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

Seyed Mohammad Hosseini

About

Age: 39
Nationality: Iran
Religion: Presumed Muslim
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: 39

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.

About this Case

Correct/ Complete This Entry

Seyed Mohammad Hosseini’s parents had passed away and he had no one to visit him in prison. Now, however, large crowds gather at his gravesite to tell him “you are not alone; the entire nation of Iran is your family”.

News of the execution of Mr. Seyed Mohammad (Kian) Hosseini, son of Soghra and Seyed Hassan, along with Mr. Mohammad Mehdi Karami was 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, and 7, 2023); Etemad Online (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 5, 2022), and IRNA, Islamic Republic News Agency (November 11, and 30, and December 1, and 3, 2022).

According to available information, Mr. Hosseini was 40 years old, single, born in the city of Karaj, workat at the [city of] Qazvin Morghak Company, and lived by himself in a rented home in Karaj’s Kamal Shahr district. He had a sixth grade education. His parents had died and he had a brother, a sister, and a half-brother, with whom he had no relations.

Mr. Hosseini was skilled in the Martial Arts, including Kung Fu and Wushu, and had won a championship in 2003-04. Those who knew him well have stated: “He was generous. He used to teach martial arts for free to poor children”. (Radio Farda).

Mr. Hosseini's inmates talk highly about him and consider him a kind, fearless and humble person: "Seyed was a lover, he treated everyone with kindness and dignity. He used to collect and wash the dishes. We would tell him: “Don't do this, brother”. He would reply: “I grew up without parents and with difficulty, I didn't have anyone and I always did my work by myself, I love to work. He was so loving, he would wash the toilets and sweep the cigarette butts without it being his duty"

The inmate continues to say: "He would hold your hand as if he had known you for a hundred years."

The case of Mr. Hosseini 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 one of the individuals who had been killed in the Fall 2022 Nationwide Protests sparked by the murder of Mahsa Amini while she was detained by the Morality Police under the pretext of not having respected the law of Hijab.*

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

Mr. Hosseini was arrested at his home on November 4, 2022. According to an unknown source, “more than 12 agents went to arrest him; they beat him severely, insulted him, made threats against him and told him that they would take care of him with [his own] swords”. (Radio Farda).

In the videos and pictures of Mr. Hosseini disseminated on Iranian media inside the country, his hands were tied from behind, and before him were a number of swords, knives, and other cold weapons, which, according to him, were used in connection with martial arts and their instruction. (IRIB report). “The [Bassij member’s] killers were identified in less than 48 hours, and were arrested by the Imam Zaman (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).

Mr. Hosseini 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 was transferred to the public ward at Karaj Central Penitentiary after the trial. (HRANA, December 12, 2022). In the course of 65 days of detention, he only had one visitation, and that was with the defense attorney he had retained. There is no information regarding his access to his court-appointed attorney.

Trial

On Wednesday, November 30, 2022, the Alborz Province Islamic Revolutionary Court, Branch One, began the adjudication of Mr. Hosseini’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. In the final court session, another defendant who had previously been transferred to the Karaj Central Penitentiary was 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. Hosseini had a court-appointed attorney at trial, who was also representing two other defendants. The second and final trial sessions were conducted on December 1, and 3, 2022. The defense attorney that Mr. Hosseini had selected and retained himself was only able to represent him at the time the case was under review by the Supreme Court.

Charges

According to the Karaj County Islamic Revolutionary Court, Branch One, the charges against Mr. Hosseini was stated to be “Moharebeh (“waging war against Allah”) and Efsad fel-Arz (“spreading corruption on Earth”), assisting a detainee to flee by people other than law enforcement, participation in the intentional murder of a Moslem, propaganda against the regime of the Islamic Republic through chanting slogans, and assembly and conspiracy to commit crimes against national/external security”. (Mr. Hosseini’s attorney, January 4, 2023).

In the indictment issued against Mr. Hosseini, the Prosecutor stated the charge as “Efsad fel-Arz (“spreading corruption on Earth”) manifested by the commission of crimes against national security, attacking police and Bassij members, assembly and conspiracy against national security”. Initially there was no mention of the crime of murder. (IRNA, November 30, 2022).

