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

Mohammad Mehdi Karami

About

Age: 22
Nationality: Iran
Religion: Other
Civil Status: Single

Case

Date of Killing: January 7, 2023
Location of Killing: Central Prison (Nedamatgah), Karaj, Alborz Province, Iran
Mode of Killing: Hanging
Charges: Corruption on earth
Age at time of alleged offense: 21

Human rights violations in this case

The Legal Context

The Courts

 

Islamic Revolutionary Courts, 11 February 1979-1994

 

In the immediate aftermath of the 11 February 1979 Revolution, an ad hoc tribunal, initially referred to as the Extraordinary Revolutionary Tribunal, was set up to try the officials of the previous regime, for which no specific procedures were devised. In a decree dated 24 February 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini, the revolutionary religious leader, appointed a cleric as Shari’a Judge and instructed him “to issue Shari’a-based rulings,” thereby establishing the foundation of a system of special courts.

 

Initially, the revolutionary courts’ jurisdiction was determined by the religious judge’s interpretation of the Shari’a (Islamic law based on the teachings of the Qur’an, the traditions of the Prophet, the 12 imams, and the teachings of Shi’a scholars. On 17 June 1979, the Revolutionary Courts and the Prosecutor’s Office Rules of Procedure, which was only selectively observed, established the latter’s jurisdiction and make-up.

 

The Courts’ jurisdiction encompassed a wide array of offenses including moharebeh (“waging war with God”), efsad e fel arz (“spreading corruption on Earth”), crimes against national and international security, economic crimes, murder, profiteering, prostitution, rape, and narcotic drugs-related crimes. The law required that two of the three principal members of the Revolutionary Courts be Shari’a judges.

 

 

Islamic Revolutionary Courts, 1994-2002

 

With the adoption of the Law for the Establishment of General and Revolutionary Courts of 14 June 1994, and the Code of Criminal Procedure for General and Revolutionary Courts of 19 September 1999, a uniform code of procedure was applied to both revolutionary and general courts. The jurisdiction of the Revolutionary Courts was limited to 6 categories of offenses:

1. Crimes against national and international security,“moharebeh” (enmity with god) and “efsad e fel arz” (corruption on earth;)

2. defaming Ayatollah Khomeini and the Supreme Leader;

3. plotting against the Islamic Republic of Iran, armed action, terrorism, and sabotage;

4. espionage;

5. smuggling and drug-related crimes; 6. claims under Principle 49 (economic crimes) of the Constitution.

 6. Furthermore, pursuant to the Law on the Manner of Punishing Individuals Engaged in Unauthorized Audio and Visual Activities, Article 11, the revolutionary courts have jurisdiction over crimes that fall within the purview of said Law, including production and distribution of obscene materials and misuse and abuse thereof.

These courts continued, however, to try cases falling outside their jurisdiction, such as theft and sexual offenses. Further, the vagueness of laws regarding national security allowed the revolutionary courts to try political and media crimes whenever they wished to do so.

 

The new law eliminated the Prosecutor’s Office and gave the judges inthe Revolutionary Courts the power to perform the duties of the prosecutor, as well as their own, in any case brought before them.

 

Islamic Revolutionary Courts, 2002-Present

 

The Amended Law for the Establishment of General and Revolutionary Courts of 2002 reinstated the Prosecutor’s Office in both revolutionary and general courts. In cases involving political and media crimes, revolutionary courts’ jurisdiction overlaps with that of Province Criminal Courts.

 

With the passage of the new Rules of Criminal Procedure in 2014, and its coming into force in June 2015, the jurisdiction of the revolutionary courts remains unchanged, with slight modifications in procedural aspects of adjudication. For instance, the new law provides that for crimes subject to the death penalty, life imprisonment, amputation, third degree, or higher, the revolutionary court shall convene with three judges, whereas, prior to the passage of this law, adjudication of all crimes within the jurisdiction of revolutionary courts took place with only a single judge.

The Appellate System of Revolutionary Courts, 1979-Present

 

From their inception until 1994, the rulings of the Revolutionary Courts were not subject to appeal. In the early 1980s a court entitled the Supreme Court of Qom was established in the city of Qom and which reviewed cases of execution and confiscation of properties, thereby forming a first tier form of appeal. The exact date of the creation of the court is not clear, but, based on available information, the court became operational in the early 1980s, even though Ayatollah Khomeini's official order for its creation is dated 1985. The court’s procedure was not systematic and did not meet the international standards for a court of appeals; there was no official record of its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Qom was dissolved in 1989.

 

The Law of 14 June 1994 subjected the Courts’ decisions to appeal. An appellate court was established at each provincial capital, called the Province Court of Appeals, composed of a three-judge panel, to review decisions made by the Revolutionary Courts. The Supreme Court was designated as the appellate authority for particular decisions, including those involving capital punishment.

 

Narcotic drugs-related crimes constitute a significant exception to the appeals process. Governed by the Anti-Narcotic Drugs Law of 1988, as Amended on 8 November 1997 and 31 July 3 2010, these crimes are within the jurisdiction of, and are adjudicated on a regular basis by, Revolutionary Courts whose decisions are final. After being handed down by the judge, death sentences are sent to the Prosecutor General or the Head of the Supreme Court as a matter of administrative approval.

 

With the passage of the new Rules of Criminal Procedure in 2014 (and its coming into force in June 2015), however, drug related crimes became subject to appeal as well.

