Click the image to watch the Campaign’s testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The testimony begins at 84 minutes.

——–

FULL TESTIMONY TO SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS DELIVERED BY RUDI BAKHTIAR

INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN IRAN

5/11/2011

I would like to thank the Chairman for providing this opportunity to speak to you on behalf of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, an independent NGO dedicated to research and advocacy regarding the human rights situation in Iran.  We want to share our main concerns and offer some recommendations.

Two years after the disputed presidential election of 2009, the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to deteriorate and is in a state of unprecedented crisis.

Under the Presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran has become one of the world’s worst violators of human rights, egregiously violating virtually every article of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of which Iran is a state party, and ignoring the human rights protections in Iran’s own Constitution.

Since the start of 2011 Iran has been on an execution binge. In January 2011 alone, Iran executed 85 persons, compared to 86 in all of 2005, the year President Ahmadinejad assumed power.

In all of 2010, Iran executed at least 542 people, 242 officially announced and over 300 reportedly put to death in secret executions inside Vakilabad Prison in Mashad.

Reports of cruel and inhumane punishments including stoning, limb amputations and floggings are also on the rise.  The government falsely justifies these practices on the basis of Iran’s religion and culture, while they are clearly part of a program to terrorize the citizens.

Human rights defenders, civil society activists, journalists, as well as, minority ethnic and religious groups, have been facing growing repression; the authorities silences those who try to expose and criticize its violence, or hold  it accountable.

The Iranian Judiciary has become deeply politicized under the influence of the state security establishment. The Judiciary and security forces regularly use coerced confessions obtained under torture or duress to issue lengthy sentences on vaguely worded offences including “acts against national security,” and “enmity against God.”

Over the past two years, numerous detainees have risked their lives and come forward with personal accounts of rape, severe beatings, sleep deprivation, verbal threats and other ill treatment by interrogators.

An estimated 500 persons remain arbitrarily detained for peaceful activities or the exercise of free expression. Another 500 prisoners of conscience have been sentenced to lengthy prison terms following unfair trails.

Authorities in Iran are effectively criminalizing human rights based legal representation by prosecuting a number of lawyers who represent political detainees including Nasrin Sotoudeh and Mohammad Seifzadeh, sentenced in 2010 to eleven years and nine years respectively.

Even the creation of an independent human rights organization has become a crime in Iran. Mohammad Kaboudvand was sentenced to 10 years in prison for starting the first human rights organization in Kurdistan. Family members and colleagues of Shirin Ebadi, Iran’s 2003 Nobel Peace Laureate, have been arrested, harassed and intimidated in order to force them to disassociate themselves from Ms. Ebadi, who led the country’s most effective human rights organization, the Center for Human Rights Defenders.

Leading human rights advocate Emad Baghi of the Association for Prisoner’s Rights, who has shown how Iran’s policy of executing juvenile offenders is not justified by Sharia law, is serving six years in prison.

The government continues to impose increasingly severe restrictions on freedom of expression, association and assembly, including widespread censorship of newspapers and the Internet, imprisoning numerous Iranian journalists including Bahman Ahmadi Amouee and Issa Saharkhiz.

Religious and ethnic minorities continue to face discrimination. In December 2010, Iranian courts sentenced Christian pastor Youcef Nadarkhani to death for “apostasy,” an offense that has no basis in Iranian law.

The broad scale discrimination against members of the Baha’i Faith has included the sentencing of seven Baha’i leaders to twenty years in prison each on baseless espionage charges in August 2010, and denying Baha’is access to higher education. Sufi followers have been routinely persecuted and prosecuted solely for their beliefs.

Furthermore, violent suppression of the ethnic Arab population in Khuzestan, continues.  Dozens of protesters were killed and many were injured during demonstrations on April 15 2011, and many have since been arrested.

Despite unassailable evidence of wide scale rights violations by the government, Iranian officials continue to misrepresent their human rights record, reject calls for reform, and block attempts by international human rights mechanisms to cooperatively address the crisis in Iran.  In this connection I wish to note the critical role of the Administration for its leadership and support of the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution that established a special rapporteur on Iran.  It is something the Iranian people deeply appreciate.

