Unjustly Imprisoned Prisoners of Conscience Must be Released

(20 June 2011) Iranian officials should take all steps necessary to safeguard the lives of prisoners of conscience on hunger strike the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran said today. The Campaign expressed serious concern for the lives of the prisoners on hunger strike.

Authorities should immediately investigate the recent deaths of political prisoners Hoda Saber and Haleh Sahabi and hold the responsible persons accountable, the Campaign added.

Since 18 June 2011, twelve prominent prisoners of conscience have joined a hunger strike protesting the recent deaths of Saber and Sahabi.

“Iranian officials at the highest level, from Ayatollah Khamenei on down, are responsible for the health and safety of these hunger strikers,” said Hadi Ghaemi, spokesperson for the Campaign. “The concerns of these men are legitimate and authorities should launch a credible investigation into the deaths of Saber and Sahabi to ensure that culprits are held accountable.”

“There is a culture of rampant impunity for prisoner abuse in Iran, that must end before more innocent lives are lost,” Ghaemi added.

On 1 June, dissident and women’s rights activist, Haleh Sahabi, died of a heart attack when security forces raided the funeral of her father, political activist Ezatollah Sahabi. Security forces beat Sahabi during the funeral procession and she subsequently suffered a fatal heart attack. She was on furlough to take care of her father who was in a coma at the time.

The following day, Hoda Saber, an imprisoned dissident and journalist, went on hunger strike to protest Sahabi’s death. On 8 June, Saber was transferred to a clinic in Evin Prison after complaining of chest and stomach pain. According to a letter signed by 64 prisoners from Saber’s prison ward, upon his return from the clinic, Saber told them he not receive medical care and was instead beaten by a security agent posing as a medical professional.

On 10 June, ten days into his hunger strike, Saber died of a heart attack. His family said prison officials were responsible for Saber’s death by failing to transfer him to a hospital for a full six hours after the heart attack began.

Iranian authorities have a grim record of causing the death of prisoners of conscience through physical abuse or willful neglect.

Since 2004, at least 18 prisoners of conscience have died in custody, including seven who have died since the 2009 election. The Campaign has also recently reported that a number of prisoners of conscience have issued open letters describing drastically substandard conditions in Iranian prisons, including poor health and safety conditions.

Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and human rights attorney Shirin Ebadi, told the Campaign that, “all these elements indicate that over the years, the regime has attempted to end the lives of political prisoners. Meaning, when a political prisoner is not willing to surrender, interview or deliver false confessions, [authorities] try in different ways to break him. One of these ways is physical abuse, which in some cases has led to death, as in the case of Hoda Saber.”

“What happens in Iran is in fact systematic and not mere negligence,” Ebadi continued. “It is not just carried out by a few low-level prison guards, because if these were the acts of low-level guards, then at least after the first and second cases, the Islamic Republic would have ordered an investigation and punished the offenders. But we have seen that no one has been convicted.”

Maryam Shafiee, the wife of one of the strikers, Emad Behavar, told the Campaign that the prisoners were protesting the death of Saber and Sahabi with the aim of changing the situation of political prisoners generally.

She said that despite the request of Firouzeh Saber, Hoda Saber’s wife, and others to end the hunger strike, the prisoners “will not end their strike, and will continue until they get a reaction from judiciary officials. Emad said with this act they want the world to hear their pleas.”

“They want the officials to bring about change in the status of political prisoners,” Shafiee continued. “They are deprived of the rights guaranteed to ordinary prisoners such as phone calls, visitations, furloughs, and they and their families are subject to demeaning treatment. They said that they will pay any price until they attain their goal and their situation changes.”

Since the 2009 presidential election, authorities have arbitrarily detained hundreds of people for peaceful activities and exercise of free expression; including many of the country’s most prominent lawyers, journalists, activists and human rights defenders. Many convictions were based on coerced testimonies and in nearly all cases, trials did not meet international due process standards.

The Campaign restates its call for the immediate release of all unjustly convicted prisoners of conscience, including the twelve men on hunger strike.

The prisoners on hunger strike are: Ghorban Behzadian Nejad (advisor for Mir Hossein Mousavi); Bahman Ahmadi Amouee (journalist); Hassan Asadi Zeidabadi (of Daftar Tahkim-e Vahdat Alumni Association’s Central Council); Abdollah Momeni (of Daftar Tahkim-e Vahdat Alumni Association’s Central Council); Emad Behavar (head of the Freedom Movement’s Youth Branch); Amir Khosrow Dalirsani (nationalist-religious activist); Abolfazl Ghadyani (of the Islamic Revolution Organization’s Mojahedin); Feyzollah Arab Sorkhi (of the Islamic Revolution Organization’s Mojahedin); Mohammad Javad Mozaffar (publisher and Deputy Chairman of the Committee for Defense of Political Prisoners in Iran); Mohammad Reza Moghisseh (journalist and member of the Mousavi/Karroubi post-election fact-finding committee); Mohammad Davari (Chief Editor of Saham News); and Mehdi Eghbal.

On 20 June 2011, authorities released a thirteenth hunger-striker, human rights defender Emad Baghi, upon the completion of his sentence.

“Mr. Baghi has two charges. One is his charge pertaining to the establishment of the Society to Defend Prisoners and the other is his interview with the late Ayatollah Montazeri. Both of these were civil activities; these are not security charges. The worst case scenario facing such charges is being convicted of a political crime. The Iranian Parliament drafted and approved an addition to the Islamic Republic’s Constitution which provided the definition of a political crime, requiring a Jury in such trials, but the Guardian Council rejected it.  Thirty three years after the Iranian revolution, the political crime is yet to be defined. Should political prisoners and their families pay the price for this negligence?  Of course, in the modern world, there is no such thing as a political crime, as attempts to reform political systems are not considered crimes.  Though I’d like to express my joy with the regular prisoners’ right to prison furlough, I would like to ask why political prisoners and prisoners of conscience are deprived of the same?” Fatemeh Kamali told the Campaign.

Asked about the family’s weekly visitations with Emadedin Baghi, his wife said:  “Before I explain about the visits I should say that telephone contact with Ward 350 has remained cut off for the past several months, unfortunately.  Previously, prisoners inside this ward could call their families on the phone daily.  I mean for years, prisoners inside the General Ward have had this privilege, but political prisoners are now deprived from making phone calls and this is so cruel to them.  We can only have visits once a week and only for 20 minutes, which is mostly done through the booth and from behind thick glass, using a phone receiver.  A lot of times, we are still talking to Mr. Baghi, when the curtains in the booth come down, and we have to wait another week to see him.  Sometimes, when the visitation days coincide with national holidays, the visitations are cancelled, like this year on Nowruz, when the New Year Day fell on a Monday.”

