Following a meeting with Ayatollah Nouri Hamedani in Qom on Monday, Tehran’s Prosecutor Abbas Jafari Dowlatabadi said that the verdicts of six Ashura suspects have been issued and the sentences are under appeal. Earlier, the Prosecutor’s Office had announced that it had requested death sentences for eleven individuals arrested on Ashura. Tehran Prosecutor has also said that the Judiciary has only tried members of “anti-revolutionary groups and organizations,” and has released individuals “remorseful” about their actions. No details were published of such relations.

The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran asks the Iranian Judiciary authorities to provide conditions for a fair trial, such as free access to a selected attorney for individuals such as Abdolreza Ghanbari, and to refrain from rushing to execution suspects whose charges have no reasonable relation to their sentences. Considering the irreversibility of death sentences, and serious speculation about the political nature of many of the sentences issued after the 12 June 2009 elections, the Iranian Judiciary’s enthusiasm for issuing moharebeh and death sentences is a grave threat to human rights.

Two Iranian political prisoners named Arash Rahmanipour and Mohammad Reza Alizamani were executed on 28 January 2010 without their lawyers’ or their families’ knowledge about the execution time, deeply wounding public confidence.

Ashura, which is the holiest religious day in Iran, turned into one of the bloodiest days of the year on 27 December 2009; at least seven protesters were killed and hundreds were arrested. Abbas Jafari Dolatabadi has also said that 250 people detained during Ashura protests have been issued indictments and many of them have already been tried.

Alireza Ghanbari is 42 years old and is from the poverty-stricken area of Ghiamdasht in Varamin. Ghanbari is a teacher and it is said that his only “crime” has been to participate in the public protests of Ashura and chanting slogans against Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader. After his arrest on Ashura, he was detained at the “2-A” Security Ward, related to IRGC’s Intelligence unit.

He was tried on 30 January 2010 without his family’s knowledge and without the right to select an attorney or to meet with his family. In his trial court, presided by Judge Salavati, he admitted to participating in the Ashura protests and other matters. A person who follows Ghanbari’s case closely told the Campaign that Ghanbari’s confessions have been extracted under pressure and torture. He has been denied the right to an attorney and has recently been transferred to Evin Prison’s General Ward.

Like the other cases the Tehran Prosecutor referenced, Ghanbari’s case is currently in the appeal stage. Since the names of those sentenced to death have not been announced, Ghanbari’s lack of possibility to choose his own attorney and his family’s lack of knowledge about the details of his case increase serious concern about his execution and that of others arrested after the elections.

Saleh Nikbakht, Nabavi’s lawyer, has told ILNA News agency about Nabavi’s health: “Considering that Behzad Nabavi’s heart disease and kidney and spine conditions have not improved, in order to be able to do a follow up on his own treatment, he will leave the prison on a 15-day health related furlough during the Persian New Year holidays so that he can confer with his doctors who have expressed different opinions about his treatment, hoping that he can select the best option.”

Referring to Nabavi’s various treatment furloughs during this time period, Nikbakht said: “Even though Nabavi has been given a short one or two-day leave for treatment, so far his diseases have not been treated successfully, so in the upcoming week, to continue his treatment, he will take a furlough leave.

Nabavi was sentenced by Branch 15 of the Revolutionary Courts to six years’ imprisonment, but in Branch 654 of the Appeals Court, the charges of propaganda against the regime were dropped and he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for participating in 15 June 2009 demonstrations.

The attack on Karroubi's home and spraying its walls with red paint happens only a few weeks after his son Ali Karroubi was arrested during the February 11, 2009 gatherings to commemorate Islamic Revolution.

The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran expresses its deep concern about an attack on the home of Mehdi Karroubi, which is a clear sign of the spread of violence and hate by plainclothes forces who, unfortunately, enjoy the support of security and police structures. Spraying red paint on former Parliament Speaker Mehdi Karroubi’s home is a direct and hateful threat containing the message that if his activities continue, his or his family’s blood will be shed.

Seyed Mehdi Karroubi is the third person to suffer such attacks on his home, after similar events took place on the residences of another presidential candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Shirin Ebadi.

In similar actions, plainclothes forces wrote slogans and threats on Shirin Ebadi’s residence walls, calling her a mercenary of western countries. Ebadi also reported phone calls threatening her or her family’s lives. Telephone threats on Ebadi’s life increased to the point where official authorities asked her to use bodyguards. Even so, Iranian security organizations never took any steps to find those who posed the threats.

Previously, during a visit to the city of Qazvin, plainclothes forces shot bullets at Mehdi Karroubi’s car. Considering that the shots were fired in the presence of IRGC members, it seems that they supported the act. According to someone close to Mehdi Karroubi who talked to the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran about that incident, if Karroubi’s car had not been bulletproof, the bullets could have cost him his life.

