One Year of House Arrest of Mousavi and Karroubi: Free Them Now

(8 February 2012) Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, should immediately release the three opposition leaders who have spent the last year under illegal house arrest and stop using extrajudicial and inhumane methods to silence political opponents, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran said today.

Today, nearly one year since the house arrest began, the Campaign released a multimedia project containing a detailed timeline, “News of a Kidnapping,” accompanied by a short video and a letter-writing campaign calling for the release of former prime minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, former speaker of Parliament Mehdi Karroubi, and prominent political advisor and university chancellor Zahra Rahnavard.

“Khamenei bears the ultimate responsibility for these house arrests, which indeed are nothing short of a kidnapping,” said Hadi Ghaemi, the Campaign’s spokesperson. “Khamenei is operating above the law of the land, and the intelligence and judicial apparatus are tools of repression in his hands, operating with impunity and without any regard for the law or the constitution,” he added.

These house arrests are illegal under both Iranian and international law. Iranian law does not contain any provisions authorizing house arrests. Any detentions must be followed by proper charges and prosecution in a court of law. Authorities have not applied any of these steps in the cases of Rahnavard, Mousavi, and Karroubi.

Moreover, the detainees have not even had access to basic rights normally afforded to prisoners, such as regular visitations, proper health care, or access to lawyers. Since their house arrest, the three leaders have had minimal access to and communications with their immediate families, raising fears for their mental and physical health. For instance, during the first seven months of his confinement, Mehdi Karroubi was allowed access to fresh air only once.

No Iranian official has directly accepted responsibility for the house arrest of these opposition leaders. However, it has become apparent that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei is ultimately responsible for ordering the arrests and their continuation.

On 28 January 2012, in an interview with the semi-official Fars News Agency, First Deputy Speaker of the Parliament Mohammad Reza Bahonar said that Khamenei was the final decision-maker in ordering the house arrests.

“These continued illegal detentions demonstrate the epic hypocrisy of Iranian leaders,” said Ghaemi. “On the one hand, they want to claim the mantle of Arab uprisings against dictatorships, and on the other hand they are kidnapping opposition leaders and keeping them under house arrest without any due process whatsoever.”

The United Nations General Assembly, in a resolution adopted 21 November 2011, “Express[ed] deep concern at … [t]he continuing and sustained house arrest of leading opposition figures from the 2009 presidential elections.”

Calls for the release of the three leaders have been increasing in Iran. On 25 January 2012, 39 prominent political prisoners published a statement that said, “We call upon all freedom-loving citizens across the globe to create public awareness regarding the upcoming sham and rigged parliamentary elections in February, and to continue to do everything in their power to ensure that the detained leaders of the Green Movement are released in the month of February.”

On 26 January 2012, Nobel Peace Laureate Shirin Ebadi supported this call and urged the international community to advocate for the release of the opposition leaders from their house arrest.

The Campaign calls on all international actors with access to the Iranian government to urge the release of Rahnavard, Mousavi, and Karroubi. In particular, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon should call on Iranian authorities to end the unjust and illegal house arrest of the opposition leaders.

Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, two presidential candidates in the disputed June 2009 election, along with Zahra Rahnavard, an outspoken critic and Mousavi’s wife, have been under house arrest since 14 February 2011, when they called for demonstrations in support of the Arab Spring. Fatemeh Karroubi, a social activist and Karroubi’s wife, was also put under house arrest at the time but has since been released due to medical reasons.

During a brief visit by his daughter on 7 September 2011, Mousavi told her that if she wanted to comprehend his condition, she should read Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s News of a Kidnapping, which details the kidnapping of ten notable Colombians by drug kingpin Pablo Escobar. This comparison inspired the title of the Campaign’s timeline.

“When prominent figures from within the establishment are treated in such an extrajudicial and inhumane manner, the fate of regular prisoners of conscience, captive to intelligence and judicial operatives, is many-fold worse,” Ghaemi said.

The Campaign reiterated its call for the immediate release of all prisoners of conscience held unjustly in Iranian prisons solely for their peaceful opinions and beliefs.

*This timeline is currently best used on Firefox, Google Chrome, and Safari. Internet Explorer users may for the time being experience some difficulty.

Journalists and Their Family Members Targeted

(2 February 2012) The Iranian judiciary should immediately stop its widespread campaign of intimidation against journalists and their family members, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran said today.

The Campaign also called for an end to the illegal coercion of detainees. The Campaign expressed serious concern over the videotaping of false confessions and the possibility of politically motivated broadcasts ahead of the 2 March 2012 parliamentary elections.

“Harassing journalists, activists, and their family members shows the inhumane and unlawful practices the Iranian intelligence services use to silence these people,” said Hadi Ghaemi, spokesperson for the Campaign. “Any televised confession by these detainees released in the run-up to the March parliamentary election would likely be politically motivated and false.”

In the past month, Iranian intelligence and security forces have arrested at least nine independent journalists and writers, including Parastoo Dokouhaki, Marzieh Rassouli, and Sahamoddin Bouraghani. Family members of Iranian journalists living abroad, including the family member of a BBC Persian employee in London, have also been harassed, questioned, or detained.