Emadedin Baghi is the founder of the Society to Defend Prisoners, a researcher, and journalist. In addition to his academic education Baghi studied Islamic theology. He is currently serving a sentence of seven years in prison and five years’ ban on his civil rights, journalism, and political activities. Baghi’s sentence includes six years in prison for interviewing the late Ayatollah Montazeri. He is presently awaiting an appeals court’s decision on his sentence.

Mother of Imprisoned Journalist Calls for Release of her Sick Daughter

(21 September 2010) – While Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has proclaimed Iran’s respect for human rights and freedoms during his current New York media blitz, several prominent young Iranian students, human rights defenders, and journalists received harsh jail sentences in recent days, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran said today.

In several cases, young Iranians have been jailed for “insulting the President,” the Campaign emphasized. Overall, at least 500 prisoners of conscience are held in Iranian jails.

“The hypocrisy and cynicism of Iran’s president on display in New York insults the dignity of all whom he claims to represent, and the integrity of the international human rights system,” said Aaron Rhodes, a spokesperson for the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran.

Two internationally recognized human rights defenders, Emad Baghi and Shiva Nazar Ahari, were sentenced to six year prison terms as Ahmadinejad arrived in New York. An appeals court also confirmed an eight and a half year sentence for student leader Majid Tavakoli. Other prominent young activists, such as Bahareh Hedayat and Milad Asadi, languish in Iranian jails, serving lengthy prison sentences.

Since June 2009, hundreds of prominent students and activists have been unjustly detained and sentenced, deprived of their fundamental rights, education, careers, and in many cases without access to their lawyers and families. Many have fallen ill due to severe physical and psychological mistreatment inside prison, and need urgent medical care.

Shiva Nazar Ahari, a young human rights activist and journalist, received a sentence of six years in prison in exile in a remote area, and 76 lashes. She was convicted of the crime of moharebeh, or enmity against God, a charge her lawyer, Mohammad Sharif, says is not supported by any evidence in her case file. Nazar Ahari was arrested on 20 December 2009, and held until she was temporarily released on $500,000 bail on 12 September 2010. Her lawyer will request an appeal.

Majid Tavakoli, a young university student and activist, will spend eight and a half years in prison for a number of alleged offenses including “insulting the President,” a sentence that was upheld by an appeals court this week. Throughout his imprisonment and trial, which followed delivering a speech on his university campus, Tavakoli did not have access to his lawyer.

Emad Baghi, who received the 2009 Martin Ennals Award, was sentenced today to six years in prison for his human rights reporting and documentation. The Martin Ennals Award, awarded by major human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and FIDH, is one of the most prestigious international human rights recognitions. Baghi was previously sentenced to one and a half years in prison in another case, and is to serve a total of seven and a half years in prison.

An appeals court upheld the nine and a half year prison term of Bahareh Hedayat, a student activist and women’s rights campaigner, in July 2010. One of the charges for which she was convicted was insulting the authorities, including the President. Milad Asadi is another student activist who was arrested and sentenced to seven years in prison for charges that include insulting the Supreme Leader and President.

At a press conference in New York on 17 September, Nobel Peace Laureate and human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi stated:

“The plight of prisoners, specifically in the areas of health and nutrition, has gotten worse. Whoever is bailed out from prison, and usually on very heavy bail, has to go to the hospital directly. The example I will give you is Ms. Narges Mohammadi who is under treatment for her periodic muscular paralysis after she was released from jail. Unfortunately, it is not just Ms. Mohammadi who has become sick. We have numerous political prisoners who are not being treated.”

“My proposal here is that if Mr. Ahmadinejad claims that Iran is a free country, that physicians from Doctors Without Borders go to Iran and visit the Iranian prisoners. Unfortunately, the situation of political prisoners is such that they have not only been unjustly convicted, but when they leave the prison, they are not healthy, either,” Ebadi added.

In an interview with the Campaign this week, an imprisoned journalist’s mother talked about her daughter Hengameh Shahidi’s mounting health problems and lack of proper medical care inside Evin prison. Hengameh Shahidi is a journalist who is serving a six-year prison sentence.

“Hengameh has developed rheumatic heart disease, kidney problems, stomach problems, and severe depression in prison. …The prison doctors have said that she needs outside medical attention in order to address her ailments. I don’t know why the American hiker would be released for her illness, but my child cannot go on a medical leave for treatment. After two months, eight days ago they asked for a $600,000 bail in order to release her on medical leave. They know that Hengameh’s parents who are retired teachers would not be able to post a $600,000 bail. …The worst thing for a mother is to see her child sick and be unable to help her. If I were to sell whatever I own in this world I could not come up with $600,000. After I get her out, I will still have to spend thousands of dollars on her treatment. My house is tied up as collateral for the first time she was arrested and released on bail. I have nothing else. They know all this. If they don’t want to grant her medical leave, they should just say it and treat her inside the prison,” said Shahidi’s mother.

The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran appealed for the immediate release of all prisoners of conscience in Iran, and for the Iranian authorities to allow independent medical professionals to visit the prisoners at Iranian prisons in order to ascertain their condition and provide medical attention where needed.

“This would demonstrate, in a meaningful way, Iran’s commitment to human rights, as opposed to denials, obfuscations, and evasions,” Rhodes said.

Fear of Torture and Death Penalties for other Detainees to Confirm Allegations of Foreign Instigation

(29 December 2009)  The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran called for the immediate and unconditional release of leading human rights defender Emadeddin Baghi, who was among numerous journalists and reformists detained on 28 December along with over 1,000 others, in the wake of violent crackdowns on Ashura protests. Also detained was the sister of Nobel Peace Laureate Shirin Ebadi, Dr. Nooshin Ebadi.

Baghi, one of the top human rights defenders in Iran who has received numerous international recognitions including the Martin Ennals Award in 2009, suffers from heart and nerve conditions  that have been severely aggravated by his previous incarcerations following convictions for his writings and human rights advocacy. He is a leading opponent of the death penalty.