Two years ago, millions of Iranians took to the streets demanding respect for fundamental freedoms, human rights and democracy. Today popular movements throughout the Middle East are making similar calls.

Iranians are today living under severe repression, but there is no doubt their civil and human rights movement cannot be contained in the long term.

We believe United States policy toward Iran must give priority to the dire human rights situation. In particular we recommend the following actions:

• Access to information is of critical importance today.  While the Iranian government engages in broad censorship and implements severe restrictions on internet access and broadcast media, the US could help Iranian people to gain access to the internet and satellite channels as a means to expand communications, access impartial news and information and to challenge the government’s narrative and expose the truth. For example, the US should lift sanctions on hardware technology that would allow ordinary Iranians to download internet content wirelessly through their television satellite dishes and should facilitate providing such wireless access. US policy should also focus on ending the illegal jamming of satellite channels by the Iranian government.
• The Administration and Congress should express clear moral support for the Iranian people in responding to the unfolding human rights crisis. This moral support should be articulated in a way that does not allow legitimate aspirations of Iranians to be falsely portrayed by the government as foreign intervention.  Upholding international legal commitments is not interfering in the internal affairs of another state.
• As noted above, the Administration’s diplomacy at the Human Rights Council, leading to a multilateral consensus on appointing a special reporter for Iran is welcomed and should be strongly supported. This special mechanism should be strengthened to result in tangible improvements.
• The US government should target companies that sell surveillance technologies to the Iranian government, empowering its repression. Several European companies are suspected of such business activity and should be denied access to American markets.
• The US should continue to expand its targeted sanctions against government officials implicated in gross human rights violations. It should also encourage countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan to adopt similar travel bans and financial freezes. The US Treasury should put financial institutions in countries such as Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, and the UAE on notice that any financial services to sanctioned individual will result in their losing the ability to engage in financial transactions through US institutions.

Thank you for your attention and concern.  And thank you in advance for concrete steps that you can take to help the people of Iran realize their fundamental human rights.

The draft resolution was approved on 18 November 2010 and was finalized amidst dedicated efforts from Iranian authorities who lobbied with supportive and neighboring countries and African and Latin American countries to defeat its approval. In recent months, Iran’s Human Rights Delegation led by Mohammad Javad Larijani, has held frequent meetings with diplomats from other countries to lobby against the resolution, suffering a failure after all.

“The Campaign welcomed the resolution but pointed out that it fell short of instituting a special mechanism to monitor and report on the ongoing human rights crisis in Iran and that such a mechanism is urgently needed.”

See: UN Resolution on Iran’s Human Rights Violations Approved by Huge Margin

Several international human rights groups and organizations focused on human rights in Iran engaged in coordinated, coherent efforts to provide documentation pertaining to the widespread violations of human rights in Iran to representatives of UN member states.

The draft resolution passed with 80 votes for, 44 against, and 57 abstentions. During the voting process, Larijani, who went to New York in order to lobby against the resolution, tried to stop the voting by filing a No Action Motion (NAM). But with 91 votes against and 51 in favor, the maneuver demonstrably failed.

This is the seventh consecutive year a resolution has been passed regarding the human rights situation in Iran and it reflects the attention given by the UN to Iran’s lack of commitment to observing human rights standards. It further demonstrates the willingness for cooperation among UN officials in order to confront Iran’s violations of human rights. However, in an effort to rally opposition for the plan, Larijani called it a political attack by the West, and “provocative.”

The resolution addresses the increasing number of executions, especially public executions, stoning, and hangings. Iran is one of the few countries in which individuals who commit crimes under the age of 18 could face the death penalty. The issue of violence against women is another subject addressed by the resolution.

23 November 2010

UN human rights chief concerned by Iranian crackdown on human rights defenders

GENEVA – The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay on Tuesday expressed renewed concern for the fate of human rights defenders in Iran, particularly Ms. Nasrin Sotoudeh who was on hunger strike for several weeks in Tehran’s Evin Prison.

“As we approach international Human Rights Day* on 10 December, the world will be focusing on situations where human rights activists are not free to organize or speak out,” the High Commissioner said. “I am very concerned that Nasrin Sotoudeh’s case is part of a much broader crackdown, and that the situation of human rights defenders in Iran is growing more and more difficult,” she added.