General Courts, 1979-1982

 

In cases not falling under the jurisdiction of the Revolutionary Courts, the system devised under the previous regime continued to function in parallel with new systems devised by laws passed by the Judicial Council, one of which, entitled The Legal Bill for the Establishment of General Courts of 11 September 1979, radically changed the entire structure and categorization of the courts. It divided the courts in three branches: Criminal, Civil, and Peace (a sort of arbitration court dealing with minor financial and other disputes). Specialized courts such as family courts were eliminated.

 

General Courts, 1982-1994

 

The Law of the Amendments to the Rules of Criminal Procedure of 1982 established a new criminal courts system, Criminal Courts I and II. Criminal Court I, established only in provincial capitals, had jurisdiction over more serious offenses, including those punishable by death, and Criminal Court II heard less serious crimes.

 

General Courts, 1994-2002

 

The Law for the Establishment of General and Revolutionary Courts of 14 June 1994 established umbrella courts called General Courts, which replaced and dissolved pre-existing civil and criminal courts. The law dissolved the Prosecutor’s offices and tasked a single person with the roles of judge, prosecutor, and investigator.

 

General Courts, 2002-2015

 

In 2002, the 1994 Law was amended, reviving the role of the Prosecutor’s Office in General Courts. The prosecution offices were re-established in a gradual process over several years. The amended law also re-established specialized branches within general courts dealing separately with criminal and civil matters. In addition, this law allocated a number of branches of the Province Court of Appeals to have original jurisdiction over a number of cases including the most serious offenses, as well as political and media crimes. In these cases, the branches are called the Province Criminal Court.

 

General Courts, 2015 to Today

 

With the passage of the new Rules of Criminal Procedure in 2014 and its coming into force in June 2015, general courts underwent certain changes as well. Criminal courts were divided into Criminal Court One, Criminal Court Two, Military Court, Juvenile Court, and Revolutionary Court. Criminal Court One has jurisdiction over serious crimes such as those subject to the death penalty, life imprisonment, amputation, third degree, and higher, as well as political and media crimes. Criminal Court Two has jurisdiction over other crimes. Another change consists of the establishment of juvenile courts, which adjudicates crimes committed by individuals less than 18 years of age. In cases where the individuals less than 18 commit serious crimes such as those subject to the death penalty, however, Criminal Court One will have jurisdiction, observing rules of juvenile criminal procedure.

 

The Appellate System of General Courts, 1979-Present

 

The Legal Bill for the Establishment of General Courts of 11 September 1979, abolished appeal of most criminal courts’ decisions. The law of 1982 restricted the appeal possibility even further. According to the Islamic Republic authorities’ interpretation of Islamic Law, a qualified jurist’s decisions were not subject to appeal except under special circumstances, such as when the judge realized his own mistake, or another judge advised him so, or when he did not have jurisdiction over the case. Even in such situations, the case would not go to a higher court but would be subject to review by the same judge or another judge at his level. The judges were even urged to call their verdicts “opinions,” so that the possible change in the verdict would not be “haram” (“sinful,” the highest level of prohibition in Islam, disobedience of which would result in a sin).

 

In October 1988, the Majles (Iranian parliament) passed a law regarding review of court judgments. This law provided for an appeal if the conviction was claimed to be based on invalid documentation or false testimony. The defendant could also base an appeal on a point of law or a procedural violation.

 

The appellate system was expanded in other laws in the late 1980s and in 1993. The Law for the Establishment of Criminal Courts I and II of 11 July 1989 created the Branches of the Supreme Court. Crimes of less importance, tried in Criminal Court II, were subject to review by Criminal Court I.

 

For the most important crimes involving death punishment, which were under the jurisdiction of Criminal Court I, the law allowed limited appeal to the Branches of the Supreme Court. Defendants had the right to petition the Supreme Court for appeal in certain cases involving false testimony or procedural violations, and if granted, the case would be remanded to either another criminal court or the original one.

 

Finally, the Law for the Establishment of General and Revolutionary Courts of 1994, as amended in 2002, established an appellate court at each provincial capital, called Province Court of Appeals, composed of a three-judge panel, to review decisions made by both general and revolutionary courts. The Supreme Court was designated as the appellate authority for particular decisions, including those carrying the death penalty, as well as decisions made by the Province Criminal Court.

 

The amended law of 2002, continued the appellate procedure to the Branches of the Supreme Court established by the afore-mentioned law of 11 July 1989

 

The Supreme Court continues to be the competent authority to rule on new trials, which have been provided for in limited circumstances.

With the passage of the new Rules of Criminal Procedure in 2014 and its coming into force in June 2015, the Court of Appeals shall be the competent authority to hear appeals from Criminal Court Two decisions, and the Supreme Court shall hear appeals from Criminal Court One decisions.

Special Courts for the Clergy

 

These courts are rooted in a 1979 decree, issued by Ayatollah Khomeini, which established a committee of religious and noble figures in every region to purge the clergy of anti-revolutionary elements under the supervision of the Revolutionary Courts. Between late 1981 and 1984, a special court in the city of Qom handled, though not systematically, the trial of clerics.

 

On 29 July 1987, Ayatollah Khomeini officially appointed a prosecutor and a member of the clergy as Shari’a judge for Special Courts for the Clergy. On 6 August 1990, a directive was issued regulating the conduct of these courts, the jurisdictional ambiguity of which is such that it effectively extends to “anyone where one of the parties is a cleric” and to “all matters in which the Court is designated as competent by the Supreme Leader.”