“Emad Baghi’s arrest, as well as that of Dr. Ebadi, constitutes a blatant assault on the principled human rights community and a challenge to the growing civil rights movement in Iran,” stated Aaron Rhodes, a spokesperson for the Campaign.

“There is no reason to arrest Dr. Ebadi other than to intimidate Shirin Ebadi; the arrest is existentially a kidnapping consistent with the tactics of criminal gangs,” he said.

Shirin Ebadi released a statement regarding her sister’s arrest and called for an investigation by the Judiciary.

Many other prominent journalists and activists have been arrested during the past two days, including: Ebrahim Yazdi, former Foreign Minister and head of the Liberation Front; Mash’allah Shamsalvaezin, spokesman for the Association in Defense of the Press; Shapour Kazemi, brother in law of Mir-Hussein Mousavi; Badralsadat Mofidi,  head of the Journalists’ Association; prominent journalists: Reza Tajik, Nasrin Vaziri, Keyvan Mehrgan, and Mohammad Javad Saberi; Mansoureh Shojaii, women’s rights activist; and political activists: Alireza Beheshti, Morteza Haji, Ghorban Behzadian-nejad, Mostafa Ezedi, Mohammad Taheri, and Heshmatollah Tabari.

Little information is available about the whereabouts and condition of the recently detained citizens who are held incommunicado. Under such conditions, the Campaign believes they may be tortured to produce false confessions confirming official claims that Ashura protests were instigated by foreign governments. Members of the ruling political elite have called for harsh penalties.

“It may be assumed that many detainees will be subjected to torture followed by “show trials” and convicted of crimes that carry the death penalty in the Islamic Republic,” Rhodes said.

The Campaign calls upon the Islamic Republic authorities to release to their families the bodies of  those killed by militias and security forces during the demonstrations, so that they may be buried—insofar as still possible–in accordance with religious law.

“To prevent burial in accordance with Islamic law and traditions makes a total mockery of the claim that authorities are protecting religious law,” Rhodes said.

—————

Declaration by Dr. Shirin Ebadi

I hereby declare that my sister Dr. Noushin Ebadi who is a Medical lecturer at Azad University of Tehran was detained by four officers from the counter-intelligence agency of Islamic Republic of Iran.

She was arrested at 9 pm today (28/12/2009) at her home in Tehran. At present, we have no information of her whereabouts.

During the past two months, my sister had been contacted by the elements within the government and told in no uncertain terms to contact me and persuade me to cease my activities as a human rights advocate. It was strongly suggested that she should leave her apartment which is within the same block as my apartment in Tehran. She was told that her failure to cooperate with them will result in her arrest. I initially did not take this seriously, but I’m sad and upset to see that this was not an empty threat.

It is important to note that my sister is not politically active nor is she a member of any human right organisation. Her only crime seems to be that she is my sister and her arrest is nothing less than a political blackmail and attempted pressure. This is another method employed by the authorities in Iran to stop my activities.

I hereby draw the attention of the Iranian judiciary to this unlawful and wrongful arrest of a member of my family for political gain by the government of Iran and I call for immediate release of my sister.

Iran is currently in turmoil and these unlawful and illegal actions will only have negative effect. What is needed in Iran is peaceful dialogue and tolerance.

Shirin Ebadi

(20 May 2009) – The decision to present the prestigious Martin Ennals Award this year to Emad Baghi for his work on prisoners’ rights and efforts to end the death penalty will help focus international attention on the perilous human rights situation in Iran, Human Rights Watch and the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran said today.

“The award to Emad Baghi for his courageous efforts helps to keep the eyes of the world on the difficult human rights situation in Iran,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Baghi has also been a leading advocate against capital punishment in the face of rising numbers of executions in Iran.”

The Martin Ennals Award, named for the pioneering human rights activist and first secretary-general of Amnesty International, is “granted annually to someone who has demonstrated an exceptional record of combating human rights violations by courageous and innovative means.” The recipients are chosen by a jury consisting of representatives of major international human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), World Organization Against Torture (OMCT), Frontline, International Commission of Jurists, International Service for Human Rights, Human Rights First, Human Rights Information and Documentation Center (HURIDOCS), and Diakonia.

Baghi is the founder of the Society for the Defense of Prisoners’ Rights. Over the past decade, he has published numerous articles and books against the widespread application of the death penalty in Iran. After China, Iran executes more people than any other country in the world.

Baghi’s book Right to Life, a comprehensive exposition of his legal research, argues for the suspension and abolition of the death penalty in Iran and other Muslim-majority countries, and demonstrates that neither Quranic texts nor Islamic jurisprudence pose obstacles toward this goal. Iranian authorities banned Right to Life and have imprisoned Baghi several times and interrogated him after he wrote article about the same subjects.  Right to Life has been translated into Arabic and widely circulated in other Middle Eastern countries.

Baghi’s research and documentation of cases of juvenile offenders on death row has been an important contribution to focusing attention on the plight of juvenile offenders facing execution in Iran. Since 2005, only five countries – Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Pakistan, and Yemen – are known to have executed juvenile offenders. Iran is the only country known to have executed juvenile offenders since 2008. At least 140 juveniles are on death row, according to Baghi’s research and Amnesty International. In a second volume of his book, Right to Life II, also banned from publication in Iran, Baghi invokes Islamic laws and traditions to advocate abolishing the death penalty for juvenile offenders.

There is currently a robust campaign inside Iran for abolition of the juvenile death penalty. The Defenders of Human Rights Center, co-founded by Shirin Ebadi and her colleagues, in April 2009 issued a national call to action, “Stop Child Executions,” demanding an end to executions of juvenile offenders. Prominent religious scholars and national personalities, including the presidential candidate Mehdi Karrubi, have endorsed the campaign.

“This award is a tribute to Baghi and all human rights defenders in Iran who have tirelessly and against all odds continued their work,” said Hadi Ghaemi, spokesperson for the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran. “The Iranian government should end its persecution and prosecution of Emad Baghi and take immediate steps to improve the country’s human rights record, in particular by abolishing the juvenile death penalty.”

Right to Life in Arabic and Persian

Click here to download “Right to Life” in Persian

Click here to download “Right to Life 2″ in Persian

(1 December 2008) An Arabic translation of “Right to Life”, a book by Iranian human rights defender Emad Baghi, has been published by the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information and the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran. The book presents groundbreaking research in Islamic jurisprudence and Sharia supporting the suspension and abolition of capital punishment in countries following Islamic law.