Ms. Sotoudeh, a prominent human rights lawyer involved in defending many high profile cases, was arrested on 4 September and has reportedly been in solitary confinement since then. She is said to have been charged with national security offences. Following her first court appearance on 15 November, Ms. Sotoudeh reportedly broke the hunger strike she had conducted over a period of several weeks in protest at her detention.

“I urge the Iranian authorities to review her case urgently and expedite her release,” Pillay said.

Several other people who are currently detained are associated with the Centre for Human Rights Defenders (CHRD) founded by Nobel Laureate, Shirin Ebadi. Mr Mohamad Saifzadeh, a lawyer and co-founder of CHRD, was sentenced to nine years in prison and a ten-year ban on practicing law for “forming an association whose aim is to harm national security.” Other members of CHRD are being prosecuted on similar charges, or have been detained for shorter periods and prevented from travelling abroad.

Most recently, on 13 November 2010, five lawyers were arrested in Tehran on security charges. Although two have reportedly been subsequently released, the other three are believed to be still in custody.

Other organizations whose members have been arrested or convicted in recent months include the Committee for the Defence of Political Prisoners in Iran and the Committee of Human Rights Reporters, as well as individual lawyers representing clients in sensitive cases together with student activists and leaders.

The High Commissioner urged the Iranian authorities to review their cases as well.

“Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are enshrined in international law,” she said, “most importantly in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is a binding treaty that Iran has ratified.”

On 1-2 December, OHCHR is scheduled to hold a judicial colloquium in Tehran with more than 30 Iranian judges and prosecutors on issues relating to the right to fair trial and the treatment of detainees. Several international experts and judges will participate in the seminar to share internationally recognized standards and experience on how judiciaries can protect human rights.

“This is an important opportunity for direct engagement with Iranian judges on issues of concern, and to promote international standards in the administration of justice,” the High Commissioner said. “I encourage the Iranian authorities to open up greater space for human rights lawyers and activists who play a vital and constructive role in protecting human rights in all societies. They may express critical views – but criticism is not a crime.”

* The theme for this year’s Human Rights Day on 10 December is “Human rights defenders who act to end discrimination.”

United Nations A/65/370
15 September 2010
Original: English
Promotion and protection of human rights: human
rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs
and representatives

———

The situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran
Report of the Secretary-General

Contents

I. Introduction

II. Thematic issues

A. Torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including flogging and amputations
B. Death penalty and public executions
C. Executions of juvenile offenders
D. Stoning as a method of execution
E. Women’s rights
F. Rights of minorities, including the Baha’i community
G. Freedom of peaceful assembly and association and freedom of opinion and expression, including following the presidential elections in June 2009
H. Due process rights and impunity, including in relation to the presidential elections in
June 2009

III. Cooperation with international human rights mechanisms and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

A. Universal periodic review
B. Cooperation with the United Nations human rights treaty system
C. Cooperation with the special procedures
D. Cooperation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

IV. Conclusions and recommendations

Download Report (PDF)

Download PDF of Reporters’ Guide

The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran has reviewed and analyzed over twenty interviews with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and prepared a guide for reporters to be used during his visit to New York for the United Nations General Assembly. The Campaign has highlighted important trends on human rights issues and advisement on how to approach those issues with Ahmadinejad. The entire report is linked below.

———————————————————————————

How to Interview Iranian Officials on Human Rights Issues

I. Introduction: Human Rights Under Siege in Iran

II. A Brief Summary of Major Human Rights Violations in Iran

III. Iranian Officials’ Claims on Rights Issues: Myths vs. Facts

IV. Notable Facts about Iran’s International Record and Cooperation on Human Rights

V. Interviewing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

VI. Argumentative Ahmadinejad: Quotes from Interviews

VII. Suggested Questions for President Ahmadinejad

VIII. List of Interviews with Iranian Government Officials

IX. Appendix: Iranian Officials’ Replies to Human Rights Oriented Questions in Previous Interviews

———————————————————————————

The Iranian government’s decision to withdraw was announced to the Asian group of delegates in Geneva today. Iranian human rights defenders and activists had launched a major campaign opposing Iran’s candidacy.