 

The court, which was not mentioned in the Islamic Republic's constitution, was mandated to try “pseudo clerics, those related to/connected with the clergy, for public and/or anti-revolutionary crimes, and violations of the prestige of the clergy,” and where the principal suspect is a member of the clergy, “any co-conspirator or assistant, whether a cleric or not.”

 

These courts are generally not open to the public and can issue sentences for all acts and omissions punishable under codified Iranian laws or Shari’a or for any other acts or omissions which can bring dishonor to the clergy or to the Islamic Revolution. Further, in certain particular cases – which have not been defined – where no punishment has been devised by either the Penal Code or even the Shari’a, the Court “can rule as it deems fit.” 

 

The Appellate System of the Special Court for the Clergy, 1979-Present

 

There is no information on any appeal process for the Special Court for the Clergy prior to the 1990 directive. Article 49 of said directive set up, however, an appeals court called Special Appellate Court for the Clergy, the head of which is appointed by the Supreme Leader, to which the decisions of the lower court can be appealed.

 

Military Courts

 

The military court system, independent from the judiciary under the previous regime, became a part of it on 1 December 1981. The Judiciary Organization of the Armed Forces, established in 1986, replaced and merged other military courts and tribunals in existence at the time, namely the pre-revolution Judiciary Organization of the Army, the Revolutionary Tribunal of the Army (established on 8 December 1979), and the Revolutionary and General Court for the Revolutionary Guards (established on 15 July 1979.) The Judiciary Organization of the Armed Forces has its own Criminal Code and follows the country’s general rules of criminal procedure.

 

The Law of the Criminal Procedure of the Armed Forces of 15 May 1985 created Military Courts I and II. Military Court I has jurisdiction over more serious offenses, including those punishable by death, and Military Court II hears less serious crimes.

 

The Appellate System of Military Courts, 1979-Present

 

The law of 8 December 1979, establishing the Revolutionary Military Court, did not provide for any appeals. The Law of 15 May 1985 created a system of appeals through the creation of a two-tier system of courts. The decisions of Military Court II were subject to review by Military Court I. This law also provided that multiple Branches of the Supreme Court be designated as the appellate court to review decisions of Military Court I.

 

The judges

 

1979-1997: Prosecutors and judges are not necessarily law graduates and jurists. Shortly after the Islamic Revolution, a five-member Committee was established to purge the judicial system of undesirable elements, pursuant to the Legal Bill for the Modification of the Judiciary and the Law for Hiring Judges of 8 March 1979. The power of the committee was absolute and its decisions, resulting in a widespread purge of the judiciary, final.

 

The Law for the Conditions of Selection of Judges of 4 May 1981 established the conditions of eligibility for judges. The latter were to be hired among men who were legitimate children and had practical commitment to Islam and allegiance to the Islamic Republic. The law, which led to the hiring of clerics and Islamic legal scholars, also allowed hiring practically anyone as a judge who could “obtain the Judicial High Council’s permission.” Moreover, Note 2 of the Amendments of 4 October 1982 to this law allowed widespread employment of seminary students “who ha[d] general knowledge equivalent to a high school diploma” as judges at prosecutor’s offices in general as well as Revolutionary Courts.  

 

By 1989, the judiciary counted about 2,000 new judges trained in theological seminaries (graduates and students) and political appointees, many having replaced judges trained in law schools.

 

1997-Present: As of this writing (2013) the Law for Hiring Judges and its amendments of 4 October 1982, 7 February 1987, and 9 May 1988 are in full force and form the basis for hiring judges. The Executive Rules of Procedure of 22 December 1997 subjected such hiring to passing an entrance examination and successful completion of an apprenticeship program, the duration of which ranges between one and two years. The law does not limit hiring to men only but does not specify in what capacity women will be functioning, other than an advisory one.

Currently, judges are selected in accordance with the Guidelines on the Recruitment, Selection, and Internship for Judicial Candidates and the Hiring of Judges.

 

Dismissal of Judges: From 1979 to 1989, the judiciary was run by the Supreme Judicial Council which was composed of the head of the Supreme Court, the Prosecutor General (both of whom were appointed by the Supreme Leader), and three judges elected by the entire body of judges in the country. The Council had the power to hire and dismiss judges in accordance with the law.

 

The constitutional reforms of 1989 substituted the Supreme Judicial Council with one person, the Head of the Judiciary. The Supreme Leader, whose mandate is not subject to popular vote, appoints the Head of the Judiciary for a 5-year term. The latter has significant power to influence the dismissal of judges. Dismissal cases are referred to three types of disciplinary courts, presided over by judges appointed by the Head of the Judiciary, who has veto power over any decisions made by the relevant courts.

 

Two of these courts, established in 1991 and 2011, are charged with examining the judges’ conduct from a religious and ideological standpoint. The process does not necessarily involve the defendant and the final decision, left to the Head of the Judiciary, is not subject to appeal.

 

Human rights violations

Based on the available information, the following human rights may have been violated in this case:

  • The right to liberty and security of the person. The right not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 3; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 9.1.

  • The right not to be punished for any crime on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time it was committed.

UDHR, Article 11.2; ICCPR, Article 15, Article 6.2.

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

UDHR, Article 12, ICCPR, Article 17.1.

  • The right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, including the right to change and manifest one’s religion or belief.

