UPDATE: (15 October 2008) Mohammad Sadiq Kaboudvand has been in prison for 15 months and has been allowed to see his family only on one occasion for twenty minutes. He was supposed to have a 15-minute visit with his family in person on 24 September 2008 but was barred from meeting with his family. The protests of his family on behalf of Kaboudvand have been met with threats and slander.

Mohammad Sadiq Kaboudvand, arrested in June 2007 and held in solitary confinement, is the founder of the Human Rights Organization of Kurdistan (HROK). He has been sentenced to 10 years in prison.Kaboudvand was kept in solitary confinement for 5 months in Evin Prison’s Sections 209 and 240. Prison guards notified superiors that he was suffering from mental and physical ailments. His condition worsened to the point that in April 2008 he suffered a stroke and was taken to a specialist for treatment.

Kaboudvand’s defense team tried to obtain the approximately $1,500 (15 million Rial) health costs incurred by his family. Nasrin Sotudeh, one of Kaboudvand’s lawyers said, “The judge in the case wasn’t ready to hear about the sufferings Kaboudvand and his family went through, not even that they weren’t able to pay his health costs. Because of this, the case has been dragging out for quite some time, coupled with the fact that the court postponed the case three times.”

Kaboudvand actively documented and reported on human rights violations in Kurdistan, from 9 April 2005 when he established the HROK, until the time of his arrest. He is charged with “acting against national security through HROK,” “widespread propaganda against the system by disseminating news,” “opposing Islamic penal laws by publicizing punishments such as stoning and executions,” and “advocating on behalf of political prisoners.”

He is reportedly still in poor health and suffering from his lengthy detention in solitary confinement.

His Excellency Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi
Howzeh Riyasat-e Qoveh Qazaieh / Office of the Head of the Judiciary
Email: info(at)dadgostary-tehran.ir

cc: His Excellency Mohammad Khazaee
Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the UN
Email: iran(at)un.int

Your Excellency,

I am writing on behalf of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran to express our serious concerns about the case of Mohammad Sadiq Kaboudvand.

Mr. Kaboudvand’s conviction and sentencing to a 10-year prison term have been upheld by Branch 54 of the Tehran Appeals Court. Kaboudvand has been charged and convicted for ”acting against national security through establishing the Human Rights Organization of Kurdistan (HROK),” that is, activities undertaken as a human rights defender, which the Islamic Republic of Iran has a positive obligation to protect.

This case thus represents a serious failure of the judicial system of the Islamic Republic of Iran. We would, therefore, respectfully ask that you use your authority to review the charges against Mr. Kaboudvand; the conditions he has experienced in detention; the process of his trial and appeal; and his sentence with a view toward annulling his sentence and releasing him.

In what follows, we provide a brief summary and evaluation of the case from the perspective of international human rights law.

Kaboudvand was arrested at his office in Vanak Square in Tehran by four plain clothes security officers on 1 July 2007. Then he was transferred to his house, which was searched. He was subsequently taken to ward 209 of Evin Prison, the ward under the control of the Intelligence Ministry. He had been warned of a possible arrest prior to his detention.

Mr. Kaboudvand’s trial did not meet international standards of due process. The trial was postponed three times due to failure on the part of prosecutors and the judge to appear in court. The result was a period of around 8 months in detention waiting for trial because of the consequent delays, and a violation of the Islamic Republic’s legal obligation under Article 9(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which mandates prompt trials.

Mr. Kaboudvand was denied access to his lawyer except on a few occasions. His lawyer was allowed access only twice, before his hearing and trial, and was not allowed to confer with Kaboudvand during the hearing, although access to legal counsel is protected and permitted by Iranian law. The right to access to counsel has been affirmed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1988, in Principle 18(1) of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.

While in detention his bail was set at 150 million Toman, equivalent to USD 155,000, a sum beyond what his family could reasonably be expected to post, and which assured he would be kept in detention. The bail amount was not appropriate to the charges against him, as such a high bail amount is reserved for suspects on murder charges and other capital crimes.

Kaboudvand’s court hearing was closed, according to Article 188 of the Penal Code, para. 1., according to which trials may be closed in order to protect public morals. But the case against Kaboudvand had nothing to do with public morals. The closed hearing was thus a violation of Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of Iran’s treaty obligations under Article 14(1) of the ICCPR, which call for fair and public hearings.

