Alburz.Org - News & Views on Iran.

Islamic Republic of Iran Crimes

. WANTED List

Donation

. Latest

Indicting Rafsanjani

Page 5

C. Right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment

102. It has been reported that the prohibition of all forms of torture for the purpose of extracting confessions or acquiring information contained in article 38 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to be flouted.

 

103. In the letter dated 24 November 1992, the Government replied that "The Islamic Republic of Iran has taken decisive measures to prevent the arbitrary behaviour of judicial personnel, and denies the above-mentioned and basically irresponsible accusations".

 

104. Common methods of physical torture reportedly include suspension for long periods in contorted positions, burning with cigarettes and, most frequently, severe and repeated beating with cables or other instruments on the back and the soles of the feet. Beatings can last for hours at a time, with guards taking turns inflicting lashes. It was reported that sometimes a blanket or cloth is stuffed into the victim's mouth to stop him or her from screaming and making it hard to breathe properly. Usually the victims are blindfolded and strapped to a kind of bedstead, or held down by guards sitting on their backs. Some prisoners were unable to walk at all when the beating ended, and had to drag themselves back to their cells along the floor. Some still bear scars on their feet years after the beatings took place. Prisoners have described how their legs would swell and their clothing would be stained with blood from the feet to the thighs as a result of beatings. Beatings on the back have often resulted in serious kidney problems.

 

105. It was said that for political prisoners stress and uncertainty were constant pressures. Prisoners have been kept blindfolded for hours or days at a time, so that they became disoriented and insecure. Torture and arbitrary punishment could reportedly occur at any time, without warning. Prisoners were usually tortured immediately following their arrest, but could be subjected to torture at any time during their imprisonment, both before and after trial.

 

106. It has been reported that torture and other forms of physical or psychological ill-treatment were applied not only to obtain information but also to extract statements; sometimes the torture was recorded on film. Other arbitrary punishments include being kicked or punched, made to stand without moving for hours or days at a time, cancellation of family visits or reduced food.

 

107. On 24 November 1992, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran stated, with regard to the three preceding paragraphs, that:

 

"The laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran do not permit such inhumane behaviour towards prisoners and detainees, and the monitoring system of inspection and control would detect any illegal behaviour and punish the delinquents in accordance with the law. Examples of disciplinary punishments meted out by the executive organs of the judicial branch were duly reported to the Special Representative on his third trip to Tehran, and there is a list of such information annexed to document E/CN.4/1992/34 of 1992. In addition, at the session of the high court of law for discipline of attorneys, which took place on 9 November 1992 in the presence of the members of the court of law, the Chief of the judicial branch, the Chief of the State Supreme Court, the Chief of the first branch of the disciplinary court of attorneys and disciplinary prosecution of attorneys, the cases of two delinquent attorneys were investigated and after due discussions and consultations, a verdict for the permanent suspension of their law practice was issued".

 

108. The specific cases described below were reported to the Special Representative.

 

109. The torture of Mr. Khalil Akhlaghi while in detention in the prison of Shiraz was reported. He was born in 1939 at Ghenaveh, Bushehr Province, son of Gholamali and former employee of the Iranian Electronic Industry. He was arrested in November 1989 and held for 14 months in solitary confinement during which he was allegedly submitted to physical and psychological torture. He was reportedly beaten frequently with electric wires on the soles of his feet to the degree that he began to find it extremely difficult to sleep and even to walk properly without experiencing pain. Because of blows to his face and head, he has also lost all hearing in his right ear. As a result of these tortures, he allegedly agreed to copy prewritten documents with his own hand and sign them. This was called by the authorities a "confession of spy activities".

 

110. It was also reported that Mr. Akhlaghi was arrested and tried by virtue of the accusations made against him by Mr. Bahram Dehghani, son of Zin-Al-Abedien, also charged with spying. However, Mr. Dehghani, in a document written and signed by him in 1990 and submitted to the Islamic Revolutionary Court of Shiraz, stated before God that he, Mr. Akhlaghi and other persons were totally and completely innocent of all charges. He added that he had made the accusations under physical and psychological torture inflicted during his interrogation.