UDHR, Article 18; ICCPR, Article 18.1, ICCPR, Article 18.2; Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, Article 1 and Article 6.

In its general comment 22 (48) of 20 July 1993, the United Nation’s Human Rights Committee observed that the freedom to "have or to adopt" a religion or belief necessarily entailed the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one’s current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views, as well as the right to retain one’s religion or belief. Article 18, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights bars coercion that would impair the right to have or adopt a religion or belief, including the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers to adhere to religious beliefs and congregations, to recant their religion or belief or to convert.

  • The right to freedom of opinion and expression, including the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas.

UDHR, Article 19; ICCPR, Article 19.1 and ICCPR, Article 19.2.

  • The right to freedom of peaceful assembly.

UDHR, Article 20; ICCPR, Article 21.

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

UDHR, Article 20; ICCPR, Article 22.1.

  • The right, as a member of a religious or ethnic minority, to enjoy one’s own culture or to profess and practice one’s own religion.

 

UDHR, Article 18; ICCPR, Article 27.

  • The right to equality before the law and the right to equal protection of the law.

UDHR, Article 7; ICCPR, Article 26.

The right to due process

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

ICCPR, Article 14.1 and Article 14.2.

Pre-trial detention rights

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

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

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

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

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

ICCPR, Article 14.3.b.

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

ICCPR, Article 14.3.g.

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

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

Trial rights

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

ICCPR, Article 14.1, Article 14.3.c.

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

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

  • The right to have the decision rendered in public.

ICCPR, Article 14.1.

Judgment rights

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

ICCPR, Article 14.5.

  • The right to seek pardon or commutation of sentence.

ICCPR, Article 6.4.

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

convicted or acquitted.

ICCPR, Article 14.7.

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

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

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

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

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

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

About this Case

Correct/ Complete This Entry

He was an athlete and had won provincial and national championship medals in Karate. His father had worked hard as a street vendor selling paper tissues in order to support him to become a champion, and he did everything he could to prove his son’s innocence.

News and information regarding the execution of Mr. Mohammad Mehdi Karami, son of Manijeh and Mashallah, were taken from an interview with an informed person on February 13, 2023. (ABC interview) The news of this execution along with Mr. Seyed Mohammad Hosseini was also obtained from Mizan News Agency’ (the Judiciary Branch’s media hub) website (November 3, and 30, 2022; January 7, 2023); HRANA, Human Rights Activists in Iran’s News Agency (December 12, 2022; January 3, 5, and 7, 2023); Etemad Online (December 12, 2022; January 8, 2023); Fars News Agency (November 3, 2022; January 7, and 8, 2023); Radio Farda (January 12, and 14, 2023); BBC interview with Defense Attorney Mohammad Hossein Aghasi (January 7, 2023); Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) (November 3, 2022); Alborz Province’s Imam Hassan Mojtaba Army’s Office of Public Relations’ announcement, quoted in ISNA, Iranian Students News Agency (November 6, 2022), and IRNA, Islamic Republic News Agency (November 11, and 30, and December 1, and 3, 2022).

Mohammad Mehdi Karami was 22 years old, an ethnic Kurd from the village of Kutan Sofla located in Bijar County, and an adherent of the Yarsan creed, who resided in the city of Karaj’s Nazarabad District. He lived in a low income family and his father made a living as a street vendor. He had vocational diploma in architectural drawing.

Mr. Karami was an athlete and had won several provincial, national, and world championship medals. He was a member of the national team.

The case of Mr. Karami, as Defendant Number 1, and 15 other individuals is related to the killing of a Bassiji (member of the Bassij militia), the destruction of public and private property, and the beating of law enforcement personnel on Thursday, November 3, 2022, on the Karaj – Qazvin Freeway, on the occasion of the Chehelom (“Fortieth Day of Passing”) of Hadiss Najafi, one of the individuals who had been killed in the nationwide against the Islamic Republic.*

2022 (Mahsa Amini) Protest background

Nationwide protests were sparked by the death in custody of 22-year old Kurdish woman Jina (Mahsa) Amini on September 16, 2022. Amini had been arrested by the morality police in Tehran for improper veiling on September 13 and sent brain dead to the hospital. The protests, which started in front of the hospital and continued in the city of Saqqez (Kordestan Province), where Mahsa was buried, were triggered by popular exasperation over the morality patrols, misleading statements of the authorities regarding the cause of Mahsa’s death and the resulting impunity for the violence used against detainees, as well as the mandatory veil in general. This protest, initially led by young girls and women who burned their veils and youth in general who chanted the slogan “Women, Life, Freedom,” rapidly took on a clear anti-regime tone, with protesters calling for an end to the Islamic Republic. The scope and duration of the protest was unprecedented. State efforts to withdraw the morality police from the streets and preventative arrests of journalists and political and civil society activists did not stop the protests. By the end of December 2022, protests had taken place in about 164 cities and towns, including localities that had never witnessed protests. Close to 150 universities, high schools, businesses, and groups including oil workers, merchants of the Tehran bazaar (among others), teachers, lawyers (at least 49 of whom had been arrested as of February 1st, 2023), artists, athletes, and even doctors joined these protests in various forms. Despite the violent crackdown and mass arrests, intense protests continued for weeks, at least through November 2022, with reports of sporadic activity continuing through the beginning of 2023.

