UN General Assembly Must Act

(13 October 2010) The Iranian Parliament and Judiciary should immediately abolish cruel and inhumane punishments, such as limb amputation, stoning, and flogging, consistent with Iran’s international obligations, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran said today.

In recent days Iranian officials have acknowledged that amputations have been carried out and an increasing number of flogging sentences have been issued for post-election protestors.

“These inhumane and barbaric acts are nothing but torture under international law and should be abolished,” said Hadi Ghaemi, the Campaign’s spokesperson.

The head of the Iranian delegation to the United Nation’s Human Rights Council in February and June 2010, Mohammad Javad Larijani, told the Council that Iran does not consider such punishments as torture and that they are culturally justified.

“There is nothing about Iranian culture that sanctions such cruelty and it is time for the UN to establish a monitoring mechanism to hold Iran accountable for grossly violating its international obligations,” Ghaemi said.

Iranian officials have promised to increase the use of amputation as a punishment for theft and will ask for the death penalty in some robbery cases, while some citizens convicted for expressing their political opinions have been sentenced to be flogged, the Campaign reported.

According to an 11 October 2010 report published by the semi-official Iranian Student’s News Agency (ISNA), Mahmoud Zoghi, the Prosecutor in the northeastern city of Mashad, reported on the amputation of the hand of a thief and said such sentences would be more widely applied, reflecting a “more rigorous approach.”

Zoghi further indicated that those charged with theft may face the death penalty, “Under a combination of circumstances, a thief’s actions could be construed as the crime of moharebeh, enmity with God, leading to the heavy sentence of execution,” he said, referring to Article 185 of the Islamic Penal Code. If the crime does not warrant the charge of moharabeh, amputations would take place in accordance with the Penal Code and the Koran, he said. Some hand amputations have been carried out in the presence of others charged with robbery, “so they could learn a lesson from it,” Zoghi announced.

On 21 February 2010, a convicted thief underwent “limb amputation” in Karoon Prison in the southern city of Ahvaz, Iranian media reported. According to a 19 June 2010 report by ISNA, during an introduction ceremony for the new Prosecutor, the former Ahvaz General and Revolutionary Courts Prosecutor, Davood Sadeghi, said that “over the past two years, we had six cases of amputations of hands and feet in order to carry out God’s Hadd punishment in Ahvaz, to which citizens have reacted positively and it has created satisfaction.” He also noted, “Over the past two years, 25 cases of executions were carried out in Ahvaz, 18 of which were related to drug smugglers and seven of which were mohareb [enemy of God] cases, and five of those seven individuals were armed robbers.”

On 11 October 2010, Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei, Iran’s Prosecutor General, announced in a press conference that some of 61 suspects charged in the context of post- election unrest had been sentenced, some of them to flogging in addition to prison terms.

“Some of the convicts have been sentenced to flogging in addition to imprisonment, and in some cases the imprisonment and flogging sentences have been converted to cash fines,” he stated according to media reports. Ejei is among eight Iranian officials recently “blacklisted” and subjected to sanctions by the United States government for his grave human rights violations, and one of those documented in the Campaign’s “Men of Violence” report.

While amputation, flogging, and stoning to death are all legal punishments according to Iran’s Islamic Penal Code, they are considered torture, cruel and unusual punishment, and illegal under international human rights law.

In 2009, the United Nations General Assembly expressed its “deep concern at serious ongoing and recurring human rights violations in the Islamic Republic of Iran relating to, inter alia..[T]orture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, including flogging and amputations,” as well as stoning.

The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran calls for the abolition of all punishments inconsistent with Iran’s international legal obligations as a party to human rights covenants, and for Iran to abide by international customary law, which forbids torture.

(20 September 2010) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lied outright about the stoning sentence of Sakineh Ashtiani during an interview with ABC’s Christiane Amanpour on 19 September, by denying a stoning sentence was ever issued, despite well-documented evidence to the contrary the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran said.

The international community, world leaders, and members of the media present in New York for the opening session of the United Nations General Assembly, should strongly register their protests against Ahmadinejad’s lies about the critical situation of human rights in Iran, the group said.

The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran is publishing a court document from Ashtiani’s case that states her sentence as stoning. The document is the appeals form filed by her lawyer, Hootan Kian, with the Supreme Court on 7 July 2010. The scan of this document and its translation are provided below.

“…Miss Mohammadi was never sentenced to stoning. This was news that was produced and incorrect… there was no sentence of stoning issued in the first place… this was the news that was made up,” Ahmadinejad told Amanpour.

“In every interview and at every meeting Ahmadinejad should be reminded that the world is well aware of the great injustices and repression carried out against the Iranian people at the hands of his government,” said Hadi Ghaemi, the Campaign’s spokesperson.

“They should tell him clearly and loudly that documented evidence shows he is not telling the truth,” he added.

Ahmadinejad also challenged Amanpour’s question regarding the skyrocketing number of executions under his presidency–a more than fourfold increase. Amanpour based her questions on Amnesty International’s annual reports that documented 86 executions taking place in 2005, when Ahmadinejad was first elected, versus at least 388 executions in 2009. Ahmadinejad avoided the question by saying, “How do they know? They haven’t come to Iran.”

The Campaign notes that Amnesty International figures are compiled from reports published in Iranian newspapers and are therefore well documented. Indeed, the actual number of executions is likely higher, since the coverage of Iranian media from all regions of the country could not be fully comprehensive.

The Campaign further challenges Ahmadinejad to allow independent human rights organizations into the country. Along with a handful of countries, such as Myanmar, North Korea, and Turkmenistan, Iran bars independent human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which have been asking for visas to travel there for several years.

The Iranian government has also not allowed any UN independent human rights monitors into the country since 2005, despite repeated requests.

Despite these limitations, brave Iranian human rights defenders have continued to provide well-documented evidence to the outside world regarding the harsh repression and grave human rights violations in the country.

This document, issued by the Supreme Court administration on 7 July 2010, acknowledges the receipt of appeals request to rule on the stoning sentence of Sakineh Ashtiani. It explicitly states her sentence as stoning.

Scan of the sentencing document issued by the 6th Branch of the Criminal Court of Eastern Azerbaijan Province on 10 September 2006, sentencing her to stoning.

Summary

Iranian authorities have systematically thwarted peaceful and legal civil society efforts to advocate for women’s rights in Iran, abusing the legal system and gravely violating internationally protected civil rights in the process. This report illustrates this process by providing concise but comprehensive documentation of the persecution of women’s rights defenders in Iran.

Women’s rights advocates have been beaten, harassed and persecuted for exercising their right to assembly, association and expression: for peaceful demonstrations; for collecting signatures on behalf of the “Million Signatures Campaign” to remove legal discrimination against women in Iran’s legal codes and system; for writing and publishing articles; for convening meetings; and for traveling for the purpose of having contact with their peers abroad.

They have received court summonses, and have been interrogated, ill-treated, kept in solitary confinement, denied access to lawyers and families, and subjected to pressures to confess to spurious charges. Court procedures in their cases have been universally unfair and in violation of Iranian law. Bail amounts have been excessive, forcing many defendants to remain in detention. Persecuted women’s rights advocates have generally been charged with “acts against national security” and other vague and/or unreasonable offenses. Many have been convicted and sentenced to jail terms and suspended sentences apparently aimed to keep them in a state of isolation and fear, and thus to suppress and repress further human rights activity.

The women’s rights movement is one of the most vivid and well-organized widespread human rights campaign in Iran. Under the government of former President Mohammed Khatami, civil society was encouraged and supported. Over 600 nongovernmental organizations were established to promote and encourage respect for and implementation of women’s rights.

These groups found common cause advocating for changes in a legal system in which discrimination against women is deeply embedded. They began to campaign for equal rights between women and men in marriage; equal compensation for injuries and accidental death; equal inheritance rights; for prosecuting perpetrators of honor killings; for equal access to and treatment in courts of law; and against death sentences by stoning in cases of adultery.

With the government of President Ahmadinejad, the status of Iranian women has deteriorated precipitously. A “Program for Social Safety” allows the authorities arbitrarily to harass women for not wearing “appropriate Islamic dress.” A “Family Protection Act” has been promulgated that would harm the welfare and rights of women further, by legitimizing polygamy, allowing temporary marriages, marriage at the age of only 13, and other measures. Furthermore, a system of quotas has been introduced giving males an unfair advantage in obtaining admission to the system of higher education.

As this report shows, not only the precarious situation of Iranian women themselves but also their possibility to defend their rights are increasingly exposed and in peril. The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran includes in the report a set of recommendations for removing legal discrimination against women and respecting the internationally guaranteed human rights including standards for human rights defenders.