 

111. By its letter dated 24 November 1992, the Iranian Government stated that:

 

"The claims regarding Mr. Khalil Akhlaghi were investigated by a special delegation assigned by the chief of the prisons organization, and no sign of misconduct was observed. During his detention period, Mr. Khalil Akhlaghi, was given leaves of absence several times and regularly enjoyed long visits with his family".

 

112. Also reported was the torture while in detention in Evin prison of Mr. Mohammad Rahim Bakhtiari, a football player arrested in September 1991. The reasons for his detention are not known.

 

113. Further reported was the torture while in detention in the Security and Information Office of Agahi neighbourhood, Tehran, and in Evin prison, of Mr. Hossein Dashtgerd, a soccer referee arrested in September 1991. The reasons for his detention are also not known.

 

114. Reported was the psychological torture while in detention in Masjed Soleiman prison of Mr. Jahanbakhsh Khosravian Cham Piri (prison identity card No. 524). He was arrested, on his return to Iran from India, on charges of drug addiction. Prison authorities allegedly said to his family that he had become mad as a result of his addiction to drugs. He categorically denied being an addict and stated that this accusation had ruined his reputation and his chances for employment in the future.

 

115. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, with regard to the three preceding paragraphs, replied that "no records have been found regarding Mohammad Rahim Bakhtiari, Hossein Dashtgerd and Khosravian Champiri".

 

116. No measures are known to have been taken during 1992 to establish legal or procedural safeguards against prisoners being tortured.

 

117. In its reply, the Government stated that "as mentioned earlier the constant control and inspection for the correct implementation of the regulations of laws, prevention of torture, and misconduct of prisoners have been enforced in recent years".

 

118. Although the Iranian press has apparently ceased to report the infliction of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments such as amputation, it has reported some cases of flogging.

 

119. According to a dispatch from Reuters of 10 June 1992, an unspecified number of people were sentenced to be flogged by the Islamic Revolutionary Court of Mashhad for their part in the May riots in that city.

 

120. Subsequent to his interim report to the General Assembly, the Special Representative transmitted to the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations Office at Geneva, by letter dated 23 December 1992, the following allegations.

 

121. The Iranian newspaper Abrar reported, on 5 November 1992, that on 3 November 1992 five people were condemned to finger amputations on charges of stealing. Their names were given as follows: Mr. Ali Nazeri, aged 36; Mr. Farshid Qanbari, aged 22; Mr. Qorban Ali, aged 36; Mr. Mohammad Ali Shushtari, aged 25; and Mr. Mehdi Isma'ili. The verdicts were carried out in front of the offices of the Ministry of Justice in the city of Sari, Mazandaran Province, in the presence of judges, employees and more than 200 people.

 

122. On 8 September 1992, two brothers named Hossein and Farbuel, respectively, were reported to have been subjected to a flogging in public in the city of Tabriz.

 

123. According to the newspaper Salam of 5 August 1992, "Several days ago a group of unidentified motorcycle riders splashed paint on the faces of some sisters in Vanak square and fled in an ugly act". The newspaper added that "Authorities should take measures to stop such acts because they are sometimes attributed to pious Basijis", referring to members of the Bassij resistance forces under command of the Revolutionary Guards Corps. The report in Salam followed repeated charges of maltreatment of women whose Islamic covering was not right. Iran's Islamic laws require women to wear loose, cover-all garments and show no more than their face and hands in public. Offenders are punishable by up to 74 lashes and may be jailed or fined.

 

124. According to the Iranian newspaper Jahan-e Islam of 10 October 1992, the Commander of the Security Forces of Kermanshah Province reported that 248 persons were arrested and sentenced to 30 to 90 lashes during September 1992 in Kermanshah Province, on charges of illegitimate relationships, harassment, and drinking alcohol. A number of those arrested were also given prison terms.

 

D. Administration of justice

125. It has been reported that common and political trials in the Islamic Republic of Iran continue to fall far short of internationally accepted standards for fair trials. In particular, trials in Revolutionary Court are almost always held in secret, inside prisons; proceedings are summary, with no possibility for the detainee's family or even for defence counsel to attend.