The State’s crackdown was swift and accompanied by intermittent landline and cellular internet network shutdowns, as well as threats against and arrests of victims’ family members, factors which posed a serious challenge to monitoring protests and documenting casualties. The security forces used illegal, excessive, and lethal force with handguns, shotguns, and military assault rifles against protesters. They often targeted protesters’ heads and chests, shot them at close range, and in the back. Security forces have targeted faces with pellets, causing hundreds of protesters to lose their eyesight, and according to some reports women’s genitalia. The bloodiest crackdown took place on September 30th in Zahedan, Baluchestan Province, where a protest began at the end of the Friday sermon. The death toll is reported to be above 90 for that day. Many injured protesters, fearing arrest, did not go to hospitals where security forces have reportedly arrested injured protesters before and after they were treated.

By February 1, 2023, the Human Rights Activists News Agency reported the number of recorded protests to be 1,262. The death toll, including protesters and passersby, stood at 527, of whom 71 were children. The number of arrests (including of wounded protesters) was estimated at 19,603, of whom 766 had already been tried and convicted. More than 100 protesters were at risk of capital punishment, and four had been executed in December 2022 and January 2023 without minimum standards of due process. Authorities also claimed 70 casualties among state forces, though there are consistent reports from families of killed protesters indicating authorities have pressured them to falsely register their loved ones as such. Protesters, human rights groups, and the media have reported cases of beatings, torture (including to coerce confessions), and sexual assaults. Detainees have no access to lawyers during interrogations and their confessions are used in courts as evidence.

Public support and international solidarity with protesters have also been unprecedented (the use of the hashtag #MahsaAmini in Farsi and English broke world records) and on November 24, 2022, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution calling for the creation of a fact finding mission to “Thoroughly and independently investigate alleged human rights violations in the Islamic Republic of Iran related to the protests that began on 16 September 2022, especially with respect to women and children.”

Arrest and detention

According to official and security media, Mr. Karami was arrested less than 48 hours after the killing of a Bassij member “upon the issuance of decisive judicial orders”. “[The Bassij member’s] killers were identified in less than 48 hours and were arrested by the Imam Zaman’s (or “Imam of Time”, twelfth Shiite Imam, descendent of the Prophet Mohammad who is said to have disappeared only to reappear at some point to save humanity) unknown soldiers at the Alborz Province’s Information General Administration.” (IRIB report; IRNA, November 30, 2022).

He told his family during visitation that he had been subjected to severe physical, sexual, and psychological torture.

Mr. Karami and 14 other defendants were in Karaj’s Information Administration detention until the end of three trial sessions, and were taken to court and back from that same detention center. (HRANA, January 3, 2023). He and four other individuals were transferred to the public ward at Karaj Central Penitentiary after the trial. (HRANA, December 12, 2022). He was able to contact his family by phone several times.

Trial

On Wednesday, November 30, 2022, the Alborz Province Islamic Revolutionary Court, Branch One, began the adjudication of Mr. Karami’s and 15 other individuals’ cases. The trial took place before a panel of judges composed of a presiding judge and three member judges, in the presence of the Prosecutor’s representative and the defendants’ attorneys. Mr. Karami had a court-appointed lawyer. In its initial reports, the Judiciary Branch had announced the number of defendants in the case to be 11. On the first day of trial, however, 15 defendants were presented to the court, and in the final court session, another defendant who had previously been transferred to the Karaj Central Penitentiary was suddenly added to the defendants in the case without any explanation or any specific reason, and the number of defendants increased to 16. (HRANA, December 12, 2022). Mr. Karami had a court-appointed attorney at trial. The second and final trial sessions were conducted on December 1, and 3, 2022. The entire trial for all 16 defendants in three sessions did not last more than a few hours. Short and interrupted video footage of the trial sessions were published in various media.

Charges

Karaj County Islamic Revolutionary Court, Branch One, stated the charges against Mr. Karami to be “Efsad fel-Arz (“spreading corruption on Earth”) through the commission of crimes against national security, attacking Bassij members, assembly and conspiracy to commit crimes against national security, issuing a call [to fight the Islamic] regime on the internet ”.

According to the Judiciary Branch’s news agency, on November 3, 2022, “a number of rioters, by creating unrest and placing stones, wood, and construction waste around Behesht-e Sakineh Cemetery and Karaj’s Kamal Shahr district, proceeded to close down the Karaj – Qazvin Freeway and disrupt traffic under the pretext of participating in the Chehelom (“the Fortieth Day of Passing”) of one of the participants killed in the riots, and engaged in the destruction of public and private property as well as the beating of law enforcement personnel. In the course of that day’s events, Seyed Ruhollah Ajamian, a protector of security, was killed.” (Mizan News Agency, January 7, 2023). Mr. Karami was announced as a person who had perpetrated several blows to the murdered individual with a stone; there is, however, no indication of the Bassij member’s cause of death in any report.

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 against Mr. Karami was stated to have been “his confessions; Defendant Number 2’s confessions [and statements] made against him; other defendants’ confessions [and statements] made against him; the complaint filed against him by the [victim’s] next of kin; the Medical Examiner’s Certificate; the recovery of tools and instruments of crime from the defendants; the contents of the defendants’ cell phones, said phones having been searched and looked into [by the authorities]; discovery of criminal [articles and writings]; disseminated photographs and videos of the day of the events.” There is no mention, however, of the criminal contents discovered in the cell phones. In cut off and out of context video segments of the trial sessions, the defendants described the manner of Ajamian’s killing and the altercations on that day, and admitted their role therein.