——————————
Recommendations

The Emergence of the Women’s Rights Movement

• The One Million Signatures Campaign
• The Campaign to Stop Stoning Forever
• Policies Designed to Limit Women’s Social Participation
• Program for Social Safety
• The Family Protection Act
• Quotas to Limit Admittance of Female University Students
• Closure of Zanan Monthly

The Crackdown on Women’s Rights Activists

• The 12 June 2006 Protest in Hafte Tir Square
• 4 March 2007: 33 Women’s Rights Activists Arrested on the Eve of International Women’s Day
• Pressure on Activists Involved in the One Million Signatures Campaign
  • Imprisonment for Collecting Signatures
  • Imprisonment for Writing Articles
  • Imprisonment for Convening Meetings
  • Lack of Freedom to Assemble for Campaign Activities
  • Travel Bans Issued for Members of the Campaign

  References

——————————

Recommendations

The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran calls on the Iranian authorities to take the following actions with respect to the cases of women human rights defenders outlined in this report:

1. Guarantee the physical and psychological integrity and safety of all human rights defenders in Iran, and put an end to all forms of harassment against them, including obstruction of their ability to peacefully assemble, travel and engage in activities aimed at protecting and promoting human rights;
2. Release immediately and unconditionally all Iranian women’s rights defenders who remain arbitrarily detained because of their human rights activities;
3. Put an immediate end to all judicial proceedings against all women’s rights defenders involved in the “One Million Signatures Campaign” as well as those who peacefully gathered on 4 March 2007, and 12 June 2006, as they have been prosecuted and sentenced arbitrarily and in relation to their human rights activities;
4. Ensure that women’s rights defenders who have already been sentenced be granted fair and impartial trials when appealing their sentences. The appeals courts must take into account that the charges against them have been handed down through unfair and partial court proceedings and are based solely on the basis that these women’s rights defenders have justifiably advocated for women’s human rights;
5. Take concrete steps, in collaboration with the legislature, designed to address and rectify legal discrimination against women in Iran’s civil and penal codes;
6. Adhere to the provisions of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1998, in particular: Article 5a, which states that “for the purpose of promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, at the national and international levels, to meet peacefully;” Article 6b, which states that “everyone is free to publish, impart or disseminate to other views, information and knowledge on all human rights and fundamental freedoms;” and Article 8(2), which provides that “everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to submit to governmental bodies and agencies and organizations concerned with public affairs criticism and proposals for improving their functioning and to draw attention to any aspect of their work that may hinder or impede the promotion, protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

The Emergence of the Women’s Rights Movement

The Iranian women’s movement is the most vibrant social movement in Iran today. Despite repressive policies aimed at women and women’s rights activists adopted by the government of President Ahmadinejad, women’s rights activists have been able to articulate their message of legal reform, take it to the public, and influence discourse on women’s rights at the highest levels of political decision-making. Much of the power and effectiveness of the women’s movement today can be attributed to liberal policies adopted during the reform period and the Presidency of Mohammad Khatami. Khatami, who was elected on a platform of promoting civil society, eased restrictions on the establishment of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and adopted policies specifically promoting the establishment of NGOs aiming to empower women and address the problem of honoring and implementing women’s rights.

By the end of the reform period, and according to statistics provided by the Office of Women’s Participation, over 600 women’s NGOs had been established and registered. At the same time, the reformist government adopted policies and programs designed to strengthen the effectiveness of women’s NGOs and promote networking. The government provided financial assistance for the establishment of women’s NGOs and the implementation of their programs, and, indirectly, provided an opportunity for women’s active social participation through civil society organizations.

According to one women’s rights activist, who wished to remain anonymous:

While these programs did little to directly empower those who are involved and in some way leading the women’s movement today, the atmosphere of the time allowed for women’s rights activists to set up organizations–many for the first time–and while working to empower women and meet their needs, these women’s rights activists also became empowered in addressing social issues, found an opportunity to collaborate with one another, and learn about and identify the real priorities of Iranian women. As such, the reform movement and the opening up of social space facilitated greatly opportunities for women’s rights activists, many of whom in the past had limited their activities to writing about women’s issues, to test their capacities in social realm, and to learn how to work collaboratively.[1]

According to another women’s rights activist, awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Shirin Ebadi also invigorated women’s rights activists:

For the first time, it seemed that the world was watching women’s rights activists and civil society in Iran, and we felt at the time that we should come together to work collaboratively to address women’s issues on a broader scale. We came together in the form of a Forum, or Hamanidishi Zanan, where women’s rights activists met regularly to discuss issues of importance to women and approaches toward devising joint strategies for addressing women’s concerns.[2]

This collaboration, which began in 2004, led to a protest in front of Tehran University in June 2005 objecting to laws that discriminate against women. The demand of the protesters to change discriminatory laws against women was the result of over a year of discussions among this group, who agreed that the most pressing issue facing and limiting women was indeed legal discrimination. Changing laws that place limits on women and discriminate against them was also the most common issue of concern for women’s rights activists from different political and ideological backgrounds. Given that the protest was planned in the weeks leading up to the Presidential elections, and the relatively open social atmosphere of the time facilitated by the election atmosphere and Khatami’s Reform Movement, the protesters–while facing some resistance by security forces–were tolerated. But while this protest was a major unifying event for the women’s rights activists and NGOs who organized it, little was done to follow-up its demands in the year that followed.

On 8 March 2006, on the occasion of International Women’s Day, a similar but smaller protest was held in Daneshjoo Park in Tehran, demanding changes to laws that discriminate against women as well as calling for peace–a demand in response to the increasing international pressure placed on Iran. This protest was broken up by security and park police who attacked the crowd and beat them with batons.

In June 2006, on the anniversary of the protest in front of Tehran University, another protest was planned in Hafte Tir Square in Tehran. The organizers of the protest expected that security and police officials would use violence to disperse the crowd, and issued several statements in advance emphasizing the peaceful nature of the protest and its emphasis on the reform of laws that discriminate against women, focused this time primarily on family law. But the protest indeed ended in violence when police officers beat women protesters and more than 70 protesters were arrested. The majority of those arrested were released within the following week. This was the first time female police were used in a public assignment. The use of female police to beat and violently attack peaceful protesters was widely criticized by political observers and commentators as well as women’s rights activists who had for years advocated for the establishment of a female police force in the hopes that women’s issues would be dealt with more sensitively and appropriately. The violence used against protesters, the widespread arrest of equal rights defenders, and the security charges launched against protesters and organizers marked the first major crackdown against women’s rights activists in Iran. But women’s rights activists who had planned the protest were not deterred by this crackdown and instead devised a new plan to get to their message of equal rights to the public and law- makers. They started the One Million Signatures Campaign.

The One Million Signatures Campaign is seeking to reform discriminatory laws against women. Activists are asking for equal rights for women in marriage; equal rights to divorce for women; an end to the practice of polygamy and temporary marriage; an increase of the age of criminal responsibility to 18 for both girls and boys (currently 9 for girls and 15 for boys); the right for women to pass on nationality to their children; equal dieh (compensation for bodily injury or death) between women and men; equal inheritance rights; the reform of laws that reduce punishment for offenders in cases of honor killings; equal testimony rights for men and women in court; and to remove other laws that discriminate against women, including stoning sentences issued in cases of adultery.[3]

In an article about the campaign, activists describe their efforts in the following manner:

The One Million Signatures Campaign officially launched on August 27, 2006, aims to collect one million signatures in support of a petition addressed to the Iranian Parliament asking for the revision and reform of current laws which discriminate against women. One of the main aims of the Campaign is to educate citizens and particularly women about the negative impact of these discriminatory laws on the lives of women and society as a whole. Those who agree with the aims of the Campaign can support it by signing the petition. Those who are interested in becoming more involved can become involved in local groups working on the Campaign. The Campaign uses a face-to-face education approach in promoting awareness about the laws, and Campaign activists after going through a training course on the laws, and face-to-face approach, can become more involved by collecting signatures from fellow citizens. To date, nearly 1,000 individuals have been trained in this method, but there are countless others who have downloaded the petition from the Campaign’s site or have received it from friends and who are engaged in signature collections. The Campaign is officially active in over 15 provinces. In Tehran, the Campaign is organized in a committee format, where the bulk of the activities of the Campaign are carried out. In the provinces, local volunteers decide the structure of the Campaign and how to carry out their work based on local needs and resources. The document “About the One Million Signatures Campaign” explains more about the Campaign, its goals and its methodology. [4]

It is noteworthy that other campaigns addressing women’s rights have emerged around the same time, including the campaign to Stop Stoning.

The Campaign to Stop Stoning Forever was launched in the spring of 2006, and aims to identify and document cases where a stoning sentence has been issued; identify attorneys who will represent the accused; and, through activism and publicity, to free those who have been issued stoning sentences with a view toward abolishing stoning altogether. Stoning is a cruel and archaic punishment.[5] Stoning sentences are usually handed out in cases of adultery according to Iran’s penal code. Despite a moratorium on the implementation of such sentences by the head of the Judiciary Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi in 2002, stoning sentences have been handed out and even carried out by some judges. While this Campaign still follows up on individual cases in Iran with the aim of preventing the implementation of such punishments, according to its founders, because of limitations and pressures it has for the most part ceased awareness-raising activities in Iran, and has merged with the Global Campaign to Stop Killing and Stoning Women.[6]

The Ahmadinejad presidency initiated several major policies to limit women’s presence in the social sphere. Three of the most notable, upon which women’s rights activists have focused their attention and criticism, include:

The Program for Social Safety, which includes several components for combating immorality and criminality, was officially launched in March 2007. The first and most visible component of this program included combating inappropriate dress. The program, which has been carried out by special Guidance Police, includes identification of women whose appearance allegedly does not conform to appropriate Islamic dress and their subsequent arrest and detention. Special Guidance Police vans are usually placed strategically in busy squares. The officials identify women with bad hejab (Islamic covering) and load them into the vans, transferring them to local detention centers or offices ofAmaken (in charge of monitoring immoral behavior in public places) where they are held until a family member can bring them appropriate clothing. These women are given a warning and are asked to enter into a signed agreement not to dress inappropriately in public again. Repeat offenders are referred to courts where fines and even lashings are issued as sentences. Women’s rights defenders have objected to the Program for Social Safety on the grounds that it actually robs women of a sense of safety, is intended to restrict women’s presence in public spaces, and is arbitrary: while observance of Islamic dress is the law, there is no standard within the law, and arresting officers are left free to judge whether a woman meets the standard or not. These arrests have apparently disproportionately targeted younger Iranians.[7] Thousands of women have been detained through this program.

