Legal Analysis By Mehrangiz Kar

Tehran Prosecutor Abbas Jafari Dolatabadi, has turned the absolute legal rights of Iranian political prisoners, imprisoned journalists, and prisoners of conscience into special privileges that can only be granted a prisoner upon Mr. Dolatabadi’s decision. In order to use these absolute and legal rights, families of political prisoners have to pursue them vigorously and to pass many administrative and bureaucratic hurdles in order to secure the Prosecutor’s permission. This is because Mr. Prosecutor has sacrificed the prisoners’ rights in favor of his partisan interpretations of the laws.

For example, journalist Bahman Ahmadi Amouee, a prisoner of conscience currently at Evin Prison, has not been granted an in-person visit with his family during the past year. The Prosecutor has not agreed to his in-person visit with his family, and he has only been able to visit with them through a booth. Regular prisoners such as drug traffickers are routinely granted in-person visits, while Bahman Amouee has been deprived of them. The law has not stipulated any exceptions to this right for political prisoners, journalists, or prisoners of conscience.

Written requests to the Prosecutor for permission to have in-person visits, a procedure unspecified by the law, is one of the procedures currently in place that have created a long backlog, addressed on a per-case basis by the Prosecutor, where he applies his personal taste and preference in the process. Over the past year, the Prosecutor’s personal taste and preference has not been in favor of Bahman Ahmadi Amouee’s case, according to his family. Amouee remains in a difficult situation inside prison where he is deprived of his most basic rights, including permission to make phone calls.

Families of political prisoners have repeatedly stated that the long administrative processes for applying for furlough leave and for in-person visitation is wearing to them. They have further indicated that they find the lack of procedures and standards for receiving the Prosecutor’s permission (a step that is not stipulated as a requirement in the Operations Procedures Manual of the Iranian Prisons Organization), as a clear lack of regard for existing laws. For example, according to Article 182 of the Operations Procedures of the Iranian Prisons Organization, the husband, wife, father, mother, brother, sister, and children of a convict or suspect, as well as parents of his/her spouse are entitled to meet with the convict according to conditions defined for weekly visitations. Other relatives and friends of the convict may request and receive permission for visits from the head of the correctional facility or prison or the Supervising Judge.

According to Article 183 of the same Procedures Manual, “convicts who demonstrate good behavior, upon approval from the head of the facility or the Supervising Judge, can have in-person visits with their wife, children, parents, brothers, sisters, or parents of their spouse in the presence of a supervising officer.”

According to Article 185 of the same Pocedures Manual, “upon agreement by the head of the facility or prison, or the Supervising Judge, in some cases, suspects or convicts may have private visits with their spouse or children without the presence of a supervising officer.”

According to Article 188 of the same Procedures manual, “the weekly general visitation schedule, reflecting days and hours appropriate for each season and the needs of each location, should be prepared by the head of the facility or prison and once approved by the General Manager, the schedule will be advertised. Note 1: The visitation schedule should be organized in a way that male and female visitors are able to visit the inmates separately. Note 2: The public visitation schedule should be organized in a way that each inmate has at least one visitation per week, not to last under 20 minutes.”

According to Article 190 of the said Procedures Manual, “Under guidance from a physician, the Head Warden can facilitate visitations with sick inmates who are hospitalized and unable to move.”

Bahman Ahmadi Amouee has been sentenced to five years in prison for his journalistic activities and his articles criticizing the government’s economic performance. He has been deprived from the right to have furlough leave for the past 16 months. He is joined by dozens of other political prisoners in this deprivation. Chapter 3 of the Procedures Manual that oversees the operations of prisons is devoted to the rights of convicts to furlough, for which Bahman Ahmadi Amouee is eligible. Legal circles demand the release of all political prisoners such as Bahman Ahmadi Amouee who have been arrested, detained, tried, and sentenced unfairly and illegally. Prior to his deserved release, adherence to rights extended to him through the Prison Operations Procedures Manual could limit his and his family’s angst.

In all of the other articles and notes of the Prison Operations Procedures Manual, the need for the Prosecutor’s interference is not foreseen; however, family members of political prisoners report of days and weeks of bureaucratic run around in order that they may obtain approval from the Prosecutor for their in-person or even booth visits with their prisoner relatives. The direct interference of Tehran Prosecutor in such rights, his disregard for the rights of political prisoners, imprisoned journalists, and prisoners of conscience, and his treatment of these rights as privileges dispensed by him and based on his personal preferences, have all taken place to the detriment of the law. The Prosecutor’s actions are illegal and are grounds for legal action. This option remains open to families of political prisoners.