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

Defense

The Court had deprived Mr. Karami of being represented by the attorney of his own choosing. The attorney for Mr. Karami’s family was not allowed to represent him because the judge had not allowed Mr. Karami to sign the official retainer agreement. Mr. Aghassi, Mr. Karami’s attorney, stated in this regard: “Mohammad Mehdi Karami did not have a lawyer of his own choosing at any stage of the adjudication. The Supreme Court and the Director General of the Ministry of Justice were favorable to my representation, but the Judge emphatically violated the law and claimed that only an attorney approved by the Head of the Judiciary branch could enter the case [and represent the defendants]. That is precisely the reason why the Supreme Court was obligated to reverse the ruling.” (Mr. Mohammad Hossein Aghassi’s Twitter account, January 4, 2023). Furthermore, Mr. Karami’s court-appointed attorney did not mount an effective defense of his client and settled for just asking the court for forgiveness: “In spite of the Defendant’s confession, given that he was honest in his statements, I ask the Court for pardon and forgiveness.” (Mizan News Agency, November 30, 2022).

Furthermore, in its announcement regarding the detained individuals, the Alborz Province Revolutionary Guards Corps’ (Imam Hassan Army’s) Office of Public Relations did not report anything about any killing of its forces or of any Bassij members: “Following the unrest of Thursday, November 3, on the Karaj – Qazvin freeway, and the rioters’ beastly and brutal acts of damaging private and public property and attacking security and law enforcement forces, several of the principal actors were identified and arrested through the round the clock efforts of the unknown soldiers of Imam Zaman (Peace Be Upon Him) at the Alborz Province Revolutionary Guards, as well as reports made by the revolutionary populace. The main actor, who had engaged in attacking and damaging [property], stealing the Police Force of the Islamic Republic’s government-issued weapons, and blocking the Karaj – Qazvin Freeway, the posting of [the reports] of which on the internet caused fear and apprehension in the populace as well as instigating their feelings, was among those arrested.” (ISNA, November 6, 2022).

Mehdi Karami stated during a visitation with his family that he had been subjected to severe physical, and psychological torture. “Mehdi said that he was beaten so badly at the time of his arrest that he had passed out, and that the Islamic Republic forces thought that he had died and had thrown his “corpse” in the outskirts of Nazarabad; but they realized he was still alive as they were leaving the location.” (ABC interview).

According to Mr. Aghassi, Mr. Karami’s chosen attorney, “my client has gone on a dry hunger strike at Karaj’s Central Penitentiary, protesting the fact that he was not permitted to have an attorney of his own choosing”. (HRANA, January 5, 2023). He continued: “Pursuant to the Law on the Rules of Criminal Procedure, in cases of capital or corporal punishment, if a case is remanded for a new trial, the [previous] sentence must immediately be stayed. He [Mr. Karami] called me on Wednesday and voiced his concern, and said some things that cannot be repeated. [The stay of the sentence] was supposed to take place.” (Mr. Aghassi’s interview with the BBC).

[Mr. Karami’s father,] Mashallah Karami, alluded to the fact that the court-appointed lawyer was not even willing to meet with him to get the documents that he had gathered. In defense of his son, he stated: “I asked [my son] ‘please tell me, did you do all this?’ He said ‘Baba (father), I swear to the callouses on your hands, no, I didn’t; that’s the truth!’ And now, I don’t even know if they’re going to come after me and take me away now that I’ve spoken to you, but I only defended my son’s rights.” According to Mr. Karami’s father, the court-appointed lawyer did not defend his son: “They told us to come and lodge an objection; I’ve been after the lawyer for a week; he wouldn’t answer when I called, and he would say: ‘I’ll tell you [when to come,] I’ll tell you’. I just called and he told me to go tomorrow; he didn’t even give me his office address. God knows I begged him, please give me your office address so I can come and at least give you the things my son told me to write down on paper, and give it to you so you can put it in the case file.” Mr. Karami’s father went to the court and the prison numerous times [to follow up on his son’s case] but no one would give him any information or be accountable for anything. He stated in this regard: “I’m home all the time and I go to the court in the morning. This morning I went to the prison but the Prison Assistant Prosecutor and the Prison Supervisor weren’t there. Then I asked the person that was there [where] the Prison Assistant Prosecutor and the Prison Supervisor were. He said ‘if you want to talk about the riots (they call it riots; it’s protests [but they call it riots]), don’t bother showing up because they don’t talk to anybody, they don’t answer anybody.’ Now I’ve lost hope, I’ve been cut off from my child. Please, for God’s sake, if there is someone somewhere that would listen to our cries, please be our voice because my child is truly innocent. My child is an athlete; he’s not a killer; my child is not a murderer.” (Mashallah Karami’s interview with Etemad Online).

Mr. Karami’s father had collected an affidavit signed by the neighborhood residents: “I collected an affidavit from the neighborhood mosque. He was an honest kid, everybody signed. There is a mosque across from my house, and they signed the affidavit. These were the things I could do.” (Mashallah Karami’s interview with Etemad Online). In defense of his son, he even made a video with his wife (Mr. Karami’s mother) where they asked judicial authorities, the Head of the Judiciary Branch in particular, to pardon their child.

I asked him: “Mehdi, I’m begging you, please tell me the truth; did you do all this?” He said: “I swear to God, Baba (father), I swear to the callouses on your hands, no, I didn’t; that’s the truth!”