Mr. Kaboudvand was eventually charged, in addition to “acting against national security by establishing the Human Rights Organization of Kurdistan,” with “widespread propaganda against the system by disseminating news,” “opposing Islamic penal laws by publicizing punishments such as stoning and executions,” and “advocating on behalf of political prisoners.”

Evidence cited in court was focused on the establishment of the HROK in 2005, communicating human rights violations to United Nations agencies and writing to former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. In addition, many other of the normal human rights monitoring and advocacy activities, which are not crimes in Iran, were cited as evidence supporting the charges against Kaboudvand, for example advocating for the equal rights of women and men and communicating with the Secretary General and High Commissioner for Human rights of the United Nations. The Human Rights Organization of Kurdistan was not operating illegally as was claimed during the trial. The organization was not registered, but it is not illegal to participate in an unregistered association.

According to all information the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran has received, none of the activities of the HROK cited as evidence against Kaboudvand were shown to be threats to the national security of Iran. But these activities are all parts of the professional obligations of human rights defenders.
Your Excellency, this year marks the 10th anniversary of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. Under Article 6 of the Declaration, human rights defenders have the right to impart or disseminate to others views, information and knowledge on all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The government of Iran has an affirmative obligation to protect Kaboudvand and other rights advocates. The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, which the UN General Assembly adopted by consensus in 1998, declares that states “shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of [human rights defenders] against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary actions” as a consequence of their legitimate effort to promote human rights.

While subjected to transparently false and politicized charges based on his human rights work, Kaboudvand’s rights as a prisoner have been severely abused.

He has been held in solitary confinement for five months of his confinement. The Human Rights Committee of the United Nations has stated that prolonged solitary confinement may amount to a violation of the prohibition against torture and ill-treatment in Article 7 of the ICCPR.

He has been denied visits by his family other than one visit for 20 minutes, which is contrary to Principle 19 of the Body of Principles cited above.

Kaboudvand suffers from several life-threatening health problems, and reportedly suffered a stroke on 19 May 2008, caused by high blood pressure. He also suffers from a prostate condition. He has been denied medical care in prison, which is a blatant violation of the positive obligation of the Islamic Republic, and all sovereign states, to provide medical care to those in custody, who are not in a position to obtain such care themselves, according to Principle 24 of the Body of Principles and Rule 24 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, which the United Nations General Assembly has called member states to accept in 1971.

Your Excellency, we sincerely believe that the objective facts of this case indicate a miscarriage of justice, a violation of obligations to the United Nations, and a grave violation of human rights that are a black mark on the Islamic Republic. We urge you to urgently review this unjust sentence and to order Kaboudvand’s release. Thank you for your consideration of our request.

Sincerely,

Hadi Ghaemi, PhD
Coordinator
International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran

His Excellency Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi
Howzeh Riyasat-e Qoveh Qazaieh / Office of the Head of the Judiciary
Email:   info(at)dadgostary-tehran.ir

cc: His Excellency Mohammad Khazaee
Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the UN
Email:   iran(at)un.int

Your Excellency,

I am writing on behalf of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran to express our serious concerns about the case of Mohammad Sadiq Kaboudvand.

Mr. Kaboudvand’s conviction and sentencing to a 10-year prison term have been upheld by Branch 54 of the Tehran Appeals Court.  Kaboudvand has been charged and convicted for ”acting against national security through establishing the Human Rights Organization of Kurdistan (HROK),” that is, activities undertaken as a human rights defender, which the Islamic Republic of Iran has a positive  obligation to protect.

This case thus represents a serious failure of the judicial system of the Islamic Republic of Iran.  We would, therefore, respectfully ask that you use your authority to review the charges against Mr. Kaboudvand; the conditions he has experienced in detention; the process of his trial and appeal; and his sentence with a view toward annulling his sentence and releasing him.

In what follows, we provide a brief summary and evaluation of the case from the perspective of international human rights law.

Kaboudvand was arrested at his office in Vanak Square in Tehran by four plain clothes security officers on 1 July 2007.  Then he was transferred to his house, which was searched.  He was subsequently taken to ward 209 of Evin Prison, the ward under the control of the Intelligence Ministry.  He had been warned of a possible arrest prior to his detention.