“This is a very important achievement for Iranian human rights defenders who have suffered so much in the past year and who opposed Iran’s candidacy,” said Hadi Ghaemi, spokesperson for the Campaign.

“We believe that with Iran off the Council, the General Assembly Human Rights Council will be in a better position to assist Iran in meeting its obligations,” he added.

The Iranian government had filed its candidacy for membership in the Human Rights Council despite its record of well-documented, systematic and widespread human rights violations, particularly following the post-election crackdown during the past year.

The Campaign calls on the Human Rights Council to hold the Iranian government accountable for the serious human rights crisis underway inside the country and to initiate investigative mechanisms regarding the post-election events during its upcoming session in June 2010.

The Campaign believes that the Iranian government’s withdrawal reflects its realization that not only would it fail to garner enough votes in the General Assembly, but that the election would provide an opportunity for the international community to focus on the grave situation of human rights in the country.

“This withdrawal is a tacit admission of how bad the situation is. The Human Rights Council should not let Iran off the hook, but rather intensify its efforts to improve the situation there,” Ghaemi said.

(23 April 2010) Prominent Iranian human rights defenders and other members of civil society are calling on United Nations member states to soundly reject the Iranian government’s bid to become a member of the Human Rights Council.

Despite Iran’s chronic neglect of international human rights, and deterioration marked by widespread atrocities during the past year, the Iranian government has filed its candidacy for membership at the UN’s Human Rights Council. The elections for Council members will take place at the General Assembly on 13 May 2010, in New York.

In a vigorous campaign, Iranian activists are urging a wholesome rejection of Iran’s candidacy, calling it an affront not only to Iranian victims of human rights violations, but to the global human rights system and community.

On 20 April 2010, Dr. Shirin Ebadi, prominent human rights defender and 2003 Nobel Peace Laureate, wrote to General Assembly members and to UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon, calling for a rejection of Iran’s candidacy. In her letter she enumerated serious violations of Iran’s commitments under international human rights treaties to which it is a party.

In her letter, Dr. Ebadi asked UN member states: “Does the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has been violating human rights for years, deserve to be on the Human Rights Council? Could a state that has hitherto disregarded and ignored UN resolutions make proper judgments on observance of human rights in other countries?” She concluded by stating that: “We hope that by rejecting the Islamic Republic of Iran’s bid for membership in the Human Rights Council, you will draw the Iranian authorities’ attention to their wrongdoings…”

A group of prominent Iranian civil society leaders have also written to General Assembly members, expressing their outrage at Iran’s bid for membership on the Human Rights Council and urging its rejection.

In their letter, the Iranian activists noted that the General Assembly itself has strongly condemned serious human rights violations in Iran through its resolutions, most recently in December 2009.

“Make no mistake: Iran simply fails to “uphold the highest standards” of human rights or “fully cooperate with the Council,” as required by UN Resolution 60/251 establishing the criteria for membership in the Human Rights Council. “Iran’s election to the Human Rights Council will effectively put a seal of approval on its gross and systematic abuses, and allow the Iranian government to claim that its membership on the Council is evidence of its respect for human rights and compliance with international standards,” they wrote.

The letter was signed by leading members of Iranian civil society including: Asieh Amini, Parvin Ardalan, Akbar Ganji, Fereshteh Ghazi, Fatemeh Haghighatjoo, Mehrangiz Kar, Mohsen Makhmalbaf, Omid Memarian, Roozbeh Mirebrahimi, Ali Akbar Mousavi, Sohrab Razzaghi, and Shadi Sadr.

The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran strongly urges General Assembly members to reject Iran’s candidacy for membership on the Human Rights Council, and instead initiate mechanisms holding Iran accountable for its gross human rights violations and to fully implement UN resolutions on the situation of human rights in Iran.

To read Shirin Ebadi’s letter click here

To read the letter by Iranian Activists click here

These five cases, together with that of Abdolreza Ghanbari, also sentenced to death, are based on allegations that the defendants sent videos and pictures to the opposition group Mojahedin-e Khalq (MKO).