Intelligence agents have been pressuring a number of these detainees to make on-camera confessions. Interrogators have been particularly focused on the BBC, pressuring some of these detainees to say that they have cooperated with and provided information to the BBC, a source close to their families told the Campaign.

“In recent months, direct actions against the BBC by Iran have intensified,” Sadeq Saba, director of BBC Persian TV, told the Campaign. “We have witnessed increasing levels of intimidation, as well as attempts to interfere with our independence. The Iranian government has detained and summoned a number of people allegedly working for the BBC Persian Service. There have also been cases of intimidation, questioning, and detention involving relatives of BBC staff.”

Since June 2009, intelligence agents have obtained and broadcast coerced confessions from detainees in order to intimidate journalists and activists, defame their political opponents, and convict defendants in court.

According to a source with knowledge of the situation, Iranian intelligence agents are planning to stage a televised program using highly distorted and edited footage of various detainees. At least one of the recent detainees is under tremendous pressure to admit to connections to the BBC on camera, a source told the Campaign.

“Televised confessions reek of due process violations and coercion and should be seen as false,” said Ghaemi. “The government may choose to air these confessions in order to create public anxiety about foreign intervention in Iran’s election, led by foreign media outlets like the BBC.”

Since 2009, BBC Persian, an important news source for millions of Iranians, has emerged to challenge the government’s narratives in a variety of areas, including Iran’s domestic politics and its struggle with the international community. Iranian officials repeatedly cite BBC Persian’s reporting as evidence of a foreign plot to undermine the regime.

Saba said, “We consider [the recent arrests and intimidation] to be part of ongoing efforts by the Iranian government to put pressure on the BBC for the impartial and balanced coverage of its Persian language TV of events in Iran and the wider region.”

In late January 2012, authorities seized a family member of a BBC Persian employee based in London and pressured the family member to denounce the employee’s work with BBC Persian. “A family member of one of the BBC Persian employees was detained and pressured to make online connections with the BBC employee,” said Saba of BBC. “During that communication the BBC employee was remotely interrogated to get information about BBC,” he continued.

“This is an inhumane and malicious act,” Saba said. “We strongly condemn it. It sets a new precedent for the Islamic Republic.”

Since 2005, Reporters Without Borders has documented at least 50 cases of harassment of family members of Iranian journalists living abroad.

“The family members of our employees are innocent and vulnerable in the hands of the Islamic Republic, which, with such actions, is exerting pressure on innocent people,” Saba said. “Our employees are adults and their family members have no control over what their family members do.”

The director of BBC Persian TV added, “BBC would like to reiterate that its Persian language service does not have a presence in Iran. No staff whatsoever, no reporters, no stringers. Any confessions [to that effect] broadcast will be completely baseless, false, and pre-planned, and would have been taken under coercion.”

Security forces have also jammed BBC Persian’s satellite broadcast from within Iran. On 17 September 2011, BBC reported that the jamming intensified “just as the channel had begun broadcasting a documentary about Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei.” That same day, Iranian authorities detained six independent documentary filmmakers: Mohsen Shahrnazdar, Hadi Afarideh, Katayoun Shahabi, Naser Safarian, Shahnam Bazdar, and Mojtaba Mir Tahmaseb.

Several of these filmmakers were also under pressure to make false confessions. A family member of one of the filmmakers told the Campaign that interrogators said to a detainee, “Just speak out against the BBC, tell people not to talk to the BBC, and apologize for what you have done.” The family member added, “A number of the detainees agreed to appear on camera so they could escape the pressure and get out sooner.”

“These attacks against BBC and the wave of arrests of domestic journalists, writers, and activists are an attempt to silence them,” said Ghaemi, spokesperson for the Campaign. “It is clear the government is trying to swap independent voices with their own political and ideological narrative.”

The Campaign previously reported that six journalists were detained in January 2012. Authorities detained at least three more: journalist Said Razavi Faghih, civil society activist Yasser Yousefzadeh, and director of Iranian professional network U24 Mohammad Soleimani Nia.

(1 February 2012) Iran should immediately suspend the death sentence for web programmer and Canadian resident Saeed Malekpour and investigate allegations of his torture, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran said today.

On 30 January 2012 Iran’s Supreme Court upheld the death sentence of 36-year-old Malekpour for “insulting Islamic sanctities” allegedly because he managed a network of pornographic websites. Malekpour’s family has maintained that he simply developed image-sharing software that was used, without his knowledge, to post pornographic photos.

“Malekpour’s death sentence is a shocking abuse of the death penalty and shows a lack of understanding of the work of a web programmer,” said Hadi Ghaemi, spokesperson for the Campaign. “The judiciary should put an end to using false confessions obtained under inhumane and severe pressure in order to achieve political gain.”

Malekpour’s conviction comes as part of an increased wave of Internet and new media censorship in Iran, including claims by authorities that they plan to end access to the World-Wide Web for nearly all Iranians and replace it with an internal government-approved Iranian Internet, labeled “halal Internet.”