In his last phone conversation with Mr. Aghassi on Wednesday, January 4, 2023, Mr. Karami talked about certain things, which Mr. Aghassi recounted: “I want to tell you a very important thing: When he wanted to say good bye to me on Wednesday, he said ‘Mr. Aghassi, there was a time when I would see things in the media where they said an innocent person had been sentenced and punished, and I wouldn’t believe it. But now, that same exact thing has happened to myself. All I did was kick once and punch two times, and I’m going to be hanged for that’. Look, that’s the problem; he had sworn to his father that he had not taken any action whatsoever that would result in a murder.” Mr. Aghassi continued: “Islamic Penal Code Article 479 provides that in cases such as this one where there are a number of people present on the scene of a murder, and the actions taken by some of them result in death and it is not clear who has committed the act, Qesas punishment (“retribution, retributive killing”) will not apply. But [the judicial authorities] considered [the charge against him] as Moharebeh (“waging war against God”), provided for in the latter part of [Islamic Penal Code] Article 279, the beginning part of which provides that if an individual draws a weapon on the people and causes apprehension in them and [on society], then that individual will be considered to be Mohareb (“one who wages war against God”). The Article goes on to say that if a person draws a weapon on one or several persons in such a way that it does not create insecurity in the environment, that is not considered to be Moharebeh. First of all, in my opinion, that was not Moharebeh. Secondly, if murder was committed, given the provisions of Article 479, the punishment of Qesas should not apply in this particular case and the individuals should be sentenced to payment of Diah and the punishment provided for under the Law of Ta’zirat.” (Mr. Aghassi’s interview with the BBC).

Another attorney at law stated in connection with the death sentences for Mr. Karami and the other defendant, that they had not committed “intentional murder”, because more than 20 people had participated in the killing. “The actions of the late Messrs. Mohammad Mehdi Karami and Seyed Mohammad Hosseini did not constitute intentional murder because twenty people had exerted blows on the late Ajamian. Which blow caused his death? It is not clear. No evidence being available, we are faced with a murder where we do not know who the murderer is; therefore, Diah had to be paid. That is perhaps the reason a sentence of Qesas was not issued.” (Mohsen Borhani, attorney at law).

According to a HRANA (Human Rights Activists new Agency) report, a source with knowledge of the case had stated: “According to the charges brought by the Prosecutor’s representative in Court, the charges against the individuals who were ultimately sentenced to death by Judge Assef al-Hosseini were in some cases even lighter than those brought against the other defendants in the case. Most of the individuals sentenced to death in this case, even taking the Prosecutor’s Representative’s statement into account, had absolutely no effective participation in Ruhollah Ajamian’s death. The death sentences were issued without an in-depth examination of the case and without any legal basis, and strictly for the purpose of sacrificing certain people.” (HRANA, December 12, 2022).

A Summary of the Legal Defects in the Adjudication of Mr. Mohammad Mehdi Karami’s Case

In this case, Mr. Mohammad Mehdi Karami is accused of killing a Bassij member with at least 15 other individuals. What has been published in official media, including Mizan News Agency, indicates that the murder victim had been beaten by a large number of people, gathered in a crowd, and that he had ultimately been killed. Various news agencies have also reported that thirty or forty people were involved in the death of the Bassij member. In cases where a large number of people are involved in a murder, exacting, rigorous, and expert investigation must be carried out in order to determine the cause of death and figure out which blow(s) resulted in death, and who perpetrated the blow(s). One cannot attribute responsibility for the murder to one specific perpetrator without such precise and in-depth investigations. In this case, it is absolutely not clear which blow, from among the many, resulted in the victim’s death. In other words, the most important investigation that should have been conducted, namely, the determination of the ultimate cause of death, was not carried out with precision. This defect is so severe that it most certainly renders the court’s ruling without validity and credence.

Mr. Mohammad Mehdi Karami was tried on the charge of Moharebeh (“waging war against God”) and sentenced to death and executed on that basis. Pursuant to Islamic Penal Code Article 279, “Moharebeh consists of drawing a weapon with intent to cause apprehension in, or harm to people’s lives, property, or chastity (for female members of the family), in such a way as to create insecurity in the area. Where a person draws a weapon on one or more persons based on personal motives and his/her actions do not have a public aspect, and where a person draws a weapon on people but his action does not deprive them of their safety and security due to his/her inability or incapacity, said person is not considered to be Mohareb”. What is important here is that the act attributed to Mr. Karami was murder. Murder is a crime [the punishment for which] falls under Qesas (“retribution”), and has its own rules and regulations. As the above Article indicates, in order for [the crime of] Moharebeh to occur, a person must draw his/her weapon with the intent to harm a large number of individuals, which act causes [apprehension and] insecurity among the populace. If we believe that the Bassij member’s murder caused insecurity, then the question of Qesas in murder cases becomes moot, and every murder would be considered as Moharebeh! In other words, the act attributed to Mr. Karami, regardless of whether he committed it or not, has absolutely nothing to do with the crime of Moharebeh. Had his case been tried on the charge [of murder carrying the punishment of] Qesas, the probability of a sentence of death would have been much lower because it would have been necessary to determine precisely that it was his blow that caused the Bassij member’s death, and if it could not have been determined whose blow actually caused the victim’s death, the punishment of Qesas could not have applied, and the form of punishment would then turn to Diah (payment of compensation; “blood money”). Additionally, it was possible that the holders of the right of Qesas, that is, the next of kin, would have forgiven [the perpetrator and] forgone retribution.