 

126. It has been reported that the law guaranteeing all defendants the right to appoint an attorney does not in fact provide for qualified legal counsel and does not safeguard the right to legal representation provided for in article 35 of the Iranian Constitution and article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the grounds that any Muslim is eligible to represent the accused in court. The bill approved by the Assembly for Determination of Exigencies of the State refers only to an attorney (Vakil), who apparently need not be a legally qualified professional, and not to an attorney-at-law (Vakil-e-Dadgostari), a qualified lawyer. Such a person would not, according to article 14 (d) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and international standards, be considered competent to assist a defendant in preparing the defence or to inform the defendant of his or her legal rights.

 

127. Furthermore, it was said that no mention is made of the defendant's right to have a lawyer assigned to him/her if he/she is unable to appoint one, and no provision appears to have been made guaranteeing the defendant the right to apply to the Supreme Court if his/her right to have access to legal counsel and to be represented in court by a lawyer is not respected.

 

128. It was also said that the new bill, in its present form, fails to guarantee the defendant's right to legal counsel in accordance with article 35 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran (which provides that both parties to a lawsuit have the right in all courts of law to select an attorney and that, if they are unable to do so, arrangements must be made to provide them with legal counsel), and with Precedent No. 71/62, Decision No. 15, established in 1984 by the General Board of the Supreme Court of Iran. This precedent stated:

 

"Involvement of the counsel briefed by the Government, in case the accused may not have personally named an attorney, is essential in cases where the main punishments of that crime could be the death sentence or life imprisonment. ... This precedent shall be binding on all benches of the Supreme Court and other courts in similar cases in accordance with the Single Article of the Law on Judicial Precedent ratified in 1949".

 

It was further said that the new law guaranteeing the defendant's right to appoint an attorney, legally now in operation, has not been applied in practice. It was also said that this law was not retroactive and consequently no sentences handed down before the law came into force, albeit in the absence of defence counsel, were declared null and void.

 

129. By the letter dated 24 November 1992, the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations stated the following:

 

"According to the laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran, there are no limitations regarding the right to an attorney by the accused. This means that the accused has the right to choose any person whether or not he is an attorney or not, and the court officially recognizes this right of the accused. Thus using the mere word 'attorney' (as approved by the National Council of Urgency) does not create any legal limitation in this regard. Many examples of the participation of attorneys in court speak the truth of this assertion. Thus, the credibility of the aforementioned is completely denied. As previously stated the accused has total freedom of choice in acquiring an attorney, and in the event of the financial inability of the accused, the court has the duty to provide a court appointed attorney. Based on the reiteration of the Chief of Judicial Power and the Chief of Prosecution of the Revolution no verdict can be issued and no trial can be held, without the accused exercising his right to choose an attorney. The lack of this measure leads to nullification of the issued verdict, and the violators shall be judged under the prosecution of the disciplinary prosecutor's office".

 

130. It has been reported that the continued absence of an independent association of lawyers in the Islamic Republic of Iran undermines the principle that lawyers must be allowed to carry out their professional duties without fear of intimidation and pressure from authorities. The election of members of the Bar Council, which had been scheduled to take place on 9 October 1991 was postponed indefinitely. On 8 October 1991, an act on the reform of the Iranian Lawyers' Association was passed, empowering a "Reform Council" to dismiss certain lawyers from the legal profession before any election could be held. The members of the "Reform Council", appointed by the Head of the Judiciary, must dismiss lawyers who had served in certain government posts before the establishment of the Islamic Republic; individuals "who have participated in rebellions against the Islamic Republic or have acted effectively in support of unlawful groups"; and "members of pernicious sects or organizations whose aims are based on the denial of sacred religions". It was also reported that the current President of the Bar Association was appointed by the Ministry of Justice in 1982.

 

131. On this allegation, the Government stated the following:

 

"'The Committee of Attorneys' is active according to law, and the legal conditions of membership in this committee have been determined by law, according to the Islamic Assembly Council. Clearly, a good reputation and the lack of any past misconduct, are logical and understandable requirements for the election of the attorneys; thus, the claims and allegations of the Special Representative in most of aforementioned cases are unrealistic and the result of incorrect preconceptions".