“The Iranian government wants to control online content, speech, and morality as much as possible. But the Internet is not easily controlled,” said Ghaemi. “So at its heart, Malekpour’s conviction is about authorities trying to stoke fear by suppressing user-generated content and Internet applications that facilitate user-generated content and interactions.”

On 31 January the Organized Crimes Investigation Unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) issued a statement welcoming the death sentence of Malekpour.

The IRGC statement accused Malekpour of managing a network of illegal websites, and asserted his conviction is meant to have a deterrent effect on others. “The failure to carry out swift punishment using all legal means would hurt crime prevention efforts and increase the brazenness of [cyber] criminals,” the statement said. “As such, after the persistent efforts of [this unit] and months of intense legal action, the Supreme Court confirmed a death sentence for the biggest anti-religion pornographic Farsi network.” The statement added, “They should bring glee to all those who are concerned about protecting the boundaries of the religion and culture of the country.” The statement also announced that the IRGC plans to soon announce the arrests of several other Internet users violating Iran’s moral restrictions.

“The judiciary has shown itself time and again to be an instrument of the Revolutionary Guard, following their lead in convicting individuals,” said Ghaemi.

A number of former detainees who have been interrogated and prosecuted for their online activities told the Campaign that the Iranian Judiciary lacks the expertise and proper understanding of Internet technologies and website operation. The presiding judges in their trials issue their rulings without knowledge of how the Internet works. Consequently these rulings are based on the interrogators’ arguments and so-called “confessions” obtained under duress by agents of Iran’s Intelligence Ministry and the Revolutionary Guards Corps’ Intelligence Organization.

Allegations of due process failures call Malekpour’s conviction into question. In March 2009, Malekpour appeared on Iranian state television confessing to the charges brought against him. However, on 13 March 2010, Malekpour wrote a letter stating that his interrogators subjected to him to physical and psychological torture, including being held for a total of twelve months of solitary confinement, and receiving threats to the well being of his family.

Malekpour’s 2008 arrest was part of a larger operation conducted by the IRGC Organized Crimes Investigation Unit, which included a wave of arrests of Internet professionals.

A Revolutionary Court sentenced Saeed Malekpour to death in October 2010. The Supreme Court, however, overturned the verdict in November 2011 and sent the case back to the Revolutionary Court to resolve its prosecutorial deficiencies, citing incomplete investigation and insufficient testimonies.

Malekpour’s sister, Maryam Malekpour, told BBC Persian on 30 January 2012 that none of the Supreme Court’s concerns were ever addressed.

“They asked for an [Internet] expert to be brought in to review the evidence and the case, but it never happened,” Maryam Malekpour said. “Since Saeed had said that he had been under psychological and physical pressure (i.e., torture) the court asked for a full investigation…. At a minimum they should have sent him to the medical examiner, which never happened. [The Supreme Court] also asked for more credible evidence beyond his own confession, and that was never produced. None of these shortcomings were ever addressed and unfortunately Saeed never received a fair trial.”

According the semi-official Fars News agency the Supreme Court, in issuing its latest judgment, said the Revolutionary Court had resolved the prosecutorial deficiencies in Malekpour’s case.

“Malekpour’s case demonstrates how far the judiciary is willing to stray from the international standards regarding the death penalty that Iran has promised to uphold,” said Ghaemi. “Iranian officials are well aware that governments can only execute persons in narrow cases. Not for insulting a religion or writing computer programs. And definitely not based on coerced evidence.”

Article 6(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Iran ratified in 1975, mandates, “In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes…. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court.”

The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions has stated that economic crimes, drug-related offenses, victimless offenses, and actions relating to moral values do not constitute “most serious crimes.”

Article 14 of the ICCPR guarantees all criminal suspects the right to a fair trial. The UN Human Rights Committee has noted that “statements or confessions obtained through torture” or ill treatment are inadmissible in judicial proceedings under article 7 of the ICCPR.

Malekpour has been a Canadian permanent resident since 2004. He was arrested in Iran in October 2008 while visiting his dying father.

(26 January 2012) Shirin Ebadi, the 2003 Nobel Peace Laureate, today called for a sustained international campaign for the release of three opposition leaders under house arrest for nearly a year.

“I support the call [of political prisoners] and invite all freedom-loving people across the globe to do all they can for the release of prisoners of conscience in Iran, particularly Ms. Zahra Rahnavard, Mr. Mir Hossein Mousavi, and Mr. Mehdi Karroubi,” Ebadi said in her statement released today.

Referring to the upcoming parliamentary elections, Ebadi said, “I invite all my compatriots to boycott these staged elections on 2 March to once more show the international community that the Islamic Republic of Iran lacks legitimacy.”

Ebadi’s statement was released on the heels of a similar call by 39 prominent political prisoners published on the opposition website Kaleme on 25 January 2012. The statement said, “We call upon all freedom fighting citizens across the globe to create public awareness regarding the upcoming sham and rigged parliamentary elections in February, and to continue to do everything in their power to ensure that the detained leaders of the Green Movement are released in the month of February.”