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.

Lawyer Cites Illegal Procedures

(10 April 2010) The Iranian Intelligence Ministry is manipulating the judicial process by forcing the issuance of harsh and long sentences for activists regardless of the lack of credible evidence against them, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran said today.

The attorney for jailed political activist Heshmatollah Tabarzadi has told the Campaign that intelligence agents pressuring court officials have demanded excessive punishments, while the entire case deserves to be dismissed because of procedural violations.

“The case of Heshmatollah Tabarzadi and those of numerous others show that one cannot speak of a fair trial conforming to international standards of due process when the Judiciary is merely a tool of security agencies and executive powers,” said Aaron Rhodes, a spokesperson for the Campaign.

“Any fair review of his case would conclude that it is baseless and that he should be released immediately,” he said.

Tabarzadi, who has been kept in solitary confinement in Evin prison’s notorious Ward 209 and harshly interrogated since his arrest on 28 December 2009, ostensibly for participating in Ashura protests, claims he was simply driving near the protests in his automobile. Tabarzadi previously spent nine years in Evin prison on account of his political activism.

In an interview with the Campaign, Nasrin Sotoudeh, Tabarzadi’s lawyer, said her client was arrested using a warrant not showing his name, as required by law. As a political prisoner, the procedures in his case must conform to the demands of Article 168 of the Iranian Constitution, which stipulates that a political prisoner should be tried in a public and open court. Tabarzadi has been in detention for four months, and, according to Sotoudeh, under severe pressure and beatings during interrogation.

Sotoudeh said that intelligence agents have demanded that the judge in Tabarzadi’s case sentence him to the harshest possible punishment, including exile and a permanent ban on any social and political engagement.

Sotoudeh stated: “We can assume that the intelligence agents lacked knowledge of the law, as this action [pressuring a judge] is, according to the law, a crime….In many cases we have seen that unfortunately, some judges have not only applied such recommendations, but have gone further. The principle of the independence of the judiciary system obliges the judge to refuse such a recommendation by an intelligence agent. The procedure that was applied in Tabarzadi’s case is completely illegal.”

Tabarzadi faces four charges: propaganda against the state, gathering and colluding against national security, insulting the Supreme Leader and President, and insulting Islam.  He was arrested for allegedly participating in protests and rallies. While Tabarzadi had denied such participation, clarifying that he was merely driving his car, Sotoudeh noted that even if he had been participating in a peaceful protest, it would not have been a legitimate basis for his arrest.

As recently detailed by the Campaign, the infiltration and manipulation of the Iranian Judiciary and court system, while a chronic problem, has become more widespread since the current period of intensified repression of civil liberties began after the June 2009 presidential elections. “Court officers” representing the police units, the Intelligence Ministry, and other intelligence and security formations influence decisions about sentences, as well as those affecting interrogation methods, visitation rights, bail, and other issues.

“Tabarzadi’s arrest was arbitrary, the process has been unconstitutional, and his prosecution has been shamelessly politicized,” Rhodes said.

Madjid Ghaffari and Mehraneh Atashi

“The arrest and detention of Mehraneh Atashi and her husband are, unfortunately, typical of hundreds of other arrests where Iranian citizens have been snatched by authorities and held without information or explanation, which are tactics of a terror state” said Aaron Rhodes, a spokesperson for the Campaign.

Mehraneh Atashi (30) is a prominent and internationally acclaimed photo artist whose work has appeared in major exhibitions around the world. She has worked for numerous newspapers, magazines, and TV programs. However, in the past few years, she discontinued her job as a photojournalist and concentrated on her artistic photography.

As reported by the Campaign previously, a standing, blanket arrest warrant is being used by Iranian security agents to massively detain Iranian citizens in the absence of evidence  of criminal activity and analysis of specific cases by independent judicial authorities.

“Mehraneth Atashi and all who have been arbitrarily arrested are being denied their basic right to liberty, as protected by Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran is a state party,” Rhodes said.

The United Nations General Assembly passed a Resolution in December 2009, which called for engagement by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions with regard to detained persons in the Islamic Republic.

The Campaign calls for the immediate release of Mehraneth Atashi, her husband Madjid Ghaffari, and of all who are being detained arbitrarily.