One of the placards the radical group gathered outside Karroubi’s home were carrying said “People’s Headquarters for the Punishment of Sedition Leaders.” The term “sedition leaders” was previously used by some individuals holding very high positions inside the Islamic Republic of Iran, such as Ayatollah Jannati, member of Iran’s Guardian Council and several IRGC military commanders. Use of such terms strengthens speculations that the vigilante forces may enjoy coordination with the IRGC.

On another placard, Karroubi is named “a tool in the hand of Mossad,” Israel’s intelligence organization. According to eyewitnesses, the vigilante group who vandalized the walls of Karroubi’s residence have done so in coordination with the police, as police forces were present from the very first moments of the gathering outside Karroubi’s home.

Using symbols as a means for threatening Karroubi is also reminiscent of the murder of Mir Hossein Mousavi’s nephew during the Ashura gatherings. No suspects have been identified by Iranian security organizations in that murder case, but Iranian affairs analysts believe that his murder was a direct message to Mousavi to forgo continuation of his activities.

The attack on Karroubi’s home and spraying its walls with red paint happens only a few weeks after his son Ali Karroubi was arrested during 11 February 2009 gatherings to commemorate the Islamic Revolution. Ali Karroubi was arrested and transferred to a mosque where he was put under physical torture. The violence unleashed on Ali Karroubi caused his mother, Fatemeh Karroubi, to write a letter to Seyed Ali Khamanei, Iran’s Supreme Leader. In her letter Mrs. Karroubi pointed out that the men who attacked her son had threatened him with rape. Reacting to reports of Ali Karroubi’s torture and just as photographs of torture marks on Ali Karroubi’s body were released, Tehran’s Prosecutor announced that he would have to prove that he had been tortured. This clearly shows that not only there is no will for confronting the wrongdoers, and that such individuals enjoy strong support from high ranking Iranian Judiciary and political officials.

The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran also demands that Iranian government cease official propagation of violence and support of aggressors, and to instead introduce the 15 June 2009 perpetrators of violence on Tehran University dormitories. Additionally, the Campaign asks the Iranian government to take necessary action to identify the real responsible individuals in the Kahrizak Detention Center tragedy, ensuring pursuit of those who were directly involved in the torture of prisoners or those upon whose orders the heinous actions at the detention center were carried out.

A journalist who has requested anonymity told the Campaign that there was a rumor about the closure of 17 publications, leading to concern among newspaper managers and editors. It is not clear how many publications will be closed down but some Ministry of Guidance employees have said that letters about the closures have been signed by Ramin, but it’s not clear when the announcements will be made.

The sources said that Ministry of Culture authorities are attempting to minimize the political costs of the closures by timing the announcements to take advantage of the country’s two-week holidays. Heads of some publications whose closure news have leaked have appeared in the hallways of Ministry of Guidance to negotiate with Ministry authorities before the closure announcements are made in an attempt to prevent the decision. The media activist told the Campaign that due to the high political costs such actions might result in — including loss of jobs for many press employees just before the New Year — the closures may be delayed until after the holidays.

During the past few weeks, Etemad Newspaper and Irandokht weekly were suspended and negotiations by the heads of the two publications with Ministry of Guidance authorities were not fruitful. A journalist who worked with Etemad Newspaper told the Campaign that the publication’s closure was made on political grounds and was not related to any particular content. Previously, Ministry of Guidance and Ministry of Information authorities had explicitly asked some publications to avoid writing articles which could provide excuses for “enemies of the state.” Over the past four years, authorities from the Prosecutor’s Office, Ministry of Intelligence, and Ministry of Guidance have issued several written or telephone warnings to independent publications about their coverage of certain events and news, or avoiding coverage on certain other events.

Alireza Falahati was transferred to an unknown location on the night of 17 February 2010, when his home was raided by security forces who arrested him. Security authorities have thus far not announced the reason for Falahati’s arrest.

According to a student activist who has provided this information to the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, Maleki’s and Mahmoudian’s arrests by security forces come on the heels of heavy sentences for other Babol University students. Mohsen Barzegar and Iman Sadeghi of Babol Noshirvani Industrial University have each received a 10-month prison term and one year’s deprivation of education, and Mohammad Esmaeelzadeh of Babol Payam-e Noor University has been sentenced to three months in prison.

According to this source, the Babol Ministry of Information Office first summoned these two students and upon their appearance at the Information Office, they were arrested. So far,  neither the reasons for the arrests nor the location where they are being detained are known.

It is noteworthy that Ali Akbar Soroush received a summons from the Babol Prosecutor last Wednesday. He appeared at the Babol Prosecutor’s Office at 10:00 a.m. on Saturday morning and his family has not heard from him since. Repeated attempts at contacting him by his family and friends have not produced any explanations from the authorities and the location of his detention remains unknown.