Originally intended to streamline family legislation and court proceedings, this Act, submitted to the Parliament by the Judiciary in August 2007, included several provisions that women’s rights activists found problematic. These provisions, it was later revealed, were included unconventionally, by the Executive Branch. The provisions that aroused the objections of women’s rights activists and even reformist and some conservative political women included: 1) a provision that would allow men to take on a second wife, without obtaining an agreement from the first wife, and through court approval based solely on his financial ability to support more than one family; 2) a provision that would facilitate temporary marriage—the details of which were to be worked out by officials at a later date; 3) a provision that would set a standard rate for Mehrieh[8] and would impose a tax on Mehriehs that exceeded the standard rate –whether the sum of Mehrieh has been received by the woman or not; and 4) the insistence of the drafters on 13 as the age of marriage for women.[9] Women’s rights activists in the One Million Signatures Campaign hosted the first meeting to examine the Family Support Act, and issued a statement protesting the legislation.[10] Other groups, including the Women’s Commission of the Participation Front, the main reformist political party, held similar meetings. Following these activities, some female members of Parliament objected to certain provisions in the legislation as well. The legislation remains in the Parliamentary Commission, and has not yet been presented to the full Parliament for a vote. Women’s rights activists have threatened to hold a demonstration in front of the Parliament should the Act come up for a vote.

On 8 April 2008, a statement objecting to a governmental program designed to limit attendance and acceptance of female students in some fields of study within the higher education system was released.[11] The statement was signed by over 700 student and women’s rights activists. The program, which seeks to address and rectify the disproportionately high rate of university entrances by female students as compared to male students, secretly imposed limits on the acceptance of female students to certain fields of study. While this issue has been up for public debate for some time, no official legislation had been adopted to implement quotas on female students. But on 8 February 2008, the organization charged with of the admission of university students to institutions of higher education (Sazeman Sanjesh) reluctantly admitted that they had been enforcing a quota system limiting the presence of female students in some fields of study for the academic years 06-07 and 07-08. The organization also admitted that they had been working to positively promote the acceptance of male university students into some fields of study with a formula of 30-40% female or male and 10% based on competition.[12] The quota systems had been enforced in the academic year 06-07 for 26 fields and for 07-08 for 39 fields of study. It is worth mentioning that prior to being accepted to University, prospective students must take a rigorous and competitive entrance exam, and those scoring highest are accepted first. Women’s rights and student rights activists have objected to this gender-based quota system, claiming that it limits women’s participation in the social sphere, and in particular in an area where they have enjoyed great and justified success.[13] Prior to the implementation of this quota system, the female acceptance rate to University was around 65%.

On 28 January 2008, the feminist monthly Zanan (Women) was banned by order of the Secretariat of the Press Oversight Council. The Council justified its decision by claiming Zanan to be “a radical feminist publication, engaged in publishing false claims of violence against women and unjustly criticizing laws governing the lives of women as discriminatory, exaggerating the negative conditions of women’s lives, and damaging the image of the Basij Volunteer Force.” The Council banned the monthly despite the fact that banning of publications is not one of its duties.[14] Zananis recognized as the first feminist publication in Iran. With a sixteen-year history, Zanan also boasts being the longest running feminist publication. Prior to its closure it provided the only print medium dedicated solely to addressing issues of importance to women, the concerns of women’s rights activists, and developments in the women’s movement. A supporter of the One Million Signatures Campaign, Zanan often covered news about developments within the Campaign, which most other print publications have refused to do. On the 13 February 2008, over 1500 persons objected to the closure of the monthly.[15] Zanan is currently planning to object to the decision of the Council, and has lodged a court complaint asking for the reversal of the decision to ban the publication, on grounds that the action was illegal.

——————————

As women’s rights activists increased their demands for equal rights and voiced their opposition to policies that worked against women, the crackdown on women’s rights activists including pressure by security agencies increased proportionately. What follows is documentation of the pressure, harassment and prosecution that women’s rights activists have faced in the past 2 years.

Women’s rights activists and their supporters called for a public protest in Tehran on 12 June 2006. During the days leading up to the planned demonstration, Judiciary officials summoned a number of these activists in an attempt to cancel the demonstration. On the evening of 10 June 2006, Judiciary agents delivered summonses to the homes of Parvin Ardalan, Sussan Tahmasebi, Noushin Ahmadi Khorasani, and Fariba Davoodi Mohajer. Ms. Shahla Entsari was arrested on the day of the protest at her place of employment and was held in detention for one day. She was later dismissed from her job. Ms. Davoodi Mohajer received her summons in person and turned herself in for interrogation on the day of the protest.

The demonstration was planned to take place in Haft Tir Square in central Tehran. When hundreds of demonstrators approached the Square on the afternoon of 12 June, they encountered a heavy presence of security forces and the police stationed around the square. The security forces prevented demonstrators from holding a peaceful assembly. They beat the demonstrators with batons, used pepper gas against them, and sprayed them with color paint to mark and arrest them.

Government forces detained a total of 70 men and women on that day. Over a period of one week, all of the detainees were released on bail except for Ali Akbar Mousavi Khoini, a former member of Parliament and human rights activist. Khoini remained in detention for over four months, most of which was spent in solitary confinement. He received beatings and injuries during his time in detention. The authorities released him on bail on 22 October 2006. He was charged with acting against national security; the case remains open, with no court date scheduled.

The situation of 13 other women’s rights activists, prosecuted by the government in relation to the 12 June demonstration, is detailed below.

Parvin Ardalan, Noushin Ahmadi Khorasani, Shahla Entesari, Sussan Tahmasebi, and Fariba Davoodi Mohajer: Judicial officials put these five women’s rights activists on trial for organizing the 12 June demonstration. Their trial was scheduled for 4 March 2007. On that date, dozens of their colleagues appeared in front of the court house to express solidarity with the defendants. Before the trial’s onset, security forces detained four of the defendants and their supporters. The authorities detained a total of 33 women on this date and subjected them to prosecution for their peaceful gathering in front of the courthouse. The next section of this report provides details of prosecutions related to these arrests.

Due to the detention of the four defendants, Parvin Ardalan, Noushin Ahmadi Khorasani, Shahla Entesari and Sussan Tahmasebi, their trial was held in absentia. The fifth defendant, Fariba Davoodi Mohajer, was abroad at the time of the trial and remains outside the country at present.

The Sixth Branch of the Revolutionary Court in Tehran issued a decision on 24 April 2007. According to this decision, the court sentenced Parvin Ardalan, Nousheen and Shahla Entesari to a total of three years’ imprisonment under article 610 of the Islamic Penal Code. They were charged with “collusion and assembly to endanger national security.” The court’s decision required a six-month prison term for each defendant and a suspended sentence of two-and- a- half years, in effect for the next five years. The same court also charged Fariba Davoodi Mohajer with “collusion and assembly to endanger national security.” Davoodi Mohajer was not present at the demonstration because earlier on that day she had been summoned by the Judiciary and interrogated. The court sentenced Davoodi Mohajer to one year of actual imprisonment as well as to a three-year suspended prison term. The court sentenced the fifth defendant, Sussan Tahmasebi, to two years’ imprisonment with one-and-a half years of it suspended. She was charged with “acting against national security through organizing an illegal protest.”

These five women’s rights activists have appealed their sentences and no final ruling has been issued.