The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran fully supports Ebadi’s and the political prisoners’ call for the immediate release of Rahnavard, Mousavi, and Karroubi.

Authorities placed Mousavi, Karroubi, and Rahnavard under de facto house arrest in February 2011, after they called for a rally in solidarity with popular movements in Tunisia and Egypt. Authorities ignored their request for a rally permit. Nevertheless, thousands of people took peacefully to the streets on 14 February 2011, only to face violent repression by authorities.

Since that time, Mousavi, Karroubi, and Rahnavard have been largely held at their homes with little to no access to communication and only infrequent contact with their families. Iranian authorities have repeatedly said that Mousavi, Karroubi, and Rahnavard are not subject to formal judicial proceedings and no charges have ever been formally announced.

“After a year without indictment or trial, what is happening to Mousavi, Karroubi, and Rahnavard can no longer be called a house arrest without formal process. This is simply a kidnapping,” said Hadi Ghaemi, spokesperson for the Campaign.

Signatories to the 25 January 2012 call in alphabetical order:

Bahman Ahmadi Amouee; Hassan Asadi Zeidabadi; Javad Emam; Mohsen Amin Zadeh; Massoud Bastani; Emad Bahavar; Seyed Ali Reza Beheshti Shirazi; Seyed Mostafa Tajzadeh; Saeed Jalalifar; Ali Jamali; Amir Khoram; Babak Dashab; Mohammad Davari; Majid Dori; Amir Khosrow Dalirsani; Ali Reza Rajai; Hossein Zarini; Issa Saharkhiz; Davood Soleymani; Mohammad Seifzadeh; Ghassem Shole Saadi; Keyvan Samimi; Fereydoon Seyedizad; Jalil Taheri; Mohammad Farid Taheri Ghazvini;  Feizollah Arabsorkhi; Siamak Ghaderi; Abolfazl Ghadyani; Farshad Ghorbanpour; Saeed Matinpour; Mohsen Mohagheghi; Mehdi Mahmoudian; Mohammad Reza Motamadnia; Ali Malihi; Abdollah Momeni; Mohsen Mirdamadi; Behzad Nabavi; Zia Nabavi and; Abolfazl Abedini

ICHRI

Call to Action to Stop Widespread Censorship and “Halal Internet”

(12 January 2012) The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran today strongly condemned the assassination of an Iranian scientist in Tehran. The Campaign expressed its serious concern at an increasing climate of violence relating to Iran’s nuclear crisis, compounded by recent statements by Israeli officials and a former Obama advisor regarding a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

“This increase in violent confrontations, covert or acknowledged, coupled with rising belligerence from all parties, will lead to a human rights catastrophe in Iran,” said Hadi Ghaemi, spokesperson for the Campaign.

In the past several days, human rights defenders living inside Iran have repeatedly told the Campaign that certain elements in the Iranian intelligence and security forces are gearing up for an opportunity to severely persecute activists, dissidents, and prisoners of conscience. They fear a military conflagration could provide just such an opportunity to target them for widespread extrajudicial killings.

In July 2011, the Campaign published a comprehensive report, “Raising Their Voices: Iranian Civil Society Reflections on the Military Option,” presenting the viewpoints of 35 prominent Iranian civil society and cultural figures living inside Iran. Those interviewed are people outside the ruling establishment; many have faced censorship, harassment, and imprisonment for their opinions or activities.

The interviewees unanimously expressed their grave concern that a military conflict would exacerbate the human rights situation and provide a pretext for the full militarization of the Iranian state, all the while increasing civil and political repression. The report concluded that a pre-emptive attack would be ruinous for human rights and democratic change in Iran.

“If war breaks out, democracy, human rights, and civil society will be the main losers,” one student activist told the Campaign. “The Iranian government would militarize and such a militaristic government has the potential to carry out widespread killings of opponents.”

The Campaign strongly denounces the rapid march towards a military confrontation by all sides and believes any further violence will certainly result in gross and unacceptable violations of the Iranian people’s human rights.

Last week the Iranian government issued several threats to use military force to close the Strait of Hormuz in response to rising international tensions, an act that could result in serious multi-national military conflagrations.

At the same time, Israeli officials continue to promote and justify a pre-emptive military strike against Iran. Furthermore, Dennis Ross, a former top national security advisor to President Obama, told Bloomberg News on 10 January that the Obama administration is prepared to use force to pre-emptively attack Iran in response to its ongoing nuclear enrichment activities.

On 11 January 2012, unidentified assassins killed a 32-year-old Iranian scientist, Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, in the streets of Tehran. The method of bombing and assassination was identical to five other targeted assassinations of Iranian scientists in the past two years.

While no entity or government has taken responsibility for these assassinations, there is widespread speculation by media and foreign policy experts, as well as denouncements by the Iranian government, that Israeli intelligence services bear responsibility.