“Right to Life” has been banned by Iranian authorities and Baghi has been imprisoned and interrogated several times for articles he wrote making the arguments collected in this book.

The book is a comprehensive exposition of Baghi’s research arguing for abolition and suspension of the death penalty in Iran and other Islamic countries. As he wrote in a letter to the head of the Iranian Judiciary in April 2006, “Crime, felony, and executions are the results of and contributors to a culture of violence.” He has been tirelessly promoting abolition of the death penalty in Iran, and demonstrating that neither Qur’anic verses nor Islamic jurisprudence pose obstacles toward this goal.

“Right to Life” is an important and timely contribution to religious, political and civil society discussions in Iran and other countries that implement capital punishment under their interpretation of Islamic Sharia. As the worldwide movement towards abolition of the death penalty has gained unprecedented momentum in recent years, Islamic countries constitute one of the main blocks opposing this trend in the international arena. What is more, the practice of capital punishment isolates Islamic countries from the international community.

Baghi’s book provides persuasive arguments within the Islamic discourse for suspension and abolition of death penalty sentences in countries whose laws are based on an interpretation of Sharia. It is often argued that such laws are irrevocable, but Baghi’s research demonstrates that there is no such absolute requirement for the death penalty within Sharia or the Qur’anic verses.

The book is organized into three chapters: on executions in Sharia; on stoning; and on the abolition of the death penalty and alternative sentences. The first chapter argues that all death penalty punishments are legislated and implemented by governments and are not derived from Qur’anic verses. According to Baghi’s research, in cases of murder with the punishment of Qisas, or retribution, death sentences are not necessarily required by Qur’anic verses.

Baghi demonstrates that Qur’anic verses for retribution provide for pardons as well as blood money alternatives and do not impart an absolute requirement for carrying out executions. His research shows that when retribution is chosen, the decision of the next of kin is the necessary but not sufficient condition. He makes the important contribution that Islamic traditions could allow for inclusion of expert opinions—such as psychologists, sociologists, and criminologists—in addition to a public jury to determine the final sentencing. Therefore, a judge and the next of kin of the victim are not necessarily the only persons who may be responsible for making the final decision in cases of retribution relating to murder.

Baghi’s discussion of stoning in cases of adultery and its legal roots provides the powerful argument that such sentencing has no grounds in Qur’anic verses and indeed the death penalty is not prescribed by the Qur’an as its proponents advocate. “The stoning verdict in traditional Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) is a legal command but it has no basis in the Qur’an,” he concludes.

Baghi’s conclusions are captured in his words of April 2006 to the head of Iranian Judiciary, Ayatollah Hashemi Shahrudi: “The killing of a human being is both the source and propagator of violence and has no relationship to kindheartedness, a caring society, and the benevolence of the Creator. It is hence necessary to stop the spread of crime, felony as well as executions as soon as possible.”

The book’s second volume, “Right to Life II,” arguing against application of death penalty for juvenile offenders will be published soon.

—————————-

(Cairo, 18 August  2009) The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI), in collaboration with the International Campaign For Human Rights In Iran, has published an Arabic translation of “Child Executions, A Study of Roots and Proposed Intellectual And Jurisprudential Solutions,” by Iranian human rights defender and winner of the 2009 Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights, Emad Baghi.

Baghi presents comprehensive research on child executions, a punishment that is still inflicted in a few Islamic countries. His study is based on arguments supported by Islamic and international law, and concludes that abolishing any form of  death penalty is necessary, including the execution of child offenders convicted of crimes they committed under the age of 18.

This study is the second part of Baghi’s book, “Right to Life,” in which he focuses on abolishing child executions and goes further in discussions that support abolishing child execution based on Islamic laws and arguments that prove that Islamic countries can eradicate this penalty.

The author analyzes the intellectual and jurisprudential basis for executing children for crimes committed under 18 years of age in countries that depend on Islamic arguments in their legislation, Iran being one of them, and thereby reaching the conclusion of the necessity of abolishing this punishment. Throughout his study, Baghi refers to Koranic verses, Islamic jurisprudential rules, and the principles of human rights.

The book is banned in Iran, as was its first volume, because of its bold arguments in criticizing the penal codes in Iran and due to Baghi’s objection to some interpretations of Islamic laws. Baghi was imprisoned because of his activities in defense of human rights, yet he prepared this research while in Evin prison in Tehran. He was released in July 2008.

Because of his outstanding efforts in defending human rights and specifically abolishing the death penalty, Baghi was awarded the 2009 Martin Ennals Prize for Human rights, one of the most important prizes in human rights recommended by 10 human rights eminent organizations.

The Arabic Network  for Human Rights Information ( ANHRI) and the International Campaign For Human Rights In Iran translate and published this study in Arabic as  a valuable document to assist policy makers, legislators, Shura council members and scholars in Islamic countries in making new laws and legislations based on Islamic references and human rights standards, which gives assurance that Islamic jurisprudence does not contradict efforts to abolish death penalty, and in particular to end the execution of child offenders.

There are currently five Islamic countries, three of which are Arab countries, whose legal codes allow for the execution of child offenders: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen and Pakistan.

—————————-

For Baghi’s Letter to Judiciary in English click here.

For Baghi’s Article “The Bloodied Stone” in English click here.

To order a free hard copy of “Right to Life” in Arabic send an email to:
Omaima Gassim: oma@anhri.net

UPDATE: (1 October 2008) The authorities released Emad Baghi on 16 September 2008 for medical treatment. His prison term will be completed on 8 October 2008. Baghi continues to be subject of prosecution for his human rights activities as the founder of the Center for Defense of Prisoners’ Rights.

UPDATE: (8 September 2008) Emad Baghi, after being held for three weeks in Section 209 of Evin Prison, was returned to general Section 350 on 28 August 2008. The Judiciary announced continuing interrogations in the prosecution of Mr. Baghi, although no new charges were issued against him during his incarceration in Section 209 of Evin Prison.

Mr. Baghi suffered from severe heart and kidney ailments while in prison and the prison doctor recommended strongly that he be taken to a hospital to receive treatment for his illnesses. On the same day the doctor gave his recommendations, 8 August 2008, Mr. Baghi was transferred to Section 209 of Evin Prison.