Azadeh Forghani: On 11 April 2007, the Iranian Labor News Agency reported that the Revolutionary Court in Tehran had issued a suspended sentence of two years imprisonment for Azadeh Forghani, in effect for five years. The court charged Forghani with “acting against national security” for her participation in the 12 June demonstration. The court dropped charges of “causing rioting” against her.[16] She appealed her sentence. The Appeals Court revised her sentence by replacing it with a fine in amount of 2 million Rials ($220).[17]

Delaram Ali: Delaram Ali was originally tried on 29 May 2007 for her participation in the 12 June 2006 protest, on security charges. She was sentenced to a two year and ten months prison term and 10 lashings, which was reduced to two years and six months and the lashing sentence eliminated in a ruling issued by the Appeals Court announced on 4 November 2007.[18] The courts contacted Ms. Ali on the morning of 4 November 2007 to inform her of an order to implement the sentence immediately. On 10 November 2007, following a letter she wrote to the office of Ayatollah Shahroudi, Chief of the Judiciary, protesting the sentence, he ordered a temporary stay, postponing the implementation of the sentence pending examination of the case.[19] Her case is currently pending review by the courts, but it is considered likely that the original sentence or a portion of it will be upheld and implemented. Delaram was beaten severely during the 12 June 2006 protest and dragged on the ground by police officers prior to her arrest. According the website Change for Equality, Delaram suffered a broken arm as a result of these beatings. She filed a complaint against police officers for use of excessive force, but the police were acquitted on these charges.[20]

Bahareh Hedayat: Bahareh Hedayat was put on trial for her participation in the 12 June 2006 demonstration. Branch Six of Tehran’s Revolutionary Court charged her with “acting against national security,” “disturbing public order,” and “propaganda against the state” on 18 April 2007. Her lawyer, Nasrin Setoodeh, was not allowed into the courtroom.[21] On 27 May 2007, the Revolutionary Court sentenced Hedayat to a two-year suspended prison sentence, in effect for five years, under article 610 of the Islamic Penal Code for “acting against national security.” The Court dropped charges of “disturbing public order” and “propaganda against state” against Hedayat.[22]

Nasim Soltan Beigi: Branch 15 of Tehran’s Revolutionary Court sentenced Nasim Soltan Beigi to a two-year suspended prison sentence, in effect for five years, for her participation in the 12 June 2006 demonstration. According to her lawyer, Mohammad Sharif, she was charged with “acting against national security.”[23]

Alieh Eghdamdoost: Alieh Eghdamdoost received one of the heaviest sentences for participating in the 12 June demonstration. On 6 July 2007, the Iranian Students News Agency reported that Branch 15 of Tehran’s Revolutionary Court sentenced Eghdamdoost to three years imprisonment for “acting against national security,” and another four months imprisonment for “disturbing public order.” The Court also sentenced Eghdamdoost to 20 lashes. The court held its hearing on 6 June 2007 and issued its sentence a month later.[24] Eghdamdoost has appealed her sentence. The Appeals Court has not issued its decision yet.

Maryam Zia: On 25 July2007, Branch 13 of Tehran’s Revolutionary Court sentenced Maryam Zia to a suspended sentence of six months imprisonment and 10 lashes, in effect for two years. According to her lawyer, Yousuf Mowlaii, she has appealed the sentence. The Appeals Court has not issued a final decision.[25]

Ma’soumeh Zia: Ma’soumeh Zia was sentenced on 7 November 2007 to one year imprisonment for her participation in the 12 June demonstration. She has appealed the ruling. According to her lawyer, Farideh Gheirat, “The trial was held on Wednesday, November 7th. The Judge immediately issued his decision and I also immediately protested it.”[26]

Bahman Ahmadi Amoui’e: Journalist Bahman Ahmadi Amoui’e who attended the 12 June 2006 protest in Haft-e Tir Square as a reporter, was arrested and spent a week in detention. In September 2006, the courts charged him with actions against national security by citing several articles that he had written addressing other issues, as well as human rights statements that he had signed. The 13th branch of Revolutionary Court found Amoui’e guilty and sentenced to him a 6-month suspended prison sentence in effect for two years. The sentence was appealed and upheld in the Appeals Court in a ruling issued in February 2008.[27]

On 4 March 2007, Noushin Ahmadi Khorasani, Parvin Ardalan, Shahla Entesari, and Sussan Tahmasebi appeared in court for their trial in relation to the protest on 12 June 2006. These four women, along with Fariba Davodi Mohajer, who at the time was represented by her lawyer, were on trial on security charges related to the planning of the June protest. A group of women’s rights activists had called for a protest in front of the Revolutionary Court to demonstrate their solidarity with the women on trial and object to the increasing pressures on women’s rights activists. When police began arresting the peaceful protesters, the four women, Parvin Ardalan, Noushin Ahmadi Khorasani, Sussan Tahmasebi, and Shahla Entesari along with Shadi Sadr, Entesari’s lawyer, exited the courtroom. The five women were arrested along with 28 others. The 33 women arrested were initially taken to Vozara Detention Center, then to Ward 209 of Evin Prison, managed by the Ministry of Information. All but two were released within five days. Shadi Sadr and Mahboubeh Abbasgholizadeh were released on 15 March, having posted bail amounts of 200 and 250 Million Tomans respectively (approximately $220,000 and $280,000). During this time, their respective organizations, Raahi and NGO Training Center, were shut down by security officials.[28] The 33 women arrested during this crackdown included (in alphabetical order):

Mahboubeh Abbasgholizadeh; Nasrin Afzali; Noushin Ahmadi Khorasani; Asieh Amini; Zara Amjadian; Elnaz Ansari; Parvin Ardalan; Jila Baniyaghoub; Parastoo Dokoohaki; Shahla Entesari; Nahid Entesari; Farideh Entesari; Somaiyeh Farid; Azadeh Forghani; Niloofar Golkar; Fatemeh Govaraie; Maryam Hosseinkhah; Mahboubeh Hosseinzadeh; Sara Imanian; Nahid Jafari; Jelveh Javaheri; Nahid Keshavarz; Saghar Laghai; Sarah Laghai; Sara Logmanian; Maryam Mirza; Rezvan Moghadam; Mahnaz Mohamadi; Minou Mortazi; Zeinab Peyghambarzadeh; Shadi Sadr; Parastoo Sarmadi; and Sussan Tahmasebi.

All the women were charged with illegal gathering and collusion intended to disrupt national security, disruption of public order and refusal to adhere to the orders of the police, prior to their release from detention. Many were subsequently called into court for interrogation sessions.

According to the site of the Campaign, Change for Equality, at least twelve women have been acquitted on similar charges in the same case.[29]

Six others, however, were found guilty of illegal gathering and collusion intended to disrupt national security. They include Minou Mortazi, Nasrin Afzali, Rezvan Moghaddam and Nahid Jafari who were sentenced by the 13th branch of the Revolutionary Court to a six -month suspended prison term and ten suspended lashings. The same court sentenced Parvin Ardalan to a two-year suspended sentence.[30] Zeinab Payghambarzadeh was also found guilty on the same charge by the 16th branch of the Revolutionary Court and sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence. [31]

All six women intend to appeal their sentences, but the disparity in the nature of the sentences issued in the cases attests to pressures that security forces have placed on the judiciary.

Since its launch in August 2006, activists in the One Million Signatures Campaign have faced harassment and obstruction of their peaceful efforts by security forces.[32] They have been systematically denied space for convening meetings. Additionally, activists have been arrested while collecting signatures in support of the Campaign’s petition asking the Parliament to reform laws that discriminate against women, for convening meetings and for writing on the Campaign’s website. To date, 44 members of the Campaign have been arrested for alleged violations in relation to their peaceful activities in support of women’s rights.

Zeinab Peyghambarzadeh: This woman’s rights and student activist was the first member of the Campaign to be arrested. She was arrested on 15 December 2006 while collecting signatures on the Metro in support of the Campaign’s petition. She spent five days in detention, and was released on a third party guarantee on 19 December 2006, after she was charged with “acting against national security.” She is awaiting a court trial.

Nasim Sarabandi and Fatemeh Dehdashti: These two women’s rights activists were arrested on 10 January 2007, also while collecting signatures on the Metro. They were both held in Gisha detention center for one day and released. While at first it appeared that the case against them was closed, they received a summons in April 2007, and were charged by the Security Branch of the Revolutionary Court with “acting against national security.” Their trial was held on 12 August 2007. The judge sentenced them to six- month suspended prison sentences, for a period of two years. They have both appealed their cases.

Saeedeh Amin, Sara Imanian, Mahboubeh Hosseinzadeh, Nahid Keshavarz, and Homayoun Nami: These Campaign activists were arrested on 2 April 2007 while collecting signatures in Laleh Park. Security forces turned over the detainees to the office of Amaken (in charge of monitoring immoral behavior in public places) at Niloufar Square. After spending hours being questioned there, the detainees were transferred to the Vozara detention center where they spent the night. The next day, three of the detainees– Sara Imanian, Saeedeh Amin, and Homayoun Nami– were freed on their personal guarantees. Nahid Keshavarz and Mahboubeh Hosseinzadeh were transferred to Evin prison. Their transfer to Evin took place despite the fact that, during their appearance in the Revolutionary Court, they were told that they would be freed after posting bail. Mahboubeh and Nahid remained in detention in Evin’s public ward for 13 days. They were eventually released on 15 April, with a third party guarantee in the amount of 20 million Tomans (US $22,222), paid only if they flee. Before leaving Evin prison, the authorities told them they were charged with “acting against national security through propaganda against the Order.” These activists are awaiting trial.

Ehteram Shadfar (62 years old, a mother and a campaigner) and her neighbor were arrested on 10 June2007. Ehteram’s neighbor, a 50- year old woman involved in the Campaign, who wishes to remain anonymous, was arrested while collecting signatures. She was asked to provide the name of the person who provided her with the petition and Campaign materials. Subsequently, the officers escorted the 50- year old neighbor to the home of Ehteram Shadfar, after which both women were transferred first to the police station (Amaken office) at Niloufar Square where a detention order for 24 hours was issued for them and then transferred to the Vozara detention center, where they were detained for 24 hours. At the security branch of the Revolutionary Court, Shadfar and her neighbor were released with their own personal guarantees. The neighbor’s judicial case was declared closed, but on 19 February 2007, Shadfar was sentenced to a six- month suspended prison sentence for the period of two years.