 

132. It was further reported that other basic safeguards for a fair trial, such as the right of prisoners to be tried without undue delay, to bring witnesses on their behalf and the presumption of innocence, are still lacking.

 

133. By its letter dated 24 November 1992, the Government stated the following:

 

"The serious effort of the judicial power is based upon the fact that the entire legal procedure, from the initial arrest of the accused up to the issuance of the verdict and its implementation, should be observed, and existing laws provide for the legal rights of the prisoner, including the rights of trial without delay and the calling of witnesses. The judicial body, upon being informed of any violation, shall place the matter under investigation. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, disciplinary forces, which based on the permission of the judicial authorities, have the right to arrest suspicious persons or those guilty of committing crimes, must deliver the criminal after 24 hours to the judicial authorities according to procedure; the judicial authorities additionally are mandated to complete and expedite the case, and for the issuance of a judicial verdict, must submit the latter to superior committees. Sometimes, due to protests from the accused, investigations regarding the crimes, the depositions of witnesses, or often due to the accused's request, the process of handling a criminal case may be prolonged; however, despite that, the State Supreme Court will try to reduce the time to a minimum, by following up existing cases in courts".

 

134. It was alleged that political prisoners have no way of being sure how long they will remain in prison. Those who are tried may not be informed of their sentence for weeks or even months. The sentence itself begins only on the day of the judgement; lengthy periods of pre-trial detention are not subtracted from the prison term. Even when the sentence expires, prisoners may not be released unless they have "repented".

 

135. The reply by the Government of 24 November 1992 stated that:

 

"As previously mentioned, any actions toward arrested persons and convicts is conducted according to law, and the courts, according to the criteria and by-laws of their respective branches, will determine the amount of bail, deposit and parole. Additionally, prior to the issuance of any verdict of imprisonment, the court shall state the period of stay in detention in the final verdict and calculate any factor in the previous period of time served in detention".

 

136. It has been said that prisoners' attempts to organize group activities have led to harsh punishment. This allegedly has applied not only to actions such as protests against prison conditions, but even to organizing a study group or physical exercise.

 

137. It has been alleged that many prisoners are still held in prison years after the expiry of their prison sentences and that their release appears conditional on their agreeing to sign a statement of repentance. Some political prisoners have been released only after agreeing to give videotaped interviews, sometimes lasting several hours, in which they confess at length to their alleged wrongdoings, denounce their political organization and pledge support for the Islamic Republic. These interviews may then be shown on television.

 

138. On 24 November 1992, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran replied that:

 

"No prisoner is held except under the provisions of the court's verdict, and in the case of any deviation, the issue will be placed under investigation. In accordance with the law, the accused must be treated by the authorities of the courts and prisons in a humanitarian manner, and no one is permitted to impose action such as repentance or record a videotaped interview under pressure".

 

139. In other cases political prisoners are required to sign statements condemning their organizations and pledging that they will not take part in political activities in the future. It was further said that they are obliged to pledge property and have a relative stand as guarantor for them. Should the released prisoner not return to prison when summoned, the guarantor may be called in his or her place as a substitute prisoner. Prisoners may also be required to sign statements that they will not speak to anyone about their experiences of imprisonment.

 

140. It has been reported that prisoners on leave must register at designated Islamic Revolutionary Committees and must also keep in contact with the prison authorities. Such leave may be either for a specific period of days, weeks or months, or may be indefinite. However, even if the leave is for an unspecified period, there is no doubt that their files remain open at the prison and that they are still considered prisoners and may be recalled to the prison at any time for interrogation or to complete their prison terms.

 

141. The Special Representative has received reports of the arrest of hundreds of persons following demonstrations and riots in several Iranian cities.

 

142. It was reported that at least 30 persons were arrested in Kahrizak district, Kermanshah, on 1 March 1992. On 2 March 1992, at least 10 persons were arrested following demonstrations at Khajeh Nassir University in Tehran. During a house-to-house search at Jaafarabad, Kermanshah, on 4 March 1992, 89 persons were arrested. On 11 March 1992, 90 persons were arrested at Ramhormoz and 28 persons were arrested in Mahshahr. On 4 April 1992, several persons were arrested during demonstrations at Tabriz, East Azerbaijan Province, and during violent incidents at Takab, Azerbaijan. On 5 April 1992, 46 persons were arrested at Mashhad. On 14 April 1992, 100 persons were arrested at Dargaz, Lorestan Province.