According to information obtained from official sources, on November 3, 2022, a number of “rioters” proceeded to close down the Karaj – Qazvin Freeway by creating unrest around Behesht-e Sakineh Cemetery and Karaj’s Kamal Shahr district on the occasion og the Fortieth Day of Passing of one of the “rioters”, and engaged in the destruction of public and private property as well as the beating of law enforcement personnel. A member of the Bassij was killed that day.

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

Evidence of guilt

The evidence against Mr. Hosseini was stated to have been “his confessions; Defendant Number 1’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.”

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

Short segments of the trial and Mr. Hosseini’s defense and that of the other defendants were broadcast on Iranian media. Mr. Hosseini stated in his own defense at trial that he had not gone to the site of the incident to participate in the protests, and denied the charges brought against him in the indictment. He stated: “I do not accept some of the charges brought against me. I noticed that there was heavy traffic in the vicinity of Behesht-e Sakineh (Cemetery); my intention was to visit my parents’ grave site. The knife I was carrying was for digging around their graves and planting flowers. I noticed there was a lot of noise on the other side of Behesht-e Sakineh, and I asked why they had shut down the entrance to that part. The agents came to us. I threw two stones at them as I was running away.” Mr. Hosseini admitted in court to stabbing the Bassij member: “I was among the last people who came over to Shahid (“Martyr”) Ajaman; some people were insulting him, some were kicking him.” He added: “I pushed my knife against Sahid Ajaman’s body as much as two digits of a finger, and the third time, I inserted it a little into his body.” He continued: “The entire time I was at the scene was less than 10 seconds. There was a woman there, five men, one of whom was holding a knife and was insulting the Shahid; I left the scene after witnessing this and did not stay there.” (Mizan News Agency, November 30, 2022). According to a source with knowledge of the case, Mr. Hosseini had gone to his parents’ grave site as he did every Thursday night. (HRANA, December 12, 2022).

On the day of the reconstruction of the scene of the crime, the Islamic Republic state television broadcast a report where Mr. Hosseini explained: “I went closer and I noticed a young man was on the ground. I ran away because I have [mental issues]; I left.”

Mr. Hosseini practiced martial arts, including Kung Fu and Wushu, and made use of swords and other cold weapons in these sports. At trial, in his response to the judge, who considered these instruments as evidence of the crime, Mr. Hosseini explained: “As I said, I teach sports, I’m a sports instructor.” “With knives?” the judge asked. “Please, if you will permit me: I’m a sports instructor,” Mr. Hosseini continued, “and they were inside the classroom for training purposes, Sir.” (Mizan News Agency, January 7, 2023). Mr. Hosseini had provided the same response to the IRIB reporter on the day of the reconstruction of the scene.

Mr. Hosseini was interrogated without access to an attorney, and his confession in detention was obtained by force under torture. The defense attorney he had retained and who had met with him for the first time on December 19, 2022, that is, two weeks after the last trial session, informed the public of Mr. Hosseini’s statements regarding his torture: “I met with Seyed Mohammad Hosseini in the Karaj Prison. His account was nothing but tears. He told me of torture, beatings while blindfolded, handcuffed, and shackled, kicks to the head and loss of consciousness, [beatings] to the sole of his feet with iron bars, electric shockers to various parts of the body. This was a man whose admissions and confessions were obtained under torture and have absolutely no legal validity whatsoever.” (HRANA, January 7, 2023).

Mr. Hosseini who had no criminal record, was deprived of his right to a legitimate and legal defense. Furthermore, according to available information, his court-appointed lawyer did not even defend him at trial and simply asked the court for forgiveness.

According to a source with knowledge of the case, “according to the charges enumerated in court by the Prosecutor’s representative against the defendants, the charges brought against individuals that were ultimately sentenced to death by Judge Assef-al-Hosseini, were in some instances lighter than other defendants in the case. Most of those sentenced to death in this case, even if we take into consideration the Prosecutor’s representative’s statements, did not have any effective participation in the death of Ruhollah Ajamian. The death sentences were issued without a close and in-depth examination of the case, without a proper legal basis, and solely for the purpose of [scapegoating and] sacrificing a group of individuals.” (HRANA, December 12, 2022).

Mr. Sharifzadeh Ardakani, Mr. Hosseini’s chosen attorney, had previously reported that the Karaj Islamic Revolutionary Court, Branch one, had not authorized him to draft a retainer agreement [to represent his client and] to have access to and read his case file, in contravention of the Law on the Rules of Criminal Procedure. He was only able to take on the case and meet with his client after the court’s ruling had been issued and confirmed by the Supreme Court.

