He did not appear at trial and Mr. Afkari’s request for his presence was not granted. (Brief requesting de novo hearing; Testimony submitted at Official Documents Notary, July 11, 2020). 

  1. Statements of the supermarket owner as a person with information about the case who had seen the faces of the motorcycle riders and was suspicious of them 

This witness did not positively identify Mr. Afkari when he came face to face with him, and only thought the lower half of his face, below his nose, looked similar to the individual he had become suspicious of. (Brief requesting de novo hearing). 

  1. Closed circuit camera footage from “the scene of the crime” and identification of Mr. Afkari by his wrestler friends 

This camera was about 3 kilometers (approximately 2 miles) away from the scene of the crime, and positive identification of Mr. Afkari there, means he was not present at the scene of the crime. (Brief requesting de novo hearing). 

  • Mr. Afkari’s statements at trial 
  • Mr. Afkari objected to the judge having directed the plaintiffs at the previous hearing to lodge a complaint against him. The judge refused to accept [that claim]. Mr. Afkari asked the judge to play the audio recording of the session. The judge responded that no audio recording was made. Mr. Afkari alluded to Article 400 of the Law on the Rules of Criminal Procedure (8) which obligates Criminal Court One to make an audio recording of the session, and accused the judge of violating the law and the principle of impartiality. (Audio recording of Criminal Court One’s second trial session). Based on an unofficial audio recording of Criminal Court One’s first session provided to and in the possession of the Boroumand Center, initially there was a conversation between the judge and the murder victim’s family where the victim’s parents first stated that they wanted to lodge a complaint against the person who had “hit” (“stabbed”) their child. Upon the judge’s direction and insistence, however, they lodged a complaint against Mr. Navid Afkari and his brother, whom they were seeing for the first time in court, and did not know them at all. (Audio recording of Criminal Court One’s first session). 
  • In the course of his defense, Mr. Afkari repeatedly asked the judge and the prosecutor, who [is supposed to] represent the people, to state their arguments and produce their evidence and documentation proving the charges brought against him. At one point, in response to Mr. Afkari, the judge said: “The arguments and the evidence are in the indictment.” “Those are allegations,” Mr. Afkari stated. The judge responded: “You can claim that such and such allegation is false. If we determine that it has not been proven, we will take it out of the case file.” “That’s why I am here, so that you can make that determination,” Mr. Afkari retorted. Nevertheless, the judge repeatedly cut Mr. Afkari off when he was posing questions to the prosecutor regarding the evidence for the charges and [at some point] the judge said “You’re not defending yourself”, whereupon Mr. Afkari stated “I’m here so that we can get to the truth”. (Audio recording of the court session, September 2019). 
  • In the course of the session, Mr. Afkari said to the judge: “You’re not looking into any of our requests. You don’t [even] answer a single one of my questions. The Prosecutor’s representative is either on his cell phone or is laughing at us.” “The law has provided me with only a desk (referring to the defense desk in the court room) and a book (referring to the law books). You neither let me make use of this [desk] nor of this book.” (Audio recording of the court session, September 2019). 
  • Based on the audio recording of the trial session and the Boroumand Center’s source, the Criminal Court One judge promised Mr. Afkari to look into his requests in the next session. However, Mr. Afkari and his co-defendant had just obtained access to the case file and were in the process of preparing a brief in their own defense when the court issued its ruling. (Audio recording of the court session, September 2019; Boroumand Center interview, March 31, 2021). 
  • In an audio file disseminated on various social media platforms after the issuance of the sentences, Mr. Afkari addressed the people and stated: “I have only one request: That a fair and open trial take place in the presence of the media. That’s all. If we have kept silent thus far, it was in the hopes that justice would prevail, and nothing else. But from this moment on, my family and I need help. I am not talking only to Iran [and Iranians]; I’m addressing any human being that talks of humanity and has a shred of decency and integrity: Your silence is equivalent to supporting oppression and the oppressors. With all the evidence we have gathered, and with everything I’m saying, if I’m executed, [I want everyone to] know that in the 21stCentury, with all these human rights mechanisms [in place], the United Nations, the Security Council, and all of these expenses [incurred for these entities and these purposes], etc., an innocent human being was executed even though he tried with all his might and fought [with everything he had] so that his voice could be heard. Know and be aware that if I, an innocent man, am executed, it logically and obviously follows that I’m not the first victim of the injustice of this “court of injustice”, of that so-called “justice-centered” [system that pretends to implement justice]. We tried in any way we could possibly think of, tried very hard, to make them understand that they are executing an innocent human being. Little did we know that ever since the day of our arrest, my family and I had [inadvertently become part of] a show written and directed by a bunch of judges and courts.” “There is not a shred of evidence, not a single document in this damned file that shows we’re guilty. But they did not want to listen to us and hear our voices. I learned that they’re just looking for a neck for their rope. You made it so even our attorney resigned. No one was looking for justice then and no one is looking for justice now.” (Mr. Navid Afkari’s audio files).