Amir Yaghoob-ali was arrested on 11 July 2007 while collecting signatures in Andisheh Park. He was transferred to solitary confinement in Evin prison’s ward 209. When Amir’s mother asked the judge what the charges against her son were, the judge told her: “Amir is a man. Why is he involved in women’s issues? He should pay attention to his studies.” Amir’s detention became lengthy, so in an effort to follow-up his case, members of the Mothers Committee of the Campaign wrote a letter to the head of the Judiciary branch, protesting Amir’s detention, and demanding proper judicial processes. Amir was released after 28 days of solitary confinement, and upon posting bail in the amount of 20 million Tomans (US$22,222). Amir Yagoubali’s trial was held on 25 February on the charge of “actions against national security” and “spreading propaganda against the state.” According to his lawyer, Nasrin Sotoodeh, Yagoubali pleaded not guilty on these charges.[33] He is awaiting the court’s decision with respect to his trial.

Ronak Safazadeh and Hana Abadi: Security forces detained Ronak Safazadeh, a women’s rights activist in Sanandaj, at her home on 9 October 2007. According to her family, Ronak, along with her friend Hana Abdi, participated in a celebration on the occasion of Children’s Day, during which they distributed copies of the Campaign’s literature. As they engaged in signature collection, a security agent took the sign-up sheet away from Ronak. The next morning security forces went to Ronak’s and Hana’s homes at 7:00 in the morning. They couldn’t find Hana, but detained Ronak as she was walking to work. Then they entered her house, searched it, and confiscated some of Ronak’s personal belongings. Initially Ronak was transferred to the local branch of the Intelligence Ministry. After several months in detention at the local office of the Intelligence Ministry in Kurdistan, Ronak was transferred to the public ward of Sanandaj prison in February, 2008, where she remains as of this writing. According to her lawyer, Mohammad Sharif, a trial was held for Ronak, who was charged with security violations on 13 March 2008.[34]

Hana Abdi: A month after Ronak’s detention, Hana Abdi, another women’s rights activist, was detained on 4 November 2007. Hana had been collecting signatures together with Ronak on 8 October. According to her family, intelligence agents detained Hana at her grandfather’s home in Sanandaj. After detaining her, the agents went to her house, confiscating her computer and Campaign literature. As of this writing, Hana is detained at the Sanandaj prison’s public ward, awaiting trial for security violations. She is also being represented by Mohamad Sharif.

Mohammad Sharif has objected to illegal interrogations in Ronak’s and Hana’s cases. He has cited their long stay in solitary confinement and pressures by the security officials to obtain confessions to justify his objections. Additionally, he has objected to the court’s refusal to free his clients on bail.[35]

Ronak, 21 years old and a graphic artist, has been active in local women’s organizations and is a member of the Azarmehr Women’s Association in Kurdistan. Hana is also 21 years old and studies psychology at Payam Noor University in Birjand.

Raheleh Asgarizadeh and Nasim Khosravi: These two women’s rights activists were arrested on 14 February 2008 while collecting signatures at Daneshjoo Park following a street play about polygamy, which was performed as part of the international Fajr film festival. Security forces first took the detainees to the local police station branch 129 (Jami), then to the Security Police No. 8 where they were interrogated. They were subsequently transferred to Vozara detention center, where they spent two nights in detention. On 16 February, the Revolutionary Court set bail in the amount of 20 million Tomans (US$22,222) for the two young women. Not being able to meet such heavy bail, they were transferred to Evin prison’s public ward. The two were finally released on 26 February on a third party guarantee bail amount of 10 million tomans ($11,000), paid only if they flee.

Maryam Hosseinkhah: This woman’s rights activist and member of the Campaign, who is also a journalist and Internet blogger, was arrested on 18 November 2007, in relation to her activities and writings in support of women’s rights. She had received a summons to appear at the security branch of the Revolutionary Court on 15 November 2004. During her interrogation on 17 November, she was charged with acting against national security, publication of lies, and disturbing public opinion by writing for the Campaign’s website (Change for Equality) and the Zanestan website (belonging to the Women’s Cultural Center). She returned the next day for more interrogations but bail was set in the amount of 100 million tomans (US $ 111,000), which her family could not afford. She was transferred to Evin prison’s public ward on 18 November. She was in detention for 45 days as her family could not afford such heavily bail. She was eventually released when her bail amount was reduced to a bank guarantee in the amount of 5 million toman (US$5,555).

Jelveh Javaheri: This member of the Campaign was detained on similar charges to those against Maryam Hosseinkhah, and in relation to her writings for the Campaign’s website. She was summoned to the security branch number one of the Revolutionary Court. After interrogation, she was charged with “disturbing public opinion, propaganda against the state, publication of lies for writing for the site of the Campaign (Change for Equality).” Her bail was set at 50 million toman (US$ 55,555), which her family was unable to post. After 30 days in prison, she was eventually released when her bail amount was reduced to a bank guarantee in the amount of 5 million toman (US$5,555).

Both Maryam and Jelveh are awaiting court hearings and their cases remain open. In addition to Maryam Hosseinkhah and Jelve Javaheri, Parvin Ardalan and Nahid Keshavarz have both been summoned to court and charged with security charges in relation to their activities and writings on the site of the Campaign and the site of Zanestan, the webzine of the Women’s Cultural Center. Nahid Keshavarz was summoned to court on the 13th of January, 2008, and charged with actions against national security, through propaganda against the state.[36] Parvin Ardalan was summoned to court on April 6, 2008 and charged with propaganda against the state. The cases against these activists are pending.

Detention of 25 participants during an educational workshop in Khorramabad: On 14 September 2007, police violently attacked an educational workshop arranged by the Campaign in the private home of a volunteer in the city of Khorramabad. Only a few minutes into the start of the workshop, 10 armed policemen, both uniformed and in plain-clothes, accompanied by three female police officers, broke into the house violently. From the moment of their entrance, they attacked the host, severely beating him with their gun barrels and kicking him. The police officers searched the house, insulted the participants, confiscated personal items, and detained all the participants. The men were taken out of the house in handcuffs; the women screamed in protest, refusing to be handcuffed. Upon being taken outside, the participants, to their amazement, encountered a crowd who had gathered to watch their arrest. The police had told the crowd that the participants were arrested for participating in a gathering that promoted debauchery. Twenty local participants, along with the five campaigners from Tehran, including, Nafiseh Azad, Zara Amjadian, Jelveh Javaheri, Mansoureh Shojaii, and Nazli Farrakhi, who conducted the workshop, were released after a period of 12 hours, along with most other participants. Reza Dowlatshah, Bahman Azadi, and Khosrow Nasimpour, three local social activists from Khorramabad, however, were held for three days. They were released on the evening of 16 September. All these individuals are awaiting trial and no information exists on the status of their case.

Khadijeh Moghaddam: This woman’s rights and civil society activist and member of the Mother’s Committee of the Campaign, was arrested on 8 April 2008 after security police forcibly entered her home. She spent seven days in solitary confinement at Vozara detention center. Originally a bail amount of 100 million Tomans (roughly $110,000) was issued for her release. But on Tuesday 15 April, this amount was reduced to a third party guarantee, after which she was transferred to Evin prison. Moghaddam was released on 16 April after spending two days in Evin’s public ward. In repeated interrogations sessions, the special court investigator of the security branch of the Revolutionary Court charged Moghaddam with actions against national security, disruption of public opinion, and propaganda against the state, through the convening of gatherings related to the Campaign in her private home. Prior to this, Moghaddam had been called in for interrogation by the Security Police in relation to Campaign gatherings in her home. As of this writing, she is free on bail and awaiting trial.[37]

Authorities have also systematically thwarted efforts by Campaign activists to convene meetings and gatherings in their homes. Since these activists have been denied permits to use public spaces for their meetings, they contend that they have no choice but to hold meetings in their homes. They further contend that convening meetings and gatherings in private homes is legal and does not endanger national security, as claimed by security and judiciary officials. According to Change for Equality, the website of the Campaign, the following individuals have been harassed for holding meetings and gatherings in their private homes, demonstrating the intent of security officials to obstruct and prevent their freedom of assembly: “In Tehran, the security police has summoned and interrogated Nafiseh Azad, Parastoo Allahyari, Najmeh Zare, Behnaz Shekaryar, Nasrin Farhoumand, and Khadijeh Moghadam for holding meetings at their private homes, or attending meetings of the Campaign. According to reports from the provinces, campaign members have also been interrogated in other cities, including in Isfahan, Shiraz, Kermanshah, Anzali, Rasht, and Hamedan.”[38]

On March 3, 2008 Parvin Ardalan, who was awarded the Olof Palme Award for her activism on behalf of women’s rights, was on her way to Stockholm to take part in an event in her honor organized by the Olof Palme Foundation. At the last minute, despite having made it through the security and passport control check points, she was pulled off the plane and told that she was under a travel ban.[39] Ardalan was summoned to court on April 6, 2008, in relation to her activities and writings in support of women’s rights on the site of the Campaign, Change for Equality, and Zanestan, the site of the Women’s Cultural Center. No information regarding her travel ban was provided during this court session.[40] The ban imposed on Ardalan is a continuation of a policy designed to limit the access of women’s rights defenders, and especially Campaign members, to the international community, through barring them from travel. Similarly, on 9 March 2008, Mansoureh Shajaie, also a member of the Campaign, while on her way to Dubai was told that she was barred from travel. Prior to this trip, Security officials contacted Nasrin Sotoodeh, a lawyer representing many Campaign activists, who was due to travel to Dubai with Shojaie, to warn her against travel. While a travel ban was not imposed on Sotoodeh, she decided to forgo the trip, when her colleague Shojaie was stopped at the airport.[41] Also, Talat Taghinia, was barred from travel while on her way to Morocco on 10 January 2008, where she intended to vacation.[42] Sussan Tahmasebi, also a member of the One Million Signatures Campaign, was stopped at the airport on 23 October 2008. She was told that she had to forfeit her laptop computer before boarding the plane. Harassment by security officials at Mehrabad Airport, who had confiscated her passport, in an effort to secure her laptop, resulted in her missing her flight.[43] The Iranian security forces have a long history of banning intellectuals and activists from travel, confiscating their passports, and harassing them into choosing not to travel abroad. This policy, intended to isolate the activists involved in the One Million Signatures Campaign, is a continuation of a long- standing policy of the security forces against activists, aimed at creating fear and isolation.