 

143. In its reply of 24 November 1992, the Government stated that:

 

"The claims contained in the two preceding paragraphs are baseless and even in some cases contain imaginary names of cities. However, as it was mentioned before, safeguarding the public order and security is the task of the disciplinary forces; thus, in some indicated cities, the officers were rightfully obligated to arrest the rioting elements. The dimensions of the said claim in the above paragraph have been enlarged, and the scope of operation of the disciplinary forces and the number of the cases of riots are of far less magnitude than indicated".

 

144. According to a dispatch from Reuters of 11 June 1992, on 15 April 1992 there took place riots at Shiraz, Fars Province, during which two petrol stations, a police station and 15 vehicles were set on fire or destroyed. Other sources reported that at least 60 persons were arrested following those riots. During April 1992, incidents and demonstrations also took place at Khorramabad, Lorestan Province, and Chahar-Mahal, Bakhtiari Province.

 

145. The Government replied on 24 November 1992 that:

 

"The scope of the riots which took place in the city of Shiraz on the above-mentioned date, and the manner in which it was claimed, have been grossly exaggerated.

 

"Nevertheless, as the Special Representative has pointed out, the acts of hooligans, including attacks on police stations, setting fire to vehicles and two petrol stations, consequently led to the appropriate response of disciplinary forces to maintain order and security. In regard to the event which took place in Khorramabad, the incident was related to a gathering of a group of supporters of a selected candidate of that constituency, following the announcement of the results of the elections to the Islamic Assembly Council which had a local scope, and lacked any kind of opposition to the rule of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The reports of Reuters and other news sources are denied in this regard".

 

146. On 9 May 1992, at least 165 persons were arrested at Ahar. On 10 May 1992, 61 persons were arrested at Kharameh, a town near Shiraz. These incidents were reportedly followed by 260 arrests after violent demonstrations at Arak, Central Province, during which some government buildings and banks were burned and several vehicles were destroyed.

 

147. On this allegation, the Government stated, on 24 November 1992, that:

 

"The claims regarding the arrest of 165 persons in the city of Ahar are denied. Additionally, in respect to the events in Kharameh, some locals resorted to the destruction and damage of shops and business places of some of their opponents. The disciplinary forces, due to personal claimants and complainant, and to prevent the expansion of the disputes and to maintain public order and security, arrested the persons responsible in order to render them to the appropriate judicial authorities".

 

148. The demonstrations on 20 and 21 May 1992 at Shustar provoked the declaration of a state of siege in that city, followed by a large number of detentions. On 30 May 1992, a series of protests took place at Mashhad, Khorasan Province, apparently sparked off by incidents such as attempts by municipal authorities to destroy illegally constructed dwellings and forcibly evict their inhabitants. During the rioting at Mashhad more than 100 government buildings, banks and stores were burned or wrecked, according to a Reuters dispatch of 10 June 1992. The Special Representative received reports that the authorities officially had announced that 300 persons were arrested following the riots. Other sources reported, however, that the real number of detainees was several times higher. On 10 June 1992, 130 persons were reportedly arrested at Bukan.

 

149. The Government in its reply, of 24 November 1992 stated that:

 

"There was a gathering of one of the candidate's supporters (in relation to the fourth terms of the election of the Islamic Consultative Assembly at the city of Shoushtar), but there were no arrests, and the situation in the city returned to normal. The received reports, and the report of Reuters, are denied".

 

150. The Head of Judiciary, Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi, was quoted by Reuters on 1 June 1992 as saying that a number of experienced judges had been assigned special briefs to deal with the perpetrators of the Mashhad disturbances. Some officials described those arrested as "corrupt on earth" and "insurgents". The Khorasan provincial governor, Ali Jannati, was reported to have said that the interrogation of more than 300 detained people indicated the involvement of "foreigners and agents of arrogance".