Mr. Afkari and his brothers brought complaints against Criminal Investigation Bureau officers, Information Administration agents, and the investigating judges in the case before various judicial bodies and authorities, for torture, threats, physical and psychological harm, and lack of attention to the implementation of torture. These complaints did not get anywhere, however. Mr. Afkari’s complaint against Criminal Investigation Bureau officers and Information Administration agents, for physical and psychological torture, insults, and threats, was heard on January 13, 2020, at Shiraz Prosecutor’s Office for Criminal Affairs and Security Crimes’ Office of the Investigating Judge, Branch 10. This was the same Branch that had investigated Mr. Afkari’s case, whose agents Mr. Afkari had lodged a complaint against. Office of the Investigating Judge, Branch 10, issued a non-prosecution order for the defendants [that is, the government officers and agents] in the case for “lack of evidence and legal arguments”. (Complaint form, June 15, 2019; Court Decision, January 13, 2020).

Mr. Afkari’s appeal from the latter Decision was heard on March 3, 2020, at Shiraz’ Criminal Court Two, Branch 110, and the appeal was rejected. (Court Decision, March 3, 2020). Mr. Afkari’s other complaint for torture and mistreatment during detention and interrogation was heard by Shiraz’ District 1 Prosecutor’s Office, Office of the Assistant Prosecutor, Branch 31, and a non-prosecution order was issued, citing the non-prosecution order issued by the Office of the Investigating Judge, Branch 10. (Court Decision, April 11, 2020). Mr. Afkari’s complaint against the Criminal Investigations Bureau’s officers brought at the Military Prosecutor’s Office was not heard at all. Furthermore, the Judges’ Disciplinary Prosecutor’s Office refused to hear Mr. Afkari’s complaint against the investigating judges in the case under the pretext that “we hear violations, not crimes”. (Boroumand Center research). Mr. Afkari’s other complaint was assigned to the Prosecutor’s Office for Government Employees and heard by Criminal Court Two, Branch 1058, at the Government Employees Judicial Complex, and a non-prosecution order was issued once again. (Court Decision, May 16, 2020).

Judgment

Fars Province Criminal Court One, Branch One, sentenced Mr. Navid (Farshid) Afkari to Qesas (retributive death penalty). Mr. Afkari’s Qesas sentence was upheld by Supreme Court Branch 39.

Mr. Navid (Farshid) Afkari Sangari was executed at around 3 o’clock in the morning of September 12, 2020, at Shiraz’ Adelabad Prison.

Mr. Afkari did not have a final visitation with his family, in violation of the Sentence Implementation Regulations. Officials at Shiraz’ Adelabad Prison published a piece of paper as a “memorandum” in which it was stated that Mr. Afkari had preferred a phone call to visitation. This piece of paper which does not have an emblem or letterhead and does not bear an official stamp, and is not signed by the Sentence Implementation Judge, the person in charge of service of process and of carrying out the preparations for the implementation of the death penalty; there is no reference to a choice between “last visitation” and a phone call. This letter, signed at 10:15 PM on September 11, 2020, by a number of prison law enforcement and security officials and several other people without citing their position and duties, certifies that Mr. Afkari’s final phone call was made, whereas available evidence indicates that Mr. Afkari spoke to his brother at 11:23 PM. Furthermore, Mr. Afkari’s handwriting and signature at the bottom of this paper do not correspond to his handwriting and signature contained in other official forms of the Judiciary Branch. (BBC Persian, September 16, 2020; Brief requesting de novo hearing).