Meanwhile, some dissident Iranians have insinuated that the Iranian government may have orchestrated the assassination of Ahmadi Roshan, suggesting that some elements of the Iranian regime may have an interest in consolidating power through promoting military confrontations with outside powers. Many questioned how the Iranian government could fail to apprehend the assassins while implementing a widespread security crackdown against dissidents and other critics.

The Campaign expressed alarm at the increased use of illegal targeted assassinations in the form of bombings and drone attacks across the Middle East and South Asia by governments and paramilitaries.

“Roshan’s death appears to have been an extrajudicial killing in violation of international law,” Campaign spokesperson Ghaemi said. “We call on Iranian authorities to launch a complete and transparent investigation into the matter and urge full cooperation by foreign governments and international law enforcement.”

Over the course of the past four months a number of Republican presidential candidates have publically endorsed the idea of killing Iranian scientists in order to deter Iran’s nuclear program.

“These public messages legitimizing acts of terror are barbaric, coupled with remarks by Israeli officials that suggest targeted killings are legitimate, which they are not,” Ghaemi added.

House of Cinema Logo

(11 January 2012) The Iranian Judiciary should withdraw the Ministry of Culture order to shut down House of Cinema, the country’s leading independent film association, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran said today. Authorities should end the unlawful attacks on independent civil society organizations and on freedom of expression and association, the Campaign added.

“The attempt to shut down the Iranian House of Cinema shows that the authorities do not hesitate to use any means necessary to bring associations in line,” said Campaign spokesperson Hadi Ghaemi. “The Iranian government systematically goes after independent associations whose work does not necessarily follow the State’s narrative.”

“If the Judiciary wants to show respect for freedom of association and the law it will reject the effort to close House of Cinema,” Ghaemi added.

In recent years, Iranian authorities have been targeting major independent organizations, several of which have been suppressed or disbanded by the government. Since 2008, for example, authorities have shut down Defenders of Human Rights Centre, led by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi; the Association of Iranian Journalists; and Daftar-e Tahkim, a leading pro-democracy student union; as well as dozens of other civil society organizations.

On 3 January 2012, Iran’s Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance (MCIG) sent the Iranian House of Cinema a letter ordering them to cease operations within 48 hours. This order came despite the fact that a judicial hearing to resolve the outstanding dispute between the ministry and the association is scheduled for today, 11 January.

House of Cinema is the largest professional film association in Iran with over 5,000 members. Acting as an umbrella organization of different motion picture guilds, House of Cinema aims to protect the financial interests, job security, and rights of its membership and to provide professional training for individuals working in the Iranian film industry.

Members of the association, who chose to speak anonymously, told the Campaign that they were shocked by the MCIG’s latest decision to close the House of Cinema given the court hearing was just a week away.

The ministry alleged that the association had not followed the required legal process for establishing a cultural institution and was thus not legally authorized and was operating without a license.

“House of Cinema is registered as a non-governmental organization. Thus, it can only be dissolved by a judicial ruling or by a decision from its general assembly,” Mohammad-Mehdi Asgarpur, House of Cinema Board Member, told the news website Nasimonline.ir.

The association’s lawyer, Jamal Khandan, told the official Iranian Student News Agency (ISNA), “The activities of House of Cinema are authorized…. [It] is registered with the Cooperate Registration Bureau, which is under the Judiciary.” House of Cinema told ISNA that the registration was formally approved by the MICG on August 1994.

MCIG also accused House of Cinema of “other crimes” but did not name these crimes.

On 4 January, Minister of Culture and Islamic Affairs Seyyed Mohammad Hosseini explained to state television, “This is not just a legal issue; religious people in our society have questioned and objected to things that have been happening in [House of Cinema’s] recent festivals. This shows these festivals are not only professional but also political.”

“The Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance has made it very clear that the legal and procedural issues are just a pretext for attacking the House of Cinema’s independence and suppressing the artistic freedom of its members,” said Ghaemi.

Jamal Khandan pointed out to ISNA that prior to the current dispute, “the Minister of Culture’s officials have repeatedly shown approval for [House of Cinema’s] operation both before and after its creation.”

House of Cinema has been in operation for over 20 years. Formed in 1989, it was temporarily under the supervision of a MCIG-appointed board, and formally registered in 1993.

This latest clash is part of a three-year-old dispute between the MCIG and House of Cinema over the association’s independence and legal formation. The government continues to reject a charter ratified in 2008 by the membership of House of Cinema and is demanding input over the make-up of the board of directors.

On 2 January 2012 Javad Aria Manesh, member of the Parliament’s cultural commission, said that if accepted by the government, “House of Cinema’s charter would alter the association from a promoter of Islamic culture and art to a secular institution.”

Four smaller motion picture associations—of editors, documentary producers, cinematographers, and score composers—met with MCIG’s Deputy Supervisor of Film on 26 December 2011 to resolve the standoff. Frustrated by the results of the meeting, the associations said they would not participate in the annual state-organized Fajr International Film Festival unless House of Cinema’s legal problems were resolved and the case against it dismissed.