——————————

[1] Interview with women’s rights activist, identity withheld, 25 April 2008.

[2] Interview with women’s rights activist, identity withheld, 22 April 2008.

[3] Answers to Your Most Frequently Asked Questions about the Campaign, Change for Equality,http://www.change4equality.com/english/spip.php?article226.

[4] Ibid.

[5] For more information see: www.meydaan.org.

[6] For more information see: http://www.stop-stoning.org.

[7] “Eighty-Five percent of Those Arrested Through the Social Safety Program are aged 16-25,” Radio Farda, 17 December 2007, http://www.meydaan.org/news.aspx?nid=1420.

[8] Mehrieh is similar to bride price, but is paid to the wife on her request. This bride price is usually forgone by women in cases where she is seeking a contested divorce and in the absence of laws that allow equal rights to divorce for women, this is usually a woman’s only legal strategy for obtaining contested divorces. Women’s rights to seek a divorce is severely limited under Iranian law, while men have uncontested rights to divorce their wife at will.

[9] See “A Year of Experience for Drafters of the Family Protection Act and Lessons Lost” by Zohreh Arzani, Change for Equality, 27 August 2007, http://www.change4equality.com/spip.php?article897 and “Faced with Internal and External Realities, the Price of Equality and the ‘Family Protection Act’!” by Nasrin Sotoodeh, Change for Equality, 27 August 2007, http://www.change4equality.com/spip.php?article898.

[10] “Mistreatment of Women in the Name of the Family Protection Act,” Change for Equality, 3 September 2007, http://www.change4equality.com/spip.php?article944.

[11] “The Objection of Over 700 Student and Women’s Rights Activists to the Gender-based Quota Systems in University,” Women’s Commission of the Office to Foster Unity, 8 April 2008, http://www.silenthalf.com/spip.php?breve232.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] “The Objection of Over 1500 Women’s Rights Activists, and Political, Social and Cultural Activists to the Banning of Zanan Monthly,” Change for Equality, 13 February 2008, http://www.change4equality.com/spip.php?article1676.

[15] Ibid.

[16] “Azadeh Firghani, Defendant of the 12 June Demonstration, Receives Two Years Suspended Sentence,” Iranian Labor News Agency, 11 April 2007.

[17] Based on information received from human rights defenders in Iran.

[18] “Delaram Ali to Serve Prison Term of 2 Years 6 Months,” Change for Equality, 4 November 2007,http://www.change4equality.com/english/spip.php?article160.

[19] “Temporary Stay Ordered by Judiciary Head in Implementation of Prison Sentence of Delaram Ali,” Change for Equality, 11 November 2007,http://www.change4equality.com/english/spip.php?article167.

[20] “Delaram Ali to Serve Prison Term of 2 Years 6 Months,” Change for Equality, 4 November 2007,http://www.change4equality.com/english/spip.php?article160.

[21] “Trial of Bahareh Hedayat, Member of the Office to Consolidate Unity, Is Held,” 18 April 2007, Iranian Labor News Agency.

[22] “Bahareh Hedayat convicted,” 27 May 2007, Sharq.

[23] “Nasim Soltan Beigi Sentenced to Two Years Suspended Imprisonment for 12 June Demonstration,” 10 July 2007,http://www.irwomen.org/spip.php?page=print&id_article=3427.

[24] “Three Years and Four Months Imprisonment and 20 Lashes for Alieh Eghdamdoost,” 6 July 2007,http://www.irwomen.org/spip.php?page=print&id_article=3392.

[25] “Maryam Zia Sentenced to Suspended Imprisonment and Lashing,” Iranian Students News Agency, 25 July 2007,http://www.irwomen.org/spip.php?page=print&id_article=3515.

[26] “Ma’soumeh Zia, Women’s Movement Activist, Sentenced to One Year Imprisonment,” 10 November 2007,http://www.irwomen.org/spip.php?page=print&id_article=4833.

[27] “Six Months Prison Sentence Upheld, for Bahman Ahmadi Amoui’e,” 2 March 2008, Gooya News: http://www.irwomen.org/spip.php?article5348.

[28]“ Shadi Sadr and Mahboubeh Abbasgholizadeh Released,” Meydan, 15 March 2007, www.meydaan.org.

[29] “Nahid Jafari Receives 6 Months and 10 Lashes Suspended Sentence,” Change for Equality, 23 April 2008, http://www.change4equality.com/english/spip.php?article259.

[30]“ Parvin Ardalan Receives Two Year Suspended Sentence,” Change for Equality, 2 May 2008,http://www.change4equality.com/english/spip.php?article264

[31] “Nahid Jafari Receives Six Months and 10 Lashes Suspended Sentence,” Change for Equality, 23 April 2008,http://www.change4equality.com/english/spip.php?article259, “Rezvan Moghaddam Receives Suspended Prison and Lashing Sentence,” Change for Equality, 29 April 2008, http://www.change4equality.com/english/spip.php?article263.

[32] Information for this portion of the report, unless otherwise indicated, has been taken from: Detentions and Summons Against Campaigners for Gender Equality, Change for Equality, 24 February 2008, http://www.change4equality.com/english/spip.php?article225.

[33] “Summons of Maryam Hosseinkhah to the Security Branch of the Revolutionary Courts, and the Convening of Amir Yaghoubali and Shahla Entesari’s Trials,” Change for Equality, 25 February 2008,http://www.change4equality.com/spip.php?article1709.

[34] “The Convening of Ronak Safazadeh’s Trial,” Feminist School, 17 March 2007,http://feministschool.net/spip.php?article311.

[35] Ibid.

[36] ” The Women’s Movement, Summons, Sentences, and Travel Bans: Every 4 Days One Person,” 14 April 2008, The Feminist School, www.feministschool.com.

[37]“ Khadijeh Moghaddam Released After Nine Days in Detention,” Change for Equality, 16 April 2008, http://www.change4equality.com/english/spip.php?article251.

[38] “Detentions and Summons Against Campaigners for Gender Equality,” Change for Equality, 24 February 2008, http://www.change4equality.com/english/spip.php?article225.

[39] “Parvin Ardalan Banned from Travel While on Way to Receive the Olaf Palme Award, 3 March2008, Change for Equality,” http://www.change4equality.com/english/spip.php?article229.

[40] “Summons and Questioning of Parvin Ardalan in the Security Branch of the Revolutionary Courts,” 6 April, 2008, Change for Equality, http://www.change4equality.com/english/spip.php?article249.

[41] “Travel Ban Imposed on Mansoureh Shojaee and Nasrin Sotoodeh Threatened by Telephone,” 10 March 2008, The Feminist School, www.feministschool.com.

[42] “ The Women’s Movement, Summons, Sentences, and Travel Bans: Every 4 Days One Person,” 14 April 2008, The Feminist School, www.feministschool.com.

[43] “They Confiscated Sussan Tahmasebi’s Laptop and Summoned Her to Court,” 24 October 2007, Women’s Organization of Iran, http://www.irwomen.org/spip.php?article4751.

Judiciary Claimed Practice Had Been Stopped

(3 January 2009) Three men were subjected to stoning sentences on 25 December 2008, in the Behesht Zahra Cemetery in the City of Mashad, according to local sources, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran said today. Two were stoned to death, while a third, an Afghani national, apparently managed to escape from the hole in which he was partially buried. His fate is unknown.

The stonings contradict an official claim that Iranian authorities had put an end to the practice, a form of capital punishment considered barbaric by the international community. On 5 August 2008, Iranian Judiciary spokesperson Alireza Jamshidi claimed that all stoning sentences had been stopped and the punishment would no longer be carried out.“These executions are deeply troubling not only as egregious violations of human rights and affronts to human dignity, but also because they raise serious questions about the integrity of government claims,” stated Aaron Rhodes, a spokesman for the Campaign. “Stonings should have ended before, and need to end now.”

According to Iran’s Islamic Penal Code, men are buried up to their waist and stoned to death for the “crime” of engaging in extramarital sexual relationships. If a person convicted on the basis of another’s testimony manages to escape while being stoned, his life may be spared, which appears to have been the case regarding one of the men stoned on 25 December. If a person convicted based on his own confession escapes, then he must be reburied and stoned to death.
In the past two years, at least six people have been subjected to stoning, including the cases here reported.