“These sentences would be grossly disproportionate even if evidence linked the defendants to the charges, and they demonstrate complete disregard for justice and due process in perversely sending innocent citizens to the gallows,” said the Campaign’s spokesperson, Aaron Rhodes.

“These death sentences are aimed at intimidating the protest movement and are a mockery of justice,” he added.

Several lawyers familiar with the cases of protestors sentenced to death told the Campaign that the prosecutions followed a pattern in which the accused are average citizens, without recourse to proper legal counsel, and without prior political activism. In most such cases, the families of the accused have been threatened not to seek independent legal assistance or speak to the media.

In this latest case, Motahareh Bahrami and Mohsen Daneshpour Moghaddam (husband and wife) and their son, Ahmad Daneshpour, together with two of their close friends, Rayhaneh Haj Ebrahim and Hadi Ghaemi (not related to the Campaign’s executive director of the same name) have been sentenced to death.

The family’s other son, Meysam Daneshpour, told the news-website Roozonline that his family members were arrested at their home following Ashura protests. In an interview with the Campaign, Meysam Daneshpour confirmed the execution sentences and said that his family did not have any recourse to an independent lawyer during the lower court’s prosecution. He also said family members had no access to detainees during the prosecution. “We did not have access to them [detainees] for two months, but now we can meet them on a regular weekly basis,” Meysam Daneshpour told the Campaign.

All five had court-appointed lawyers during the prosecution, who failed to inform the family of the execution sentence. Maysam Daneshpour told the Campaign that he had not received an official notification of the court hearing or death sentence.

During the appeals process, Mohammad Sharif, a prominent human rights lawyer, was able to represent the defendants and launch an appeal for Motahareh Bahrami, Rayhaneh Haj Ebrahim, and Hadi Ghaemi, and is under review at Branch 36. However, the appeals case for Mohsen and Ahmad Daneshpour had been sent to Branch 36 and already confirmed before Sharif could lodge a defense.

According to Meysam Daneshpour, intelligence agents arrested his parents, brother and their friend, Hajebrahimi, at the family’s home following Ashura protests on 27 December 2009, and not during a protest. Their lawyer Mohammad Sharif told the Campaign the defendants are charged with “deliberate cooperation with MKO,” “gathering and colluding against national security,” and “propaganda against the regime and in the interest of enemies.” The evidence supporting these charges included a trip by the parents to Iraq to visit another son, who is a member of MKO, sending videos and pictures to MKO, and participating in demonstrations.

Sharif said these activities, even if proven, would not justify a death sentence, and he had represented clients in similar situations who were sentenced to prison terms and not execution.

In a similar post-Ashura case, 47-year-old teacher Abdolreza Ghanbari was charged with Moharebeh (enmity against God) and sentenced to death because of alleged emails and phone calls he had with MKO’s television broadcast abroad.

Several sources in Tehran told the Campaign that they suspect phone calls and emails sent to these defendants were made by intelligence agents themselves and the defendants are victims of entrapment. Regardless of the origins of emails and phone calls presented as evidence against the defendants, the Campaign strongly condemns the use of such pedestrian communications as the basis of issuing death sentences.

A lawyer who presents political prisoners told the Campaign that when authorities accuse political prisoners of being members of opposition groups such as MKO, it becomes impossible for Iranian media, human rights lawyers and defendants’ families to publicize these cases. “The Iranian media cannot touch on these cases, and lawyers like me will face severe difficulties to pursue our work if we advocate on behalf of such defendants regarding the nature of such affiliation,” the lawyer said. “This gives the authorities a free hand to use such punishments to terrify government critics and dissidents.”

Rhodes said that the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran “strongly condemns the issuance of disproportionate sentences based on unfounded charges, resulting in executions aimed at quelling dissent. The Campaign expresses its deep concern about the operations of the Iranian Judiciary, which has repeatedly demonstrated its lack of accountability and transparency, and the overwhelming influence of the Intelligence Ministry and the Revolutionary Guards’ intelligence units, which is unprecedented during the past two decades.”

In an interview with the Campaign, Bahari said that an unidentified caller contacted his family in Iran and threatened to harm him

(19 April 2010) The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran today strongly condemned government threats against Maziar Bahari and warned against possible government sponsored violence targeting dissidents and activists abroad.