Section 209 is under the supervision of Intelligence Ministry agents and Mr. Baghi was kept there in a cell with no facilities and another prisoner. The spokesperson for the Judiciary, Alireza Jamshidi, announced that Mr. Baghi had been moved to Section 209 for interrogations regarding his ongoing prosecution.

Emad Baghi (45), a prominent human rights defender, is serving a one- year sentence for articles he wrote a decade before, and for which he already spent three years in prison on the same charges. He is the founder of the Center for Defense of Prisoners’ Rights. His health is in grave condition.

Baghi was prosecuted for two articles he wrote, entitled “Capital Punishment and Qisas” (published in September 1999) and “Solving the Black Box of Serial Murders” (published in January 2000). He was charged with “publishing insulting material with unacceptable interpretation of Islamic rules,” and “dissemination of falsehoods with intention of disturbing public opinion.” Judge Mortazavi, then presiding over Branch 1410 of Tehran’s Public Court, sentenced him to three years in prison, in addition to a one- year suspended sentence on 6 August 2000.

Subsequently, Baghi served a three- year sentence in prison. On 14 October 2007, Baghi was summoned and interrogated with regard to his advocacy on behalf of prisoners’ rights within the framework of the Center for Defense of Prisoners’ Rights. He was arrested and ordered to serve his one-year suspended sentence.

During his latest incarceration, Baghi developed serious heart problems due to solitary confinement and stress during long interrogation sessions. Due to his serious medical condition, the Judiciary released Baghi on a medical parole for a period of two months on 16 February 2008. During his medical parole, Judicial authorities continued to summon Baghi, including five court sessions on new charges filed against him. He was arrested again on 15 April 2008 as his medical parole expired.

On 11 May 2008, authorities transferred Baghi to the prison’s medical clinic after his heart condition worsened. During his medical parole, his doctors warned that his health is in a perilous condition and he should not be returned to prison. There are serious concerns for his health and safety.

The Judiciary has scheduled a new court hearing for Baghi on 18 June 2008 on charges relating to his advocacy for prisoners’ rights and the Center for Defense of Prisoners’ Rights.

The Honorable Judiciary Committee
Majles Shuraye Eslami
Islamic Republic of Iran

———————

In recent years Iran has continuously been among the top three countries in the world with the highest number of executions. As a rule, the members of the judiciary and the legal system cannot be pleased with such high numbers. Examples of such unhappiness are reflected in the words of various judicial officials. For instance, in the execution of 10 people held in Evin prison, the head of Tehran’s criminal court said, “the court tried its best to get the consent of the next of kin but they were not willing to show mercy.” He expressed regret regarding the committed crimes but also the executions, stating “in the hope for the day we no longer have incidents that despite our desire and because of our legal responsibility we are forced to witness the execution of an accused.” (Iran, 20 April 1385). Along the same lines, the deputy public prosecutor said, “We have always recommended forgiveness to the next of kin.” (E’temad, 20 April 2006). However, mere lack of desire is not sufficient and immediate action in this regard is both necessary and warranted. Crime, felony, and executions are the results of and contributors to a culture of violence. There is a need to: 1) mobilize the mass media in order to cure this culture of violence; 2) strengthen active civil and non-governmental institution in this area; and 3) offer laws that can remedy the situation. In what follows the focus will be on laws.
Among the executions issued in the past year approximately 64 percent consisted of qessas or retribution sentences. In other words, the handed sentences relate to persons who have committed murder and have private plaintiffs. We will not deal with the topic of mercy recommendations and ways to implement them in order to prevent the increasing number of executions. Our intent here is to suggest:

1. Executions and laws of retribution are two distinct subjects and since executions are promulgated by the state, the unpleasant statistic of executions can be reduced through the adjustment of laws and change of the death penalty into prison sentences. Political executions or executions for crimes such as smuggling and sale of illicit drugs have nothing to do with religious canon and can be nullified without any discussion.

2. In the case of retribution which has a private plaintiff, on the basis of a decision by religious leaders (fuqaha), the handed decision can be conditioned by the opinion of legal experts, sociologists, and psychologists. This should be particularly so in the case of crimes committed due to the ill or anti-social character of individuals who are themselves the result of unsuitable social and economic conditions or incorrect social management. Such individuals are more victims than criminals. In Articles 83 and 84 of the Penal Code approved in 1999, the opinion of the local investigator and examiner is considered a condition. In the Article 1 of Iran’s Civil Code the presence of experts on the side of a judge is again considered a condition. Article 27 of the Regulation for the Implementation of the Death Penalty, Stoning, and Amputations also deems the presence of a physician necessary for the discernment and implementation of some of the articles of the Civil Code. Therefore, the conditioning of a sentence to the opinion of a group of lawyers, sociologists, and psychologist should not be considered out of place.

3. In religious canon much importance is given to respect for the soul, to the point that on the basis of the principle of “in case of the least doubt” punishment should be suspended.

4. Given that there have been many mistakes in the judgments rendered in the death penalty cases, it is necessary to make the presence of the jury required in criminal courts. The most important reason is the priority and establishment of the principle of caution is such sentences. “According to Shaykh Toussi, “it is suitable that in a judgment proceedings scholarly judges from the Shi’i sect and one person from each of the other sects should be present so that if there is an incident and there is a need to ask a question regarding a subject they can give an answer to the judge and offer their reason. If they are present in the court proceedings, the advice and opinion of these individuals should be sought and if they are not there, they should be called to attend and if they rendered a decision that was in agreement with the righteous sect no one can oppose.” This view of Shaykh Toussi which has made the judge’s decision dependent on the opinion of a collective of experts and sees their presence in the court as necessary is not considered a denial of the independence of the judge. Why is it that in some crimes the presence of the jury is accepted while in this important matter towards which religious scholars have always spoken of using caution we should not accept the presence of jury? Undoubtedly prudence and preparation of the kind described above can lead to the reduction of the death penalty since the private plaintiff insistent on revenge will also be faced with public opinion and not merely the state.

5. Most importantly is that the law of retribution is always dependent on making sure that a person with intent and prior plan causes the death of an innocent person.