A Summary of the Legal Defects in the Adjudication of Mr. Seyed Mohammad Hosseini’s Case

In this case, Mr. Seyed Mohammad Hosseini 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. Seyed Mohammad Hosseini 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. Hosseini 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. Hosseini, 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. Seyed Mohammad Hosseini 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. Hosseini. 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 Mr. Hosseini’s friends, as well as his attorney (who entered the case at the appellate stage before the Supreme Court) and other persons with knowledge of the case, Mr. Hosseini 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. Hosseini’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, Mr. Hosseini’s chosen attorney submitted its request for a new trial once the court’s ruling had become final by the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court, however, did not order a stay of implementation of the sentence, contrary to the requirements of the law. Pursuant to the Note to Article 478 of the Law on the Rules of Criminal Procedure, “In the event that the punishment stated in the court ruling is of the kind that takes away life, or consists of other types of physical punishments or the destruction of a building structure, the Supreme Court Branch that receives the request for a new trial, shall order a stay of implementation of the ruling prior to making a decision about said request for a new trial”.

According to available information, the killing of Ruhollah Ajamian occurred on November 3, 2022, and Mr. Hosseini’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. Hosseini’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. Seyed Mohammad (Kian) Hosseini and five other individuals to death on the charge of Efsad fel-Arz (“Spreading corruption on Earth”). On Tuesday, January 3, 2023, Mr. Hosseini and Mr. Mohammad Mehdi Karami’s death sentences were upheld by Supreme Court Branch 39, citing Article 469(a) of the Law on the Rules of Criminal Procedure. According to the attorney for Mr. Karami (one of the other defendants in the case) [also sentenced to death], the Supreme Court was aware that Mr. Hosseini and Mr. Karami had been denied their right to retain an attorney of their own choosing. At the same time, that same Supreme Court Branch overturned the sentences in the case of 14 other individuals and remanded their case for a new trial at the lower court.

On January 4, the day after the sentence was upheld, Mr. Hosseini’s chosen attorney registered his request for a de novo trial, and said request was referred to Branch Nine: “Hard as I tried, I was not able to obtain, and they did not agree, to a stay of execution and told me to come back on Saturday (the first day of the work week in Iran). This morning, I was on my way to the Supreme Court when I unfortunately heard the news of my client’s execution. You could have at least let the case be heard one time; why all the rush?” (Twitter page of Ali Sharifzadeh Ardakani, Mr. Hosseini’s chosen attorney, January 7, 2023).

Mr. Hosseini and one other individual were 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. He was buried in Karaj, Eshtehard, Behesht-e Ali Cemetery, Parcel 1, Row 60, Grave Number 105.

Mr. Ali Sharifzadeh Ardakani, Mr. Hosseini’s chosen attorney, was summoned to the Karaj Prosecutor’s Office in February of that year, charged with “propaganda against the [Islamic] regime”, and released temporarily after posting bail. He stated in this regard: “In addition to a bail order, the judge issued a judicial supervision order in his case ensuring a ban on his Twitter and Instagram activities for one year.” (Mr. Ali Sharifzadeh Ardakani).

One of the inmates remembers that when Mr. Hosseini was washing the toilet on January 06, the inmate asked him if he was scared and he said: “Not really, I do not have anything to lose. All I have is the deposit with my landlord.” He had already asked the landlord to give that money to his friend who was like a family. He said: “If they hanged me, don’t let people forget about me. And please do not do anything for us to put yourself in jeopardy, don’t go on strike, or they would harm you. Keep going [continue the protest] and take care of each other!” 

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

*On November 3, 2022, on the occasion of the Fortieth Day of Passing of Ms. Hadiss Najafi, one of the individuals killed during the recent protests, a very large crowd of people proceeded to walk on foot toward Karaj and the Behest-e Sakineh Cemetery, Ms. Hadiss Najafi’s resting place located in Karaj’s Kamal Shahr district, the Police Force having blocked the Freeway. According to social media users, a very large number of people participated in the services, and the entrances to Behesht-e Sakineh, Hadiss Najafi’s burial site, had been blocked by law enforcement personnel. Fierce altercations broke out between the people and law enforcement officers when the latter started firing tear gas and live ammunition on the protesters.

Correct/ Complete This Entry ❯