Mr. Kaboudvand’s trial did not meet international standards of due process.  The trial was postponed three times due to failure on the part of prosecutors and the judge to appear in court.  The result was a period of around 8 months in detention waiting for trial because of the consequent delays, and a violation of the Islamic Republic’s legal obligation under Article 9(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which mandates prompt trials.

Mr. Kaboudvand was denied access to his lawyer except on a few occasions.  His lawyer was allowed access only twice, before his hearing and trial, and was not allowed to confer with Kaboudvand during the hearing, although access to legal counsel is protected and permitted by Iranian law.  The right to access to counsel has been affirmed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1988, in Principle 18(1) of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.

While in detention his bail was set at 150 million Toman, equivalent to USD 155,000, a sum beyond what his family could reasonably be expected to post, and which assured he would be kept in detention.  The bail amount was not appropriate to the charges against him, as such a high bail amount is reserved for suspects on murder charges and other capital crimes.

Kaboudvand’s court hearing was closed, according to Article 188 of the Penal Code, para. 1., according to which trials may be closed in order to protect public morals.  But the case against Kaboudvand had nothing to do with public morals.  The closed hearing was thus a violation of Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of Iran’s treaty obligations under  Article 14(1) of the ICCPR, which call for fair and public hearings.

Mr. Kaboudvand was eventually charged, in addition to  “acting against national security by establishing the Human Rights Organization of Kurdistan,”  with “widespread propaganda against the system by disseminating news,” “opposing Islamic penal laws by publicizing punishments such as stoning and executions,” and “advocating on behalf of political prisoners.”

Evidence cited in court was focused on the establishment of the HROK  in 2005, communicating human rights violations to United Nations agencies and writing to former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.  In addition, many other of the normal human rights monitoring and advocacy activities, which are not crimes in Iran, were cited as evidence supporting the charges against Kaboudvand, for example advocating for the equal rights of women and men and communicating with the Secretary General and High Commissioner for Human rights of the United Nations.  The Human Rights Organization of Kurdistan was not operating illegally as was claimed during the trial.  The organization was not registered, but it is not illegal to participate in an unregistered association.

According to all information the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran has received, none of the activities of the HROK cited as evidence against Kaboudvand were shown to be threats to the national security of Iran.  But these activities are all parts of the professional obligations of human rights defenders.
Your Excellency, this year marks the 10th anniversary of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. Under Article 6 of the Declaration, human rights defenders have the right to impart or disseminate to others views, information and knowledge on all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The government of Iran has an affirmative obligation to protect Kaboudvand and other rights advocates. The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, which the UN General Assembly adopted by consensus in 1998, declares that states “shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of [human rights defenders] against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary actions” as a consequence of their legitimate effort to promote human rights.

While subjected to transparently false and politicized charges based on his human rights work, Kaboudvand’s rights as a prisoner have been severely abused.

He has been held in solitary confinement for five months  of his confinement.  The Human Rights Committee of the United  Nations has stated that prolonged solitary confinement may amount to a violation of the prohibition against torture and ill-treatment in Article 7 of the ICCPR.

He has been denied visits by his family other than one visit for 20 minutes, which is contrary to Principle 19 of the Body of Principles cited above.

Kaboudvand suffers from several life-threatening health problems, and reportedly suffered a stroke on 19 May 2008, caused by high blood pressure.  He also suffers from a prostate condition.  He has been denied medical care in prison, which is a blatant violation of the positive obligation of the Islamic Republic, and all sovereign states, to provide medical care to those in custody, who are not in a position to obtain such care themselves, according to Principle 24 of the Body of Principles and Rule 24 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, which the United Nations General Assembly has called member states to accept in 1971.

Your Excellency, we sincerely believe that the objective facts of this case indicate a miscarriage of justice, a violation of obligations to the United Nations, and a grave violation of human rights that are a black mark on the Islamic Republic.  We urge you to urgently review this unjust sentence and to order Kaboudvand’s release. Thank you for your consideration of our request.

Sincerely,

Hadi Ghaemi, PhD
Coordinator
International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran

(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).