On 29 December 2008, reporters asked Judiciary spokesperson Jamshidi about the stoning sentence of a woman named Afsaneh in the city of Shiraz and he claimed the sentence has not been finalized by the Supreme Court. However, Iranian human rights defenders have learned of the Supreme Court’s approval on 4 August 2008—a day before the Judiciary claimed an end to stoning.

The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran appealed to the Iranian Judiciary and Parliament to halt and outlaw stoning, a practice that degrades respect for human life and poisons Iran’s international relations.

The Bloodied Stone
Execution by Stoning
Emadeddin Baghi

A few weeks ago the media published a report regarding the imminent stoning of a man and a woman in Qazvin for the charge of adultery committed with a married woman. Upon hearing the news, Ayatollah Shahrudi, the head of the Iranian Judiciary, immediately ordered the suspension of this act. What happened was yet another manifestation of the important role played by the media in informing Iranian officials about the atrocities that occur hidden from the eyes of everyone. But two weeks later a piece of news stunned everyone. The judge in the case ordered the stoning of the man and since there were not enough pious people present, he implemented the sentence with the help of a few members of the police force. This time the issue of stoning that had been placed in the back burner for a while made headlines and the concern about its repetition came to life again.

I am writing this piece not to engage in sophistry but to address a serious issue that constitutes one of our contemporary legal quandaries. I have been a student of Islamic jurisprudence and knowledge as well as sociology and in recent years I have focused my religious studies on the issue of capital punishment (execution, qessas, and stoning).

The real and fabricated images of stoning in the foreign media and their destructive impact on Islam and Iran are well-known and there is really no reason to discuss them. What motivates me to write is the recent implementation of several stoning sentences and the existence of 9 people in line to be stoned, some of whom asides form being accused of illicit relationships are also charged with murder.

Another motivation is the fact that the head of the judiciary does not consider these sentences as beneficial and has ordered their suspension. Although this order has significantly reduced the issuance of these sentences, still some judges continue to hand them out (the Qazvin example being the latest) since the head of the Judiciary’s order has yet to find legal expression, keeping the relevant laws of the Islamic penal code in force. Hence my plea for legislation that eliminates and replaces stoning as a more definite path for preventing such verdicts.

Considering that Iran’s civil and criminal code is inspired by the Islamic juridical tradition and popular culture is also intertwined with religion, legal reform requires understanding of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) and new independent interpretation (ijtihad), the responsibility for which lies with religious leaders (fuqaha). I believe that the use of reasoning regarding the need to eliminate and replace stoning is more beneficial and effective than relying on slogans, false claims, and commanding language. So long as there is hope in someone listening and having an impact through reasoning, words spoken in anger remain unsatisfying and should stay in cover.

Here, I would like to discuss stoning from eight different vantage points:

1. Human Rights
2. The Qur’an
3. Traditional Islamic Jurisprudence
4. As a Case Study
5. Interest of Islam
6. Legal Perspective
7. Emotional Impact
8. Historical and Sociological Perspective

Human Rights

From the point of view of human rights, the stoning sentence is against human goodness and dignity in two ways. First, the right to life is an intrinsic right that cannot be taken away. In other word, it is the right to life that should shape law and be the criteria for forging it and not the other way around. Second, the way the stoning punishment is meted out is violent and an insult to human dignity. Now the question is what is the relationship between stoning as a punishment and Islamic laws?

The Qur’an

The stoning verdict in traditional Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) is a legal command but it has no basis in the Qur’an. Verse 15 and 16 of al- Nisā (which is said to have been voided with Verse 2 of Nur specifying 100 lashes for adultery) talks about the punishment for adultery for the first time in the following terms: “If any of your women are guilty of adultery, take the evidence of four [Muslim] witnesses amongst you against them, and if they testify, confine them [women] to houses until death claims them, or Allah ordains for them some [salvation] path.” And “if two among you are guilty of vileness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, leave them alone for Allah is kind and merciful.”

Al-Zamakhshari says in Al-Kashshaf that the meaning of this verse is prison for life for the adulterer which was the punishment for this offense at the outset of Islam and was later voided by Verse 2 of Nur which states, “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with a hundred stripes: let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.” At the same time, al-Zamakhshari thinks that the verse was probably not voided and adds that the objective of this verse is to keep the woman in the house to protect her from the repetition of the committed sin and men’s aggression, hence creating conditions for her marriage.

Allameh Tabatabai, one of the prominent thinkers of Shi’i Islam, says the following regarding the two verses:

Interpreters have narrated that when the lashes verse in Nur descended upon him, the Prophet said this is the same remedy and path that God had promised in Verse 15 of al-Nisā. Perhaps this appearance is another appearance in this verse and this is what should be understood from the language of this verse that the command is not permanent and will soon be voided since it is said: ‘and or the Almighty will offer a remedial path.’ In this sentence the issue pf permanent imprisonment of the woman is connected to the testimony of witnesses and not the occurrence of the indecent act. In short, the only time the permanent incarceration command is issued by the sovereign is when four witnesses testify about the woman’s action and if the witnesses do not testify no judgment is rendered, even if the sovereign is certain about the judgment… What exists is the interpretation of incarceration for life but even that is not in prison; rather it is commanded to keep them in homes until their death arrives. This also has a clear reason in order to make the work of Muslims easier and avoid hardship and that is why it is commanded ‘until death arrives’ or that ‘a salvation path is prescribed’; the intent is salvation from life imprisonment. And that there is ambivalence and commanded ‘this or that’ is a reference to the hope that life imprisonment be voided as it did happened since the lashing command voided life imprisonment… and the issue of imprisonment after the death did not become effective. Hence if the verse is about adulterous women, there is no doubt that it has been voided by the lashes verse.

According to what Allameh Tabatabai has said, and the majority of Qur’an interpreters o have said similar things, if Verse 2 of Nur was descended in order to strengthen the previous command there is no reason for the Legislator to avoid mentioning the punishment of stoning and only limit himself to lashing and give the responsibility of stoning (which is the harshest of death punishments) to others. Instead we can say that in such an important instance the Legislator has expressed the command himself and if there was a need for replacement he has done it himself so that the possibility of legislation in such an important instance is not given to others.

And if the verse was descended to lessen the previous punishment (life imprisonment), a harsher punishment such as execution or death by stoning cannot be rendered.

Accordingly, among the two verses generally seen as related to the punishment for adultery, only one remains. This is Verse 2 of Nur which commands 100 lashes for adulterous men and women. Whatever else beyond the 100 lashes has come in Islamic jurisprudence is based on several narrations but these have been questioned by several religious scholars and followers of hadith, such as Ayatollah Seyyed Mohammad Javad Gharavi, as having many weaknesses and deficiencies. According to Gharavi, the important point is that the aforementioned verse expresses a command and it is impossible for it to express only part of a command, leaving the rest unsaid and for the followers to complete.

Execution and capital punishment are the harshest of punishments and the Almighty himself says that the life of one person is equivalent to the life of a whole people and the murder of one is like commanding the slaying of a whole people (al-Ma’idah 32). How is it possible for the Almighty not to specify such a punishment, which is the worst kind of execution in the Qur’an, leaving it in the hands of others while there are many commands of milder punishments regarding other crimes in the Qur’an? Narrations and reports cannot replace the Qur’an. The importance of human life specified in Verse 32 of al-Ma’idah takes precedence. From another side, the narratives of stoning or other narratives quoting the Prophet who rejects killings accompanied with torture even for birds and insects, seeing them as the source of Almighty’s curse, are in evident contradiction to execution by stoning.

In addition the Mu’tazilites and Khawarej (two important sects in Islam) have from the beginning opposed stoning and their reasoning has been that at the outset of Islam stoning existed but the lashes verse voided this punishment. In addition, they argue such a punishment does not exist in the Qur’an and after the lashes verse the Prophet did not order the stoning of anyone. Of course some believe that even before Verse 2 of Nur, stoning as a punishment is not sanctioned.

Some interpreters and religious scholars have said that in stoning existed in the Qur’an but was voided (ibn Qadamah 7 and 156) and A’isha has been quoted to have said that stoning existed in al-Ahzab Sura but was dropped when Othman collected the verses of the Qur’an.

It seems that such a narration is completely false since first of all it is in clear contradiction to all other verses regarding the punishment for adultery. Secondly, its acceptance requires the acknowledgment that the Qur’an has been tampered with, a charge rejected by the majority of Muslims. Given the clear language of the Qur’an regarding the punishment for adultery and the authenticity and importance of the language of Qur’an about the importance of human life, how could we refer to a verse that neither exists nor its existence proven and merely rely on the words of some people who claim that such a verse did exist? Why doesn’t the existing language bring knowledge and proof or documentation while what is not in existence does?

Some, in order to give credibility to stoning in the face of lack of Qur’anic evidence, refer to the fact the caliphs engaged in stoning. But first of all their path (sunnah) cannot be considered the source of a command regarding the life of a human being. Secondly, according to Ayatollah Gharavi, that the caliphs engaged in stoning has not been proven. Thirdly, even if it was proven, the voiding of the holy book by the path of the caliphs is not proper. The sunnah, only if it is successively and with certainty related to the Prophet, can be considered a specification of a command and specification is different from voiding. Fourthly, such a specification can only limit the range of outcomes and exclude a person from the command. In other words, such specification can only delimit and not expand the command since the basic principle in Islam is not harshness and there are many verses and narrations associated with the religion that confirm this principle.