United Nations High Commissioner’s Office issued a statement in which it considered the issuance and implementation of a death sentence [in this case] to be “an extra-judicial and arbitrary execution” due to the lack of due process. (United Nations High Commissioner’s Office, September 14, 2020).

The request for a de novo hearing of Mr. Afkari’s 700-page case had been submitted to Supreme Court Branch 39 at noon on Sunday, August 9, 2020. Said Branch denied the request on the morning of Saturday, August 15, 2020, after only 3 business days. (Boroumand Center interview, April 16, 2021; BBC Persian website, September 17, 2020).

The head of the Fars Province Judiciary had told Mr. Afkari’s family that he could legally request a de novo hearing only if Mr. Afkari asked for forgiveness in a televised interview, and distanced himself from and shunned his supporters, including the media and political and human rights groups. The commander of the Fars Province Police Force had made the same proposal to Mr. Afkari when he visited him in a solitary confinement cell at Shiraz’ Adelabad Prison. (Boroumand Center interview, June 16, and 17, 2021).

According to a phone conversation between Mr. Afkari and his brother that was recorded at about 11:30 PM on the night of September 11, 2020, he not only was unaware of the implementation of the execution sentence, he also told his brother: “They’re supposed to transfer all three of us (Mr. Navid Afkari and his two brothers) to Tehran tomorrow morning.” He also told his brother during the same conversation: “From a mental standpoint, don’t worry about me at all.” Mr. Afkari’s family was trying to meet with the murder victim’s family to obtain their consent to forego Qesas. (Recorded phone conversation; Boroumand Center interview, March 31, 2021; BBC Persian website, September 17, 2020).

The commander of the Fars Province Police Force and security agents threatened Mr. Afkari’s family that they would only turn his body over to them if he they buried him in their village, did not provide any information or make any reporting about burial rites and ceremonies, held no gatherings, and did not chant protest slogans. Mr. Afkari’s body was turned over to his family at the grave site, under the veil of darkness. They buried Mr. Afkari at night in the village of Sangar and in the presence of a large number of security agents and a small number of family members. According to the source with knowledge of the case, Mr. Afkari’s family noticed his broken nose and blood in the back of his head, in spite of the darkness and the presence of security agents. According to this individual, Mr. Afkari’s family did not have the opportunity to transfer his body to the Medical Examiner’s Office, and even though they could see the rope marks around his neck, they were not sure about the cause of death. Mr. Afkari’s grave stone has been destroyed twice as of the date of publication of this report in October 2021. (Boroumand Center interview, March 31, and June 16, 2021; Iran Wire, February 26, 2021).

Regarding her first reaction after hearing of her son’s hanging, Mr. Afkari’s mother said: “I just threw myself on the ground in the yard. Then I ran into the street without my headscarf on and screamed so much … until I lost my voice.” (Voice of America YouTube, September 10, 2021).

In one of Mr. Afkari’s audio recordings, he stated this about his execution: “I was just living my life, working as a laborer, and continuing the sport of wrestling; but now I can feel the noose of death around my neck. This could have been the fate of any other young person in this country, and the Judiciary could have picked anyone else’s name out of the hat instead of me.” (Audio recording).

Since Mr. Afkari’s execution, and as of this report in October 2021, Mr. Afkari’s brothers are still in solitary confinement. Mr. Vahid Afkari, one of his brothers, was threatened with death on at least one occasion in the fall of 2020, by persons who had been introduce as “high-ranking officials”. (Boroumand Center interview, June 16, 2021).

Security agents made threats against Mr. Afkari’s family on the anniversary of his death to the effect that they would be arrested on security-related charges and considered “Monafeq (supporter of the Mojahedeen Khalq organization)” if they held ceremonies. They violently arrested Mr. Sa’eed Afkari, Mr. Afkari’s other brother, and detained him for several hours. (Twitter account of Mr. Sa’eed Dehqan, Mr. Afakari’s family’s attorney, September 12, 2021).

Regarding the effects of Mr. Afkari’s execution, Ms. Bahieh Namju, Mr. Afkari’s mother, stated: “They took joy away from my house … They destroyed my life [when they killed] Navid … I will be seeking justice until the last moment of my life, seeking justice for my son’s wrongly spilled blood.” (Voice of America YouTube, September 10, 2021). 