Shari’a

The criteria that the majority of religious scholars such as Mohaqeq Helli, Mohammad Hassan Najafi in Javaher, and Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrir al-Vasileh have discussed is that the criminal in committing a crime should have both the intent of the crime and intent of the result. The tool that is used must also be deadly. Although retribution is a principal punishment but: 1) it is not definite and can be invalidated through a change to financial compensation or even amnesty; 2) despite the importance it has the Lord has given the responsibility of making the decision to the next of kin so as to prevent hidden revenge, murder, and terror in society . However He has announced his opinion in the following manner: “Whoever shows mercy in retribution, that will constitute the atonement of his sins.” (al-Maidah 45). In another verse it is said, “if one is pardoned by the victim’s kin, an appreciative response is in order, and an equitable compensation shall be paid. This is an alleviation from your Lord and mercy.” (al-Baqarah 178). In another verse that is one of the main references of retribution, it is said “the guerdon of an ill deed is an ill the like thereof. But whosoever pardons and amends, his wage is the affair of God” (Ash Shura 40) and “whoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah ‘ s sovereignty ) , but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth. (al-Maidah 32).

Therefore, the government can suspend its own punishment decree. It can also encourage the society towards mercy and self-control as a means to please God. It can further support institutions that are active in this regard. The fact that religious scholars require the permission of the government for the implementation of retribution reflects the responsibility the government has and the need for it not to be indifferent to whatever is done by the next to kin. According to verse 184 of al-Baqarah, the philosophy of retribution is life. According to various interpreters the meaning here is that through such a punishment the murder of innocents will be prevented. Hence if the philosophy and objective of retribution is prevention of murder, and experience shows that the death penalty has not been able to prevent crime and murder, then this punishment must be abrogated and we should be after other means for the realization of the philosophy of punishment regarding intentional murder. The Qur’an itself has paved the path by hinting at alternative punishments such as monetary fines (diya) or amnesty.

One of the problems in Iran is that according to current law if the next of kin agrees to monetary fines or even pardon, the murderer can be released from prison unless the court from the point of view of public interest imposes limited imprisonment. It is possible that this approach may embolden the person found guilty and cause insecurity in the society. The point of this writing is not to encourage amnesty for the person found guilty rather to argue that, like in other crimes, retribution can also be turned into a monetary fine or on the basis of the judgment of the court or next of kin the monetary fine can be turned into imprisonment for life so that the person found guilty does not flee justice.

The point is that al-Baqarah confirms waiving retribution if statistics and numbers show that the philosophy behind the death penalty has not been fulfilled. Since the main logic is the guarantee of life, any other means that can lead to fulfillment of this objective will be preferable even if it means the invalidation of the death penalty and its replacement with imprisonment, fines, or amnesty. In case a rational person is found guilt for intentional murder of an innocent human being, the next of kin among the three choices of retribution, fines, and mercy can choose one. However, on the basis of reasons that will be explained below, in case of the choice of retribution the decision of the next of kin is the necessary but not sufficient condition.

Sura 32 of al-Maidah says he who murders another without the right of retribution or without any immorality having been committed it is as though he has killed a whole people. And whoever saves a life it is as though he has given life to a people. Here while explaining the depth of a crime, the second part emphasizes the value of giving and not taking life. If the first past of the sura shows the philosophy behind the law of retribution, the second part in effect expresses the philosophy of practicing mercy and restraint in retribution, which is seen as the prevention of the death of even one person (which is interpreted as the killing of all humanity). And this responsibility does not rest only on people but also on the state as well.

Law

The Law of Islamic Punishment notes the permission of the ruler in retribution in three articles (205, 219, and 265). Also in Article 42 it has not found the intent to murder to be worthy of punishment while in Article 206 it considers the intent to murder in case of an actual murder to be necessary for the verdict of an intentional murder.

At the same time, the Law of Islamic Punishment, despite offering precise and flexible commands which can provide the opportunity for more appropriate understanding and interpretation (ijtihad) that can guarantee more humane regulations, quickly passes over such an important topic that deals with human life through a few short, general, and ambiguous articles. What was previously said about the law of retribution concerns a situation in which an intentional murder of an innocent person has occurred with prior intent and plan. This is while 25 percent of retribution sentences and death penalties are regarding murders that do not have the above-mentioned characteristics. In other words, those convicted are those who until the moment the murder occurred did not know the victim nor did they have intent to murder. Murder occurred spontaneously due to a fight or sudden rise of anger. The character of some of the convicted is also not criminal in so far as prior to the crime and under normal circumstances they could not bear the thought of killing even a bird. Hence the murder was not with intent and plan and logically and on the basis of religious law, it should not fall within the framework of law of retribution. Of course there should be punishment but not capital punishment. If indeed an execution occurs in this case, one could say that a murder has occurred in the hands of a state and a person has faced a punishment higher than deserved.

Some Examples

1. A man who killed his wife after a verbal altercation was sentenced to retribution. In the court he said that he loved his wife and life. “Soheila and I had been married for seven years and throughout these years we had no problems. Only recently because of financial difficulties we had a few altercations. The morning of the incident I got home. After seeing me Soheila began yelling and cursing about why I had come home so late. I became angry and slapped her face. She fell to the ground and was still yelling. I picked up a kitchen knife to scare her but do not know what happened (Hamshahri and Iran 10 March 2006).

2. The 25-year old Adel had gone for pilgrimage to Abdulazim mosque with his wife and child. In return, because it was late, he rented a cab. As he approached his house he entered into an argument with the cab driver over the fare. The driver cursed at him and Adel got angry since it was in front of his family. He attacked the driver with a knife. Adel is sentenced to retribution. (E’temad Melli, 10 March 2006).