As such, the punishment of death for different kinds of adultery do not have Qur’anic backing and in various verses regarding prostitution and adultery there is merely reference to the indecency of the act and eternal torment associated with it and not capital punishment. In addition, as will be shown below, in traditional Islamic jurisprudence certain conditions have been specified that if not fulfilled, particularly since adultery is usually committed in private, punishment is irrelevant/useless. Another point is that this act has been identified by some as the right of God, which means that only God can unearth the true intentions behind it. With the exception of cases related to the immature and unwise, man cannot judge. This means that the excepted cases are not God’s right and create private rights.

Traditional Islamic Jurisprudence

Although stoning has no basis in the Qur’an but in traditional Islamic jurisprudence it is relied upon on the basis of ways of the Prophet (sunnah) in their many narrations and reports about the implementation of the sentence. Regulations regarding stoning in traditional Islamic jurisprudence are as follows. Each crime can be proven in two ways:

1. Sight
2. Confession

The proof of the crime of adultery through sight requires the fulfillment of certain conditions:

1. The accused must be married.
2. The accused must have access to the spouse.
3. The accused must be endowed with reason.
4. The accused must be mature.
5. The accused must be endowed with free will and engaged in the act without force.
6. The accused must be knowledgeable about the punishment.
7. The accused must be knowledgeable about the subject.
8. The claim to lack of knowledge about the punishment or subject in case the veracity of the claim is probable, without the existence of a witness, will be accepted upon the oath taken by the accused (Article 66, Civil Code)
9. Testimony of four men.
10. All four must be just.
11. Their justness must have been proven.
12. They must have witnessed the crime simultaneously.
13. They must testify simultaneously and if they did not witness the crime simultaneously or one testified later, all four are subject to lashes.
14. All the qualities and details of the testimony should be the same and if, for instance, one or two persons report from various places or angles, the crime is not proven.
15. The witnesses should testify willingly without any reservations.
16. Their testimonies should attest to them being witness to the act of adultery is its “completeness,” meaning that a thread cannot pass between the two bodies, so to speak.

All the 16 conditions must be fulfilled simultaneously for the crime to be proven. This is while the conditions of proof through sight (particularly the last one) are impossible to fulfill and indeed some religious scholars have considered such proof impossible. The question then arises regarding why such a harsh punishment has been forwarded at all. A possible answer is that in the past fourteen century, public opinion regarding the crime has been such that direct rejection of any punishment would not have been possible. Hence the Legislator has acted in such a way as to make the proof of the crime impossible and yet acknowledge the indecency of the act to which the society has been sensitive and say that if such a crime is proven, it is so abominable that it is deserving of such a punishment.

Bu the other way of proving the crime is confession. This approach is also as difficult since first no one voluntarily steps forward to confess to a crime that is considered so abominable in public opinion. Maturity, reason, free will, intent, and clarity are the five conditions for the veracity of the confession. Secondly, even assuming that a person confesses, the advice for the Islamic judge is to not accept the confession if possible. It is narrated that at the outset of Islam a man went to the Prophet and confessed to adultery. The Prophet rejected the confession, saying that he did not do such a thing. The man again insisted on his confession and the prophet again rejected his words, banished him, and assigned some individuals to investigate in his tribe and see if the man is endowed with reasonable faculties, hoping to use this excuse as a means to not implement the sentence. Everyone testified that he is endowed with reason. The man came back to the Prophet and insisted on his crime and finally the Prophet was forced to accept his confession. Assuming the veracity of the narration, this example shows that if exceptionally a person is found who confesses, as much as possible efforts should be made not to accept the confession. The key here is that the person must have confessed in a free environment, without force, and not in prison or under the pressure of interrogations or threats. As such on the basis of the mere fact that a person has confessed in an environment that is not free, we can question and reject the confession.

In addition, even if exceptionally a person is found that insists on his confession, a path for escape must be left open in the following ways:

1. The confession is null after denial. This means that whenever the person disavows his confession, the stoning sentence must be lifted (there are even narrations that suggest the ruler can pardon the adulterer without repentance).
2. In tradition Islamic jurisprudence the prevention of the sentence on the basis of any excuse is also allowed, as evidenced by Imam Ali’s words to a person sentenced to stoning that,” because you are young, there is no obstacle in showing mercy.”
3. If no excuses are found in preventing the sentence, then the lower part of the body should be placed in a pit in such a way so as to allow for the possibility of flight and if the person can get out, then he or she can no longer be punished.
4. Those who come to implement the sentence must be the most just among the pious.
5. They must not be polluted or in menstruation. This condition along the previous one overrules the condition of sufficient numbers for the implementation of the sentence.
6. Small stones must be used (perhaps in order for the person to be able to flee before serious injury).

Again it is important to reiterate that all these commands regarding stoning are based on the assumption of proof regarding a crime that according the discussed approaches in traditional Islamic jurisprudence cannot be proven

The viewpoint of Ayatollah Montazeri regarding adultery with a married woman can be considered a summary of the views expressed in traditional Islamic jurisprudence. In response to many inquiries by some followers as well as domestic and foreign human rights organizations and news outlets, he writes on 12 July 2007:

The sentence of stoning existed in the Torah in an extensive manner, but in Islam it only exists regarding adultery with a married woman under specific conditions and the way to prove it are: 1) Testimony of four just individuals who have witnessed the act with their own eyes, the realization of which is very unlikely; 2) The confession of the accused, repeated four times, in a free environment and atmosphere and not in prison or under pressure. And the implementation of the sentence immediately after the knowledge of the judge is problematic and what recently happened in Takistan is against the standards and if the individual after confession disavows the confession; the disavowal according Islamic jurisprudence is acceptable and in case of confession the individual has the right of flight and if he flees, his pursuit is not acceptable and if in a time or place the implementation of the sentence leads to the weakening of religion, its implementation must be avoided. Given the characteristics mentioned, in reality sentence of stoning is merely a scarecrow for people to abstain from a great sin.”

As such in traditional Islamic jurisprudence there is also no Qur’anic reasoning for stoning. The only reference is to the consensus of Islamic jurists and several narrations (not definite sunnah), with questions regarding both the realization of the consensus as well as the documented narrations. In any case, as it was mentioned above, some Islamic jurists do not consider reliance on narrations regarding the death sentence as acceptable.

Case Study

The stoning sentences implemented in Iran in the past few years have not only been against human dignity and human rights standards but also did not follow the legal standards of the traditional Islamic jurisprudence for the following reasons:

1. Individuals confessed under prison conditions and after abuse.
2. Their confessions were accepted easily and without much resistance.
3. Many of the individuals disavowed their confessions but the disavowals were not accepted.
4. There were many excuses and reasons that could have been used to null the sentence but attention was not given to these.
5. During the implementation of stoning the criteria of the presence of the most just, with due attention to purity, was not observed.
6. In many cases, officials of the government (in prison and among the police force) implemented the sentence.
7. It was observed that large stones, one of which sufficed for the killing, were used.
8. Individuals that were able to flee the pit were again placed in the pit in such a way to make flight impossible and be killed.

There are many examples of violations but here reference will only be made to the latest case of stoning in Takistan in the Qazvin province:

1. The woman who married Jafar (the man who was stoned) had run away from her husband who had forced her into prostitution in order to lead a more decent and healthy life.
2. This woman had filed for divorce from her previous husband.
3. The head of the judiciary had stopped the implementation of her stoning sentence and since this order was both legal and Islamic, it had enough weight to prevent his stoning as well.
4. Government officials participated in the implementation of the sentence.

The head of the Judiciary, using his legal authority, had ordered the stopping of the sentence implementation. As such the stoning of Jafar was effectively against the law and Islamic jurisprudence and could be considered intentional murder and deserving of punishment. If a student is charged for propaganda against the regime and imprisoned for just a slogan or a piece of writing that has very little impact, why shouldn’t an illegal and un-Islamic act that is used as evidence of murder against the Islamic Republic throughout the world not be punishable? If in the past, not on the basis of human rights standards but traditional Islamic jurisprudence, stoning was resisted and its implementers punished, today we would not be witnessing such illegalities. While today such harsh methods are used to confront the way women dress in the streets, very little sensitivity is shown to instances that deal with the lives and dignity of human beings. This shows that what is of concern is not really Islamic law but power. The government seems to perceive that since the basis for its legitimacy is religion, if some regulations are not implemented or are questioned, the basis for its political legitimacy is shaken and hence it cannot compromise and must go all the way even with sentences whose legality are questionable.

Interest of Islam

Let us assume that the strict regulations of traditional Islamic jurisprudence did not exist and proving adultery was easy, there is another principle that if the implementation of a command is not to the interest or benefit of Islam, it can be suspended. Ayatollah Khomeini, using the same principle, said that even prayer, which is one of the pillars of Islam, can be suspended because the main criterion is the interest of religion and not its commands. Of course the interest or expediency principle has been criticized for being temporary, requiring the return of the command when conditions change. But experience has shown that with major social changes the suspension of some commands on the basis of