In an interview with the Campaign, Bahari said that an unidentified caller contacted his family in Iran and threatened to harm him. Security forces detained Bahari, a Newsweek correspondent, following the disputed presidential elections of last June and the ensuing protests. He was released on bail after 118 days and is currently abroad.

“The intelligence apparatus and Revolutionary Guards have made several threats against critics abroad during the past few months. Now we see indications that they are serious and shameless about silencing critics, no matter where they are,” said Hadi Ghaemi, the Campaign’s spokesperson.

Bahari told the Campaign that an unidentified caller, whom he speculated to be a Revolutionary Guard member, called his family in Iran yesterday and made explicit threats against him.

“He told my family member that ‘Maziar is speaking too much, the situation is getting very dangerous. He shouldn’t think that because he is not in Iran we do not have access to him. Something unpredictable can happen at any point, something without any advance notice,” Bahari said.

Bahari’s court date is scheduled for 2 May and he is charged with 11 counts including insulting the Supreme Leader because he referred to him in his private emails as “Khamanei” rather than “Ayatollah Khamanei.”

Several independent sources in Tehran have told the Campaign that many prisoners released recently on bail regularly receive threats from their interrogators not to conduct interviews with the media or make other public statements.

Bahari also told the Campaign: “I had been threatened throughout my time in prison, that when and if I am released, I shouldn’t think that I am free, I shouldn’t think that I can say whatever I want. I should know, this is what my interrogator told me, I should know that Revolutionary Guards are planted all around the world, including Hamas and Hezbollah. He told me that he can always bring me back in a bag, in a gooni.”

The Campaign expressed its serious concerns that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and intelligence agents may be laying the groundwork for violent attacks on their critics in the Diaspora. Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, Iranian government agents assassinated dozens of critics in Europe.

“The main concern right now is the fact that the Revolutionary Guards are threatening me. I am not sure if they’re serious about their threats or not but I don’t think that’s really relevant. The fact that Revolutionary Guards of the Islamic Republic are threatening me causes concern. And again I’m not sure if they’re serious about their threats or not, and that’s irrelevant. The most important thing is that the Islamic Republic government thinks that it can bully everyone, all the citizens of Iran, wherever they are, they can be the 70 million people who live inside Iran or they can be members of the Iranian community in Diaspora,” Bahari said.

Lawyers Claim the Court is Unconstitutional and Illegal

(14 April 2010) The Iranian Judiciary should immediately halt the operation of a recently-established “special court” at Evin prison, which confines judges and magistrates to the prison complex and denies lawyers and families any access to judicial proceedings, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran said today.

“The newly-formed Evin Court has increased the influence of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence over judicial matters by blocking lawyers’ access to clients and case files,” said Hadi Ghaemi, a Campaign spokesperson.

“This allows the interrogators and Intelligence Ministry to manipulate this institution which is itself in violation of the law,” he added.

Lawyers have informed the Campaign that they have been permitted virtually no contact with clients arrested in the aftermath of the Iranian elections who are facing trial in Evin Court, and that access to files was likewise blocked. Some said they feared the restricted access reflected recommendations from the Ministry of Intelligence aimed at weakening their cases and an increased influence by the Ministry over the Iranian Judiciary.

Nasrin Sotoudeh, a lawyer in Tehran, told the Campaign that after the formation of Evin Court and the transfer of her clients’ cases there, it had become impossible for her and her clients’ families to contact the judges. “The judges are now housed in an environment that is entirely under the oversight of the Ministry of Intelligence,” stated Sotoudeh. “During preliminary investigations, which are the most difficult time during a suspect’s prison term, case judges only receive information from intelligence officers, and neither the suspect’s lawyer nor his or her family can provide any information to the judges.”

Another lawyer, Mina Jafari, referred to her clients whose files she had been deprived of reading because the court is inside the prison, including those of activists Maryam Ghanbari, Kouhyar Goudarzi, Dorsa Sobhani, and Saeed Jalalifar. She said that it had been impossible to fulfill her professional obligations as their lawyer, disappointing the legitimate expectations of their families, “which lawyers cannot oblige.”