3. In the spring of 2005 it was reported to security forces that a young man by the name of Hamid due to physical altercation with another young man by the name of Mohammad had been injured and ultimately died. In the court Mohammad mentioned that he was supposed to meet with his ex-wife so that they could discuss the possibility of renewing their common life. “When I got there, I saw that a few people were causing trouble for my wife. I pulled my car in front of my wife’s car and was yet to disembark that Hamid attacked me rapidly. I took out a covered knife that I had under the car seat to scare Hamid and prevent his attack. In five second we were engaged in a fight and suddenly I saw that blood was coming out of Hamid’s shoulder. I dropped the knife that was still in cover and ran away.” In fact, the divorced wife had come to the scene with the other man (Hamid) and that man, under the influence of the woman, had thought that Mohammad Taheri (the previous husband) was about to bother his new girl friend and that is why he attacked Mohammad. After the completion of the case the representative of the prosecutor clearly states: “I doubt that the knife was taken out of its cover while hitting the victim. It seems to me that the accused is telling the truth about not taking the knife out of cover.” Mohammad Taheri says, “ I took out the knife with the cover with the intent to scare the deceased and the injury was caused during the altercation. I don’t know how the covered blade caused the injury as I had no intent to injure.” The file was finally reviewed in the provincial criminal court and the minority opinion that the knife in cover could not be considered an instrument of murder and the murder was unintentional was rejected. The majority opinion was that it was an instrument of murder and a judgment of retribution based on intentional murder was issued. Upon appeal the case went to the Supreme Court and the decision was that “the accused and his lawyers claim that the accused did not have the intent to kill and the knife was not taken out of cover. Hence it can be deduced that it was not intentional murder. However, in reference to Article 206 the act of the accused led to murder even if the knife was in cover and there was no intent. This is an irrelevant argument since the knife and the action of the accused was a heavy blow with the knife which led to injury and such acts do lead to murder. Hence the majority opinion holds the intentionality of the murder and issues a retribution judgment.” This decision was rendered despite the fact that there is really no other reason for knife covers but covering the blade in order to prevent it from injuring. No other interpretation is logical since without such an interpretation there would be no distinction between a bare knife and a covered one. However, the main issue in such decisions should not be the instrument of murder but the fact that the murder occurred not out of pure criminality and intention but as accident and hence should not fall under the jurisdiction of the law of retribution.

Judicial Process

In the past years, even if there was prior intent to murder and there was little doubt that the instrument used was an instrument of murder, a statement by the accused that he did not intend to murder and he merely wanted to scare has been accepted by the court. An example of this was seen in the trial of Saeed Askar who shot Saeed Hajjarian with a gun and placed him in coma for a few weeks with a high possibility of death. Another example was the murder of a police officer by Mohsen Fallahian with an unlicensed gun. In the latter case, the claim that the murder was not intentional was accepted and the convicted person was neither faced with retribution nor even imprisonment.

The sentence rendered for the convicts of the serial killings in Kerman and the sentence of the murderer of a young man in Karaj metro are other examples. As mentioned, although the conditions for the acceptance of the claims of unintentional murder were not there, still these claims were accepted. This author believes that even if the court’s judgment was intentional murder, the punishment should be imprisonment and not retribution. However, the surprising point is that when in particular cases there is institutional support the government shows tremendous amount of tolerance to the point that despite clear evident of prior intent and existence of the instrument of murder, the decision is based on the statement of the accused and a decision of not guilty is issued. However in many other situations which there are clear reasons for not applying it, a retribution decision is rendered.

Jurisprudential Reasoning

Exclusion from retribution of cases of altercation and deaths by accident after the establishment of lack of prior intent is in accordance with the view of major religious scholars as well. For instance, as it is mentioned in Tahrir al-Vasileh “if the next of kin claims that the murder was intentional and the murderer denies it, the murderer’s sworn testimony is accepted.”

Conclusion

In the past year, on average there was one execution judgment or implementation a day. There is an increasing trend, in all likelihood because of the indifference of official and the press. This indifference towards the increasing number of executions places us in an uncomfortable situation vis-à-vis the statement of the Lord regarding the killing of one person being equivalent to the killing of all people. The killing of a human being is both the source and propagator of violence and has no relationship to kindheartedness, a caring society, and the benevolence of the Creator. It is hence necessary to stop the spread of crime, felony as well as executions as soon as possible.

Emadeddin Baghi

24 April 2006

(Geneva, 08 July 2008) Today 24 international and regional human rights organizations called on Iranian authorities to spare four youths facing execution and to stop imposing the death penalty for crimes committed by juvenile offenders – persons who commit crimes while under the age of 18, and to uphold their international obligation to enforce the absolute prohibition on the death penalty in such cases

Iran executed 16-year-old Mohammad Hassanzadeh, an Iranian Kurd on 10 June 2008 for a crime committed when he was 14. Four other juvenile offenders are at risk of execution between 11 and 25 July. The organizations called on the head of Iran’s judiciary to suspend these four executions immediately.Behnoud Shojaee and Mohammad Feda’i face execution on 11 July. Both were to be executed on 11 June 2008 but received last minute month-long reprieves to give them more time to seek pardons from the families of their victims.

At least two other juvenile offenders, Salah Taseb, and Sa’eed Jazee, are also at risk of execution in the coming days. According to the group Human Rights Activists in Iran, Salah Taseb, from Sanandaj, who was convicted of a murder committed when he was 15, has been transferred from the children’s prison to the main prison in Sanandaj after recently turning 18. He may be executed before the end of the Iranian month of Tir, which ends on 23 July 2008, although spokesperson for the Judiciary Alireza Jamshidi stated on 1 July 2008 that the case remained subject to appeal. The other youth, Sa’eed Jazee, who was due to be executed on 25 June, reportedly had his execution postponed for a month. He was convicted of the murder of a 22-year-old man, which took place in 2003 when he was 17 years old.

Almost 140 juvenile offenders are known to be on death row in Iran, but the true figure could be even higher – for example, Mohammad Hassanzadeh’s case was not known to campaigners prior to his execution.

In a press conference on 17 June 2008, carried by various Iranian media, Judiciary spokesperson Alireza Jamshidi denied that Mohammad Hassanzadeh had been under the age of 18 at the time of his execution. In response, Mohammad Mostafa’i, a lawyer who has defended many juvenile offenders sentenced to death, wrote on 25 June 2008 (http://mostafaei.blogfa.com/post-11.aspx) that he went to Sanandaj following Alireza Jamshidi’s statement, where he saw Mohammad Hassanzadeh’s identity papers. Mohammad Mostafa’i wrote that the documents proved that Mohammad Hassanzadeh was in fact only 16 years, 11 months and 20 days old at the time of his execution.

The use of the death penalty against those who committed their offences while under the age of 18 is a gross violation of customary international law, no matter what age the person has reached at the time of their execution. The organizations said they were concerned that the authorities’ insistence that Mohammad Hassanzadeh was over 18 at the time of his execution could be a prelude to reprisals being taken against Iranian human rights defenders (HRDs) who have publicly criticised this and other executions of juvenile offenders, as they could potentially be accused of vaguely-worded charges such as “acting against state security” or “propaganda against the system”.