Soroush is a faculty member, has served as political adviser to the Governor during reformist cabinets, was a head of Dr. Moeen’s presidential campaign in 2006, has served as a member of the Central Council of the Participation Front in Mazandaran, has served as member of the Coalition of Mazandaran Reformists Campaign during the recent presidential elections, and is a Mir Hossein Mousavi supporter. Presently he is completing his Ph.D. dissertation abroad.

For the past several months, human rights groups and human rights experts have been urging the Council to take appropriate measures in response to the violent crackdown on human rights in the Islamic Republic. They urged a Special Session of the Council to address the issue. They urged a strong resolution that would establish a new mechanism to monitor human rights violations in Iran and help the Iranian authorities conform to international standards, which they are bound by international law to uphold.

These ideas were downsized to a proposal for a resolution that would simply mandate the Secretary General to make an additional report about Iran to the HRC under the terms of the last General Assembly Resolution, which passed in December 2009. But even this modest proposal will apparently not be tabled.

Why don’t the HRC members want an action dealing with Iran? They give several reasons:

First, delegates say such a resolution might fail, and that such a failure would be seen by Iran and its allies as a victory against human rights, which would make Iran a stronger candidate in the election for the Human Rights Council in May 2010. A lop-sided vote, with only “Western” states supporting it, would appear as the West ganging up on Iran, and might rally Asian, African, and Latin American countries to the side of Iran.

A resolution concerning human rights in Iran could theoretically have the votes to win, if all the HRC members that supported the General Assembly resolution voted for it, but it would be a very close vote.

Some delegates say that a weak resolution, even it were successful, would be a victory for Iran. Some others say the “process concerning Iran should be kept in the deliberations of the General Assembly,” and say they don’t want to jeopardize another General Assembly resolution in the fall of 2010. Delegates said they were not sure a resolution would have “added value.”

Many diplomats refer to a recent vote on Sri Lanka to justify their caution. The HRC was persuaded to hold a Special Session on Sri Lanka, but the result was a resolution supporting Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka came out on top, and Iran might likewise come out on top if a Special Session were held.

A substantial number of HRC member states would not support any resolution naming a specific country. South Korea, for example, only votes for resolutions that name North Korea. India says country-specific resolutions do not work, but only create conflict and are used for political purposes.

In the complex politics of the HRC, the powerful countries and blocks, in particular the European Union and the United States, exert a very strong influence. Numerous delegates said that without strong US support, they would not go along with any proposal for a resolution on Iran. It seems the US does not support such a resolution at this time, and it is not clear why.

Although a resolution is highly unlikely, Iran has been criticized by HRC members and by UN officials during the session so far. The Special Rapporteur on Torture noted that he had sent numerous inquiries to Iran based on complaints received, and has received no replies in return. The Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief spoke at length in her report on the problem of violating human rights, for example the right of women, in the name of religious dogmas, in what was clearly a reference to Iran and other Islamic states. Canada criticized Iran for the treatment of Baha’is.

In the discussion during the week of 15 March, more such statements will likely be made in the course of the general debate under Item Four in the HRC agenda.

Some families of political prisoners have told the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran that high bails of over $400,000 have been issued for their children while they are trying to negotiate with the judge in charge of the cases to reduce bail amounts. These families have informed judicial authorities that they are not capable of posting such bonds.

On the other hand, the court has refused to issue bails for some of the political prisoners like student activist Bahareh Hedayat, or Azar Mansouri who was sentenced to three years in prison by the Revolutionary Courts Branch 28.

Earlier, Esmaeelzadeh had been able to secure the prison authorities’ agreement for a few days furlough to visit with his wife in the hospital for the birth of their child, but the Deputy Prosecutor denied the temporary release.

A Payam-e Noor University student, Esmaeelzadeh writes on his blog, Boutimar. In the aftermath of June elections, he was arrested for insulting the Supreme Leader and spent a month in an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp Intelligence Unit Detention Center. He is now serving his 91-day prison sentence. His sentence from the Revolutionary Courts of Babol also includes a suspended prison term and five years of deprivation of education in all Iranian universities.

A student activist told the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran that the four students were initially arrested last June in Mashhad and Birjand and transferred to the Ministry of Information’s detention center in Birjand. Their recent arrests took place while their cases are under review in courts and they have refrained from engaging in any political activities since last August. Their families and friends are unaware of reasons for their arrests or their present conditions.

In June, the four members of the Birjand University Islamic Association spent close to a month at the Birjand Ministry of Information’s detention center. All four had been student campaigners with Mehdi Karroubi’s presidential elections campaign in Mashad and Birjand. Following the arrests of Ali Sepandar, Behzad Parvin, Amin Ostadi, and Milad Garajian, Birjand University students have issued statements demanding the release of their classmates, stating that if their detention continues, they will hold a sit-in protest on Birjand University’s campus.