Farideh Gheirat, a lawyer who represents some of the journalists and politicians detained after the elections, echoed similar concerns and told the Campaign:

“We lawyers have no access to Evin Court at all, as lawyers and others are not allowed inside. As a result, we cannot even have access to what little and incomplete information we were normally allowed to incorporate into [our] cases, as this is no longer possible.”

In the past, families would meet judges and other judicial staff at the Revolutionary Courts in order to provide the judge with details about the suspect’s social, psychological, mental, and familial conditions. The judge may have taken these details under advisement or not. But this important procedure, which is a normal element of a court proceeding, is impossible with respect to the judges presiding at the Evin Court.

“This has in fact made providing defense for the suspect impossible,” Sotoudeh said.

The formation of a court for political prisoners within the confines of Evin prison, where the suspect is held, informed of his charges, tried, and sentenced, is reminiscent of 1980s courts where thousands of political prisoners were tried without fair investigation, and families and lawyers of prisoners were not allowed to influence the cases in any way. Hundreds of people were executed on the basis of sentences issued by such courts.

Lawyers are responsible for attending the investigation stage of trials and for presenting any facts, which could assist judges to understand the guilt or innocence of suspects and the proper implementation of the law. When the defendant before the judge is not a legal professional, he must be accompanied by  one in order to protect his rights. Iranian law reflects an understanding that if such procedures are not followed, a legal process faces serious shortcomings. Investigations without a lawyer’s presence are against Article 35 of the Iranian Constitution, and violate Article 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedures and the Law to Protect Citizen’s Rights.

On 7 March 2010, Abbas Jafari Dolatabadi, Tehran’s General Prosecutor, reported the formation of a special court inside Evin prison. Dolatabadi said the court’s formation is “based on needs,” and “a way to solve problems, expedite investigations, and reduce costs.” This court houses the case files of many political activists and unknown prisoners whose cases are in an indeterminate state.

Responding to criticism about the establishment of the court and its being called a “security court,” he said that this assertion is “wrong,” and that those who raise it either have “ill intentions” or are “ignorant.” He asserted that the Evin court is fully legal, and formed to swiftly deal with anti-revolutionary crimes. “This court will gradually reach order following the trends of current affairs,” said Dolatabadi. He also emphasized that nowhere in the law is it stipulated where courts should be located.

“Evin Court Unconstitutional and Illegal”

Over the past month, lawyers of prisoners who have not been able to find any way to review their clients’ case files have criticized the formation of the court.

Mina Jafari, lawyer to several detainees arrested in the context of post-election unrest, told the Campaign that the new court is illegal. “The formation of this court is a clear violation of the Iranian Constitution and suspects’ rights,” stated Jafari. “It is quite clear that according to legal requirements and especially citizens’ basic rights and according to Article 34, forming the Evin Court is against the law.”

Article 34 of the Iranian Constitution, establishes that it is the indisputable right of every citizen to seek justice by recourse to competent courts. All citizens have the right of access to such courts, and no one can be barred from courts to which they  have a legal right of recourse.

“The Iranian Constitution, which is the parent law of the country, expresses that a court must be accessible and when it is inaccessible, according to Article 575 of the Islamic Penal Code, violators of this basic right can be prosecuted,” Mina Jafari told Campaign. “According to Article 575 of the Islamic Penal Code, whenever judiciary officials or other government officials unlawfully arrest, order an unlawful arrest, or unlawfully prosecute or charge a person, they shall be permanently barred from holding any position within the Judiciary and subjected to a five-year ban from governmental positions.”

Articles 570 through 583 of the Islamic Penal Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran list violations by authorities and government officers and ways in which violations will be addressed. Article 570 of the Code emphasizes that “any state official or authority who illegally denies or deprives people of the rights enshrined in the Constitution shall be subject to confinement terms ranging from 6 months up to 3 years in addition to discharge from government service from 3 to 5 years.”

The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran remains deeply concerned by the erosion of standards for legal proceedings in the country, which, in making fair trials impossible, drags the Islamic Republic further way from the human rights and rule of law standards it is obligated to uphold under international law.