In response, the pro-government newspaper Kayhan claimed that a faction within House of Cinema was launching a politically motivated boycott. Hardline website Rajanews claimed the House of Cinema is a mouthpiece of BBC Persian and that it was trying to undermine the Fajr film festival, which is held in commemoration of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

MCIG has been unhappy with House of Cinema for running its own annual film festival, which competes with Fajr film festival.

The attacks on House of Cinema have taken place in the context of increasing government displeasure with the work of Iran’s independent film community and some of the films produced by House of Cinema’s membership, which often challenge Iranian social norms and address socioeconomic, ethnic, and gender issues.

On 15 October 2011 a Tehran appeals court sentenced acclaimed filmmakers Mohammad Rasoulof and Jafar Panahi to one and six years in prison, respectively, for producing a film about Iran’s pro-democratic Green Movement and the post-election unrest. In response, House of Cinema’s board advocated on behalf of the filmmakers, and the board’s chairman implied publicly that the detentions were politically motivated.

House of Cinema also came out in support of seven documentary filmmakers whom authorities detained for weeks in September 2011, accused of national security crimes because they had licensed their works to BBC Persian. They were released a few weeks later, never having been tried for their alleged crimes.

“Iranian authorities are engaged in assault on free association,” said Ghaemi. “Sadly, no independent guild or NGO seems safe.”

(9 January 2012) The Iranian judiciary should immediately rescind the death sentence in the appeals court issued for Iranian-American citizen Amir Mirzaei Hekmati, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran said today. In addition, the judiciary should provide a fair trial with full access to his lawyer and put an end to more than four months of isolation and lack of transparency about his arrest and prosecution, the Campaign said.

This is the first time an American citizen has been sentenced to death by the Iranian judiciary.

“We are seriously concerned regarding the death sentence, secrecy, and continued lack of transparency surrounding the prosecution of Iranian-American citizen Amir Hekmati,” said Campaign spokesperson Hadi Ghaemi.

“We ask the Iranian judiciary to adhere to international standards of due process and allow independent observers in the courtroom at his appeals trial,” he added.

_________________

* Who is Amir Hekmati? Listen to Lisa Mullins of PRI’s The World interview Hadi Ghaemi.

_________________

A source close to the family told the Campaign that the US citizen entered Iran for the first time on 15 August 2011 to visit with his family members. He was arrested on 29 August 2011 on charges of espionage.

“When Amir supplied his background and applied for his passport processing at the Iranian Interest Section of the Pakistan Embassy in Washington DC, he was assured that his prior employment with the US government was not going to impede his trip to Iran nor cause him any problems,” the source added.

Four months after his arrest in August 2011, Hekmati’s first court session was held on 27 December at Branch 15 of the Tehran Revolutionary Court. Presiding Judge Abolghassem Salavati denied Hekmati the lawyer hired by his family to represent him. Instead, a court-appointed lawyer represented him during the trial without ever seeing him beforehand.

Judge Salavati is one of Iran’s most notorious judges, well known for the unlawful and harsh sentences he has delivered to dozens of political prisoners during the post-election show trials. He has sentenced more than one hundred political prisoners, human rights activists, and peaceful demonstrators to lengthy prison sentences as well as at least nine execution sentences, earning the moniker “The Judge of Death.”

Over the past few years a number of Iranian-Americans who have traveled to Iran have faced similar charges, from undermining the Islamic Republic to spying for American agencies. In all such cases the defendants have been released after a few months and have left the country.

“Almost all the elements of Hekmati’s case fall into a classic pattern of Iranian intelligence’s spy-finding machine,” said Ghaemi.

The source close to the family told the Campaign that over the course of Hekmati’s arrest, Iranian authorities pressured them not to talk with the media, assuring the family they would release Hekmati soon. During his arrest and subsequent detention, Hekmati was never allowed to contact his family in the US.

According to state-operated Fars News Agency, Hekmati allegedly entered Iran with the aim of penetrating the country’s intelligence system. Further examination, according to a report by the Judicial-Legal Director of the Intelligence Ministry’s Espionage Unit, indicated that his goal was to accuse Iran of involvement with terrorism. His indictment alleged that Hekmati was recruited by the CIA in May 2009 to carry out espionage missions in Iran.

The family asserts that what was said in the indictment regarding Hekmati’s background, his prior service in the US military and his prior employment with the US government, is in the public record and he never hid what he did in the past. All the information regarding his background could be obtained from his passport application, as well as from his resume, easily accessible from his confiscated laptop.

Breaking their months-long silence, Amir Hekmati’s family issued a statement on 3 January 2012, asserting, “We have been asked by Iranian authorities to remain silent, and were told that Amir would eventually be released soon. After … reports that a verdict is imminent we can no longer remain silent.”

Rather than release Hekmati without charges, on 27 December Iranian authorities televised a pale and emaciated Hekmati confessing to the charges. Today, 9 January 2012, Hekmati has been sentenced to execution.