Iranian HRDs who have previously publicised human rights violations have suffered such reprisals. For example, in 2007 a court convicted Emadeddin Baghi, a leading Iranian campaigner against the death penalty, of “activities against national security” and “propaganda in favour of the regime’s opponents” for statements criticizing death sentences imposed after unfair trials in cases involving adults. That ruling was overturned on appeal, but Emadeddin Baghi continues to serve another sentence connected to his human rights work. Mohammad Sadiq Kabudvand, an Iranian Kurdish HRD is serving an 11-year prison sentence He was convicted of “acting against state security by establishing the Human Rights Organization of Kurdistan (HROK)” and “propaganda against the system”.

The Iranian authorities should respect the right to freedom of expression, including in the defence of human rights, as articulated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the UN Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Some Iranian officials have attempted to justify killing juvenile offenders by terming these killings “retribution” and not “execution.” According to Judiciary spokesperson Alireza Jamshidi, “In [Iranian] law we don’t have execution (‘edam) for persons under 18 years of age; what we have in the laws for persons between 15 to 18 is the issue of retribution (qisas).” In Islamic law, “retribution” for murder is the death penalty. Family members of a murder victim may pardon or accept compensation in lieu of execution, but they are not required to do so. Iranian law currently allows the death penalty – for “retribution” for murder and for other crimes – to be imposed on girls as young as nine, and boys from the age of 15, lunar years. A child younger than this could also be sentenced to death if the judge in the case considers that he or she has reached puberty.

This distinction between “execution” and “retribution” is a meaningless one. A person is executed when his or her death is brought about by the state pursuant to a final judgement issued by a competent court, which is the case in sentences of “retribution” issued by Iranian courts. By making such misleading statements, the Iranian authorities are attempting to obscure the fact that Iran is violating international law every time it executes a juvenile offender – whether or not the individual has reached 18 at the time of their execution. It is imperative that the authorities immediately stop such executions and amend legislation to ensure that no one is put to death by the state for any crime, including murder, committed when under the age of 18.

Iran is a state party to both the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (without reservation) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), both of which prohibit the execution of persons under the age of 18 at the time of their offence. In ratifying the CRC, Iran declared an extremely broad reservation “not to apply any provisions or articles of the Convention that are incompatible with Islamic Laws.” The Committee on the Rights of the Child, which monitors implementation of the CRC, expressed its concern in 2000 that the “broad and imprecise nature of the State party’s [Iran’s] general reservation potentially negates many of the Convention’s provision and raises concern as to its compatibility with the object and purpose of the Convention.” The 24 human rights groups called on Iran to withdraw its reservation to the CRC, which, the groups said, cannot in any case be invoked as legal authority to allow for the execution of juvenile offenders.

In 2007, only two other countries – Saudi Arabia and Yemen – also executed juvenile offenders, but the numbers are dwarfed by those carried out in Iran, where at least seven were executed that year. So far in 2008, two juvenile offenders, including Mohammad Hassanzadeh who was only 16 at the time of his execution, have been hanged in Iran.

Iran should immediately commute all death sentences against juvenile offenders and cease all such executions, the 24 groups said.

The 24 international and regional human rights organizations calling on Iran include:

Association Adala; Amnesty International; The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information; Arab Penal Reform Organization (APRO); Bahrein Center for Human Rights (BCHR); Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS); Defence for Children International; Defenders of Human Rights Center, Iran; Egyptian Alliance to Challenge Death Penalty; International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH); Human Rights Association for the Assistance of Prisoners; Human Rights Association of Turkey (IHD); Human Rights Watch; Institut International des Droits de l’Enfant; International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran; Organisation Marocaine des droits de l’Homme (OMDH); Iran Human Rights; Iranian League for the Defense of Human Rights (LDDHI); Moroccan Centre for Human Rights (Centre Marocain des Droits Humains); Moroccan Coalition against the Death Penalty (Association Marocaine des Droits Humains, Amnesty International Section Marocaine, Organisation Marocaine des Droits Humains, Centre des Droits des Gens, Obsevatoire Marocains des Prisons, Association des Barreaux du Maroc, Forum Marocain de Verite et Justice); Penal Reform International; Stop Child Executions; VIVERE; and World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT).

The list is the result of comprehensive primary research by prominent Iranian human rights defender Emad Baghi. It forms part of his thus-far unpublished book “Right to Life II,” which demonstrates that such executions are not sanctioned by Islamic law as argued by Iranian authorities. The Iranian censors have not permitted the book to be published.Baghi’s book is the product of his research into religious sources arguing for the abolition of executions for child offenders. He compiles reliable and official sources for such executions carried out over the past decade. The book was distributed in limited numbers to Iranian officials in the Judiciary and the Parliament as well as to human rights defenders and organizations inside Iran. The Campaign has obtained a copy of “Right to Life II,” which documents approximately 177 execution sentences for child offenders over the past decade. Accordingly, 34 executions have taken place to date, another 114 are apparently pending, and the remainder have been pardoned.

Due to the lack of transparency in Iran’s judicial system, it is possible that some of the 114 juvenile offenders on death row may already have been executed.

Iran leads the world in executing child offenders. In 2008, Iran has carried two such executions: Javad Shojai on 26 February and Mohammad Hassanzadeh on 10 June.

“It is time for Iran to abolish the death penalty for child offenders. Even Judiciary officials within the system are against these executions, but do not dare to speak publicly,” Hadi Ghaemi, a spokesperson for the Campaign said.

The majority of child offenders on the list are accused of murder. However, as Baghi’s detailed research in his banned book shows, many sentences are based on confessions obtained from child defendants following torture and after interrogations in which they have had no access to a lawyer. Courts routinely ignore evidence presented by defendants demonstrating that they acted in self-defense.

According to Iran’s criminal code, boys may be subjected to penalties including execution at the age of 15 and girls at age of 9. Soghra Najafpour is a woman imprisoned in Rasht prison since 1990 when she was only 13 years old and accused of murder. Mosleh Zamani, another child offender, is sentenced to death for an “illicit relationship with his girlfriend.”

In the city of Firoozabad, Fars province, the execution of Abu Moslem Sohrabi, 17 at the time of his crime, is imminent, according to his father.

The Campaign called on Iran to immediately abolish the death penalty for child offenders. As a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Iran is obligated to abolish such executions.

“We are calling upon the international community to denounce child executions in Iran and around the world, and to take concrete steps to convince the Iranian authorities that such uncivilized practices have negative consequences for Iran’s international and economic relations,” Ghaemi said.