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

(1) Mr. Afkari was tried at the City of Shiraz’ Criminal Court Two, Branch 116 (formerly Criminal Court 116) on July 15, 2019, for having participated in protest demonstrations, on charges of “participation in and conspiracy to commit crimes against national and foreign security”, “insulting the Supreme Leader”, “disrupting public peace and order through participation in illegal gatherings and with groups opposed to the state”, “participation in theft, inflicting harm”, “disobeying and insulting on-duty government officers and employees”. (HRANA, September 14, 2020). “Forming a four-person group opposed to the regime” which included Mr. Afkari, two of his brothers, and one of his friends, and possession of equipment such as circuit tester, nail clipper, and mask, were among the evidence used against them. (Investigative Judge’s Final Order, May 16, 2019). Mr. Afkari and his co-defendant had attorneys at the Criminal Court Two, but their attorneys did not appear at trial. Mr. Afkari and his co-defendant did not put forth a defense. (Boroumand Center interview, March 31, 2021). Citing Articles 313 and 314 of the Law on the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the necessity of a hearing at a higher court, they questioned the court’s jurisdiction over the matter. The court sentenced Mr. Afkari to three years in prison and 74 lashes. In February 2020, the Fars Province Court of Appeals, Branch 27, heard Mr. Afkari’s objection to Criminal Court Two’s jurisdiction. (HRANA, September 14, 2020; BBC Persian website, September 17, 2020; audio files of Mr. Navid Afkari and his brother, Mr. Sa’eed Afkari; Appeals Form, August 29, 2019; Radio Farda, October 3, 2020).
In June 2019, Shiraz Revolutionary Court, Branch One, heard another portion of Mr. Afkari’s case related to the summer 2018 protests in Shiraz. The court first charged Mr. Afkari with “Efsad fel-Arz” (“spreading corruption on Earth”) and then with “Moharebeh” (“waging war against Allah”). (Boroumand Center interview, March 31, 2021; Mr. Afkari’s audio file; HRANA, September 14, 2020).
The Revolutionary Court Judge stated “this is the Revolutionary Court; we don’t need evidence and documentation here”, and found Mr. Afkari “Mofsed fel-Arz (“one who spreads corruption on Earth”) and sentenced him to death without any evidence whatsoever. (Audio files of Mr. Navid Afkari and his brother, Mr. Sa’eed Afkari). The Revolutionary Appeals Court was examining Mr. Afkari’s appeal of the sentence issued by Shiraz Revolutionary Court, Branch One. There is no information available regarding this Court’s ruling. (HRANA, September 14, 2020; BBC Persian website, September 17, 2020; Boroumand Center interview, March 31, 2021).
(2) Radio Farda, Protests Continue In Several Cities Across Iran, August 2, 2018.
https://www.radiofarda.com/a/iran-protests-mashhad-shiraz-tehran/29406603.html
(3) Islamic Republic News Agency, IRNA, 13 Defendants of the August 2018 Protests Received Prison Sentences, February 3, 2019. www.irna.ir/news/83195306/
(4) Articles 387, 388, and 389 of the Law on the Rules of Criminal Procedure:
Article 387: Once an attorney has been designated, the clerk of the court shall immediately notify the defendant and his/her attorney, and, if the case requires, the private plaintiff or claimant and their attorneys to submit to the court all of their complaints about defects in the case as well as their objections, within ten days from the date of service. At the request of the defendant or his/her attorney, this deadline may be renewed one time for ten days from the expiration date of the previous deadline, if the court so determines.
Article 388: The defendant and the private plaintiff or claimant or the attorneys must submit to the clerk of the court all of their complaints about defects in the case as well as their objections, such as the running of the statute of limitations, lack of jurisdiction, recusal of the judge or the non-prosecutable nature of the ascribed act, defects in the investigations, necessity to investigate other evidence or new evidence, and insufficiency of the evidence, within the allotted time. After the expiration of said deadline, no objection shall be accepted from any of the aforementioned parties, unless, the defect is discovered or occurs subsequent to the deadline. In any event, it is prohibited to open the case in a preliminary hearing prior to the expiration of said deadline.
Article 389: Subsequent to the expiration of said deadline, the clerk of the court shall submit the case to the court, regardless of whether any complaints about defects in the case or objections have been received or not. The presiding judge shall personally examine the case file and shall either prepare a comprehensive report thereof or refer the task to a member of the court whose turn it is for such a task. Said member shall prepare and submit a comprehensive report containing and regarding the charge, the evidence, and the course of the adjudication, to the presiding judge, within a maximum of ten days. As soon as the court receives the report, it shall convene a preliminary administrative hearing, and, taking into consideration the content of the report, the content of the case file, and the complaints and objections of the parties, shall take action as follows:
a)     In the event that the investigations are defective or incomplete, [the court] shall issue an order of remediation, and shall refer the case to the prosecutor’s office that has issued the indictment so that it can carry out the court’s order and refer the case back to the court without rendering an opinion.
b)     In the event that the matter is outside the court’s competence or jurisdiction, [the court] shall issue an order stating that it lacks jurisdiction.
c)     In the event that the defendant cannot be prosecuted due to the running of the statute of limitations, forgiveness by the plaintiff or private claimant, or on other legal grounds, [the court] shall issue an order of non-prosecution. In such an event, the defendant shall immediately be released if he/she is incarcerated.
Note: In the event that the court deems it necessary, it may call on the prosecutor or his representative, the plaintiff or private claimant, or the defendant and/or his/her attorney(s) to be present at the preliminary hearing. 
(5) Articles 48 and 190 of the Law on the Rules of Criminal Procedure and Paragraph 3 of the Single Article of the Law on the Safeguarding of Citizens Rights:
Article 48 of the Law on the Rules of Criminal Procedure:
As soon as a defendant is detained, he/she may request the presence of an attorney. The attorney shall, observing and bearing in mind the confidentiality of the investigations and communications, meet with the detained individual; the attorney may, at the end of the meeting, which shall not last more than one hour, submit his/her written observations and assessments to be incorporated into the case file.
Note: In the case of crimes against national or foreign security, as well as organized crimes, that are subject to punishment under Article 302 hereof, in the preliminary investigations stage, the parties shall select their attorney(s) from among attorneys at law approved by the Head of the Judiciary. The names of said attorneys shall be announced by the Head of the Judiciary.
Article 90 of the Law on the Rules of Criminal Procedure:
The defendant may be accompanied by an attorney at law in the preliminary investigations stage. The right to an attorney shall be communicated and explained to the defendant by the investigating judge prior to the initiation of the investigations. In the event that a defendant is summoned, the right to an attorney shall be communicated to him/her in the summons. The defendant’s attorney may obtain information regarding the charge and the evidence on which the charge is based, and may express and make statements the attorney deems necessary for the discovery of the truth, the defense of the defendant, or the enforcement and implementation of the law. The attorney’s statements shall be written in the memorandum of the meeting.
Note 1. Denial of the right to be accompanied by an attorney, or failure to communicate this right to the defendant, shall be subject to Class eight or Class three disciplinary punishments.
Note 2: In crimes the punishments for which are death or life imprisonment, in the event that the defendant does not present and retain an attorney in the preliminary investigations stage, the investigating judge shall designate a court-appointed attorney for him/her.
Note 3: The provisions of Article 191 shall apply both to this Article and to instances where the charge is related to crimes of [a sexual nature] against public decency.
Paragraph 3 of the Single Article of the Law on the Safeguarding of Citizens Rights:
The courts and prosecutor’s offices shall observe and respect the right of defendants to a defense, and afford them the opportunity to use the services of lawyers and experts.
Article 119 of the Law on the Rules of Criminal Procedure:
In the event that it becomes necessary to question and investigate the defendant; hear the testimony of witnesses and individuals with knowledge of the case; conduct a crime scene investigation; inspect homes and other premises and objects; collect instruments of the crime; and generally, take any other action outside the jurisdiction of the investigating judge, the latter may issue a legal subrogation order in accordance with laws and regulations, and, by submitting the original or a copy of the papers needed in the case and specifying the requirements, request that a local investigating judge carry out the actions [enumerated above]. The latter investigating judge shall carry out the subject matter of the subrogation order within the parameters of said order, and shall send the signed paperwork along with other documentation he has obtained back to the granting authority; in the event that the implementation of all or part of the provisions of the subrogation order are related to another jurisdiction, he shall send the paperwork to said authority and shall so inform the investigating judge who had issued the subrogation order.
Note 1: The implementation of the subrogation order in a certain district

Correct/ Complete This Entry ❯