Mr. Mohammad Mehdi Karami was deprived of an attorney of his choosing both at the preliminary investigations stage, and at trial. The Karaj court even prohibited his chosen attorney from submitting his retainer agreement and entering the case, whereas Principle 35 of the Constitution, as well as the Single Article of the Law on the Selection of Lawyers by Parties to a Dispute, and Articles 48 and 346 of the Law on the Rules of Procedure, all provide that an accused has the right to retain an attorney of his own choosing. In other words, the court-appointed attorney was imposed on Mr. Karami. Furthermore, the court-appointed lawyer did not mount any effective defense and solely asked the court for forgiveness. These actions deprived the defendant of the defense mechanism at his disposal to a considerable extent. Pursuant to the Single Article of the Law on the Selection of Lawyers by Parties to a Dispute, depriving a defendant of the right to have a lawyer of his/her own choosing is an instance of actions that render the ruling invalid.

According the statements made by people close to Mr. Karami, as well as persons with knowledge of the case, Mr. Karami had been severely tortured during interrogations. Principle 38 of the Constitution and the Islamic Penal Code have prohibited and criminalized the torture and persecution of defendants, and confessions obtained under duress and persecution have no legal validity. In other words, the official news agencies’ referencing Mr. Karami’s confession, as well as its probable citation in the sentence [as a basis of the court’s ruling] has no legal validity whatsoever because a confession obtained under torture cannot be used as evidence of guilt. Furthermore, an admission or confession is only valid when it’s true, that is, the judge must ensure that such confession or admission is true and correct. In this case, considering the large number of defendants and the lack of thorough investigations by the Prosecutor’s Office, it was not possible to rely solely on the defendant’s confession to find him guilty of the offense charged.

According to available information, the killing of Ruhollah Ajamian occurred on November 3, 2022, and Mr. Karami’s final trial session was held on December 3, 2022, and the sentence of execution was issued one week after said final session. In other words, the time between the defendant’s arrest and sentencing was roughly a month. That means all the investigations, including autopsy, determination of cause of death, investigating and questioning dozens of defendants and witnesses, crime scene investigations, examination of the contents of the closed circuit cameras at the location, etc., both at the Prosecutor’s Office and at trial, took only one month. It does not seem reasonable that it would be possible to examine and adjudicate in one month a case as voluminous as this one, the subject matter of which is the murder of an individual by a large crowd of people, and where there are other charges involved, such as destruction of public property, conspiracy and assembly and propaganda against the Islamic regime. There are currently murder cases that have been before judicial authorities for years, the adjudication of which has yet to result in a ruling. In other words, Mr. Karami’s hasty and precipitous trial is itself the best indication that thorough investigations were not conducted in this case, nor were the principles of fair trial observed.

Judgment

Alborz Province Islamic Revolutionary Court, Branch One, sentenced Mr. Mohammad Mehdi Karami and five other individuals to death on the charge of Efsad fel-Arz (“Spreading corruption on Earth”). On Tuesday, January 3, 2023, Mr. Mohammad Mehdi Karami and Mr. Hosseini’s death sentences were upheld by Supreme Court Branch 39, citing Article 469(a) of the Law on the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

According Mr. Karami’s attorney, the Supreme Court’s upholding of the death sentence was illegal: “There is another, much more important issue I would like to bring up: The Supreme Court was aware that the defendants, my client in particular, and the late Mr. Hosseini, had been denied their right to retain an attorney of their own choosing. I personally wrote a letter, which [Mr. Karami’s] father took to the Supreme Court; I went there again myself. There is a Single Article that goes back to the time of President Rafsanjani and was ratified then. According to this Single Article, if a court deprives a defendant of his/her right to retain an attorney of his/her own choosing, the judge is considered to have committed a disciplinary violation punishable by a fourth degree punishment and higher. Knowing this, the Supreme Court had the legal obligation to overturn the court’s ruling, and remand the case for a new trial where the defendant could be tried while represented by his own attorney. My objection to the Supreme Court’s [decision] is this: Why did it not do that, and why did it uphold the ruling? That is a fundamental defect.” (Mr. Aghassi’s interview with the BBC).

Mr. Karami was hanged in Karaj on January 7, 2023. Neither his attorney, nor any member of his and the other defendant’s family were aware of the execution, and they were deprived of a final visitation.

Mr. Karami’s chosen attorney was not allowed to represent his client when the case was being considered by the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Branch 39 overturned the sentences issued for 14 other individuals and remanded the case back to another lower court branch for a new trial.

Mr. Karami was buried in Parcel 1, Row 48, Grave Number 165, of Behesht-e Ali Cemetery, located in Eshtehard County, Alborz Province. Mr. Karami’s father told their attorney that he was not able to hold services for his son at home: “He wasn’t even allowed to hold services in his own home.” (Mr. Aghassi’s Twitter account, January 14, 2023).

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

* Thursday, November 3, 2022, was the Fortieth Day of Passing of Ms. Hadiss Najafi, one of the participants in the protests against the Islamic Republic. She was shot and killed by the Islamic Republic law enforcement forces in the town of Mehrshahr located in Karaj County on September 21, 2022, at approximately 8 PM, as she was partaking in protest demonstrations against the state killing of Mahsa Amini. 

Correct/ Complete This Entry ❯