“It has been 126 days since Amir Hekmati was detained by the Iranian government after having been granted permission by Iranian authorities to enter to visit his beloved family,” the family said in their statement from 3 January 2012. “[W]e believe the allegations made against Amir are false and believe that the purported confession was not voluntary and was made under severe duress.”

“The judiciary has claimed Amir Hekmati is a spy, citing evidence that only they are aware of,” said Ghaemi. “That evidence should be made public and the judiciary should be completely transparent. If such an accusation were based on credible evidence, there would be no reason to hold his trial without adequate due process.”

101 Identities of Vakilabad’s Mass Executions Revealed

(5 January 2012) The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran published the first public list of 101 victims of secret group executions in Vakilabad Prison today. The Campaign called on the Iranian Parliament and judiciary to immediately institute a moratorium on executions and to move swiftly to abolish the death penalty.

“Unfortunately, many of these executions happen behind closed doors, without the involvement of lawyers or awareness of the victim’s family, and without access to a fair trial,” said Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Shirin Ebadi.

Ebadi added that Iran’s abuse of the death penalty has not been successful in fighting crime, saying:

“The Iranian judiciary and government know that the death penalty is not a suitable solution for fighting crime, particularly drug-related crimes. The basic question is this: why does the Iranian government use this type of punishment with such enthusiasm? The issue is that these executions only create fear and intimidation and serve only a political purpose. All of the statistics show that while the number of executions have increased the number of drug-related crimes have not decreased at all.”

On 21 December 2011, Ayatollah Sadegh Amoli Larijani, head of the judiciary, said “I categorically deny any secret mass executions…All executions are announced to my office…if anyone has information about executions anywhere that have been secret and without knowledge of families, let us know and we will investigate it.”

The list published today by the Campaign reveals the names of 101 individuals who have reportedly been executed without official acknowledgement, between 9 June 2010 and 20 December 2010, in Vakilabad Prison. This list, accompanied by the briefing paper Iran’s Secret Hangings: Mass Unannounced Executions in Mashhad’s Vakilabad Prison, is the first time any identities of those secretly executed at Vakilabad have been made public.

Local activists obtained this information under serious risk to their personal safety in order to lend more credence to past reports.

“This statistic, in my opinion, and the opinion of other contributors to this report, is the baseline figure,” said renowned Iranian human rights activist Asieh Amini, who contributed to this report.

“To me, the issue of executions is not a matter simply for one individual, one city, or one community. Nor is it an issue simply between the victims and their families. For us, executions is a national issue, and must be addressed widely … When the major human rights news is about Iran’s many unjust, secret, mass executions, it is the responsibility of every Iranian to ask of the judiciary, ‘why?,’ and to try to end this national shame,” she added.

Iran is the world’s leading per-capita executor, following only China in absolute numbers. In 2011, Iran put to death over 600 individuals, at least 161 of which were in secret.

The Campaign has documented 471 secret executions in Mashhad and other cities since January 2010. The actual numbers are likely much higher. The Campaign received this information from local sources and activists with access to government data.

Executions are considered secret when they are not publicly reported by authorities and the victim’s family and lawyers have no prior knowledge that the sentence is set to be carried out.

According to local activists the inmates secretly put to death in Vakilabad were unaware that they were scheduled for execution until just before its implementation. Prison authorities informed the individuals only hours before their execution that they had to write their wills and perform ritual cleansing in preparation for death.

Prison authorities hung the inmates around dusk in an open-air hallway leading to the prison’s visiting room. Contributing to the shroud of secrecy surrounding the executions, the phones within Vakilabad Prison were disconnected hours before, preventing calls in and out of the prison.

The bureaucratic efficiency of these hangings is exemplified by the fact that the medical examiner’s office issued many of the corresponding death certificates up to a day before the execution. Death certificates listed the cause of death as ghatl-e ghanooni or “legal murder.”

The actual executions were witnessed by representatives of several government agencies including the Mashhad Prosecutor’s office, local and district police, the local judiciary, the Medical Examiner’s office, as well as Vakilabad’s warden and intelligence chief.

Most of these executions are believed to have been carried out in the absence of international safeguards and fair trial standards.

Sources in Mashhad described how many of these convictions came from rushed and unjust trials, marked by unfair and flawed judicial processes. On 18 August 2010, the nephew of one of the executed prisoners told the Campaign: “It took only two months from the time of the arrest to the implementation of [my] uncle’s sentence while he was not granted the right to a fair trial … the truth or inaccuracy of his [defense] was never even investigated.”

Some of the inmates executed in Vakilabad were foreign nationals, including citizens of Afghanistan, Ghana, and Nigeria, and apparently did not have access to their diplomatic representatives. The large majority of those executed are believed to be from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

Moreover, the vast majority of secret executions have reportedly been for drug crimes, for which capital punishment is not permissible under international law.

When pressed, Iranian officials have publicly admitted that some of these secret executions had taken place. According to UN General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon’s March 2011 report on human rights in Iran, the Iranian government confirmed a 60-person group execution in Mashhad.

The secret killing spree has elicited international concern and condemnation and was cited as a rights violation in the October 2011 interim report by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran.

Article 6(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Iran ratified in 1975, mandates that “[i]n countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes.”

The UN Human Rights Committee, the leading international authority on the ICCPR, and the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, have made clear that drug offences do not meet the “most serious crimes” standard. Therefore, Iran’s use of the death penalty for these offenses violates the government’s international obligations.

Article 14 of the ICCPR guarantees all criminal suspects the right to a fair trial. Moreover, the UN Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of those Facing the Death Penalty makes clear that “[c]apital punishment may only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court after legal process which gives all possible safeguards to ensure a fair trial,” and that defendants must have access to multiple appeals.

Worldwide, 96 countries, including Brazil, Turkey, and Rwanda, have formally abolished the death penalty, with another 34 countries, such as Kenya, Morocco, and Russia, ending its use in practice.

“Iran has shown an inability to use the death penalty in a legal and accountable manner,” said Hadi Ghaemi, the Campaign’s spokesperson. “With skyrocketing execution numbers marred by unfair trials and opaque judicial proceedings, it’s time for Iran to institute a moratorium and join the growing trend towards abolition.”

Oped published in  Wall Street Journal Europe

By Shirin Ebadi and Hadi Ghaemi

(9 December 2011) It may not come as a surprise to learn that the Iranian government invests heavily in internet filtering, mobile-communication restrictions and jamming of international satellite broadcasts to control and manipulate the Iranian people.

What may be surprising is that European companies, particularly satellite providers, continue to provide services to Tehran despite its comprehensive assault on free expression and free access to information.

Iran leads the world in illegal jamming of international satellite broadcasts, but it is a prolific user of international broadcasting platforms for its own programming. European satellite companies like Eutelsat, Intelsat and Arqiva provide extensive services to the Iranian state-owned Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), including for domestic Iranian radio and television broadcasts, and for Iran’s growing list of foreign-language channels, like the English-language PressTV and the Arabic Al-Alam.

But Eutelsat also hosts many of the stations whose programming Tehran jams. It has not stopped carrying IRIB channels on its satellites, which are facilitated through Arqiva, even though the Iranian government is effectively destroying the products of its other clients.

Over the past two years, during which Iran increased its jamming of Persian-language broadcasts from abroad, Eutelsat and Arqiva have done little to hold the Iranian government accountable. Either company could have contractually required Iran to stop its jamming, which is politically motivated censorship, or refused to carry IRIB. Instead Eutelsat’s response was to discontinue broadcasting BBC Persian and VOA Persian on the most accessible and popular satellite, Hotbird6, and to move them to less accessible satellites.

Providing continuous service to the IRIB as long as extensive jamming of Persian-language media is taking place is essentially a gift to the Iranian government from European satellite companies.

Worse, the IRIB is not a simple broadcasting service. It is an integral part of the Iranian intelligence and security services, engaged in unprecedented domestic repression. The IRIB’s camera crew and staff act as interrogators, going inside prisons to obtain coerced confessions from prisoners of conscience, hand in hand with interrogators and torturers from the Iranian intelligence services.

One of its most well-known victims is journalist Maziar Bahari, who has given extensive testimony on how the IRIB and its affiliates sent their staff to prison to prepare him for being paraded in front of television cameras after his arrest following the 2009 presidential election.

Mr. Bahari’s case is far from unique. The IRIB acts as the state’s broadcast producer and creative director for forced televised confessions and show trials. Numerous other Iranian prisoners of conscience have suffered at the hands of their interrogators, who, in collusion with IRIB, televised their coerced confessions. The IRIB broadcasts such confessions even before prisoners are brought in front of a judge for prosecution. More than 100 activists were prosecuted and sentenced following such televised “show trials” in August 2009.

The IRIB is also a hub for broadcasting a range of libelous programs and spreading hate speech against a wide spectrum of Iranians: civil-society activists, religious minorities such as Bahais and Shia Sufis, dissident clerics—basically anyone who does not toe the official government line.

European companies choose to look the other way while such coerced confessions and libelous programs flow freely from their satellites and access to alternative Persian-language channels is made difficult. It is time to stop this duplicitous practice. These companies are hiding behind their “contractual obligations,” but it is the very power of their contracts that allows them to sever their ties with the Iranian government, or to make their services contingent on Iran’s compliance with basic telecommunications and human-rights standards.

The European Union and U.S. should take immediate and decisive action requiring that these satellite companies end their cooperation with Iranian censors. Given the IRIB’s integral role in widespread human-rights crimes in Iran, European and American companies should not be allowed to provide it any services.

Last month, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling for Eutelsat to cease service as long as illegal jamming is taking place. The European Council should follow with a binding decision banning all services by European companies to the IRIB. Without pressure on these companies from both sides of Atlantic, the people of Iran will remain cut off from the outside world.

—Ms. Ebadi is an Iranian human-rights lawyer and the winner of the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize. Mr. Ghaemi is director of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran.

[This op-ed was originally published in Wall Street Europe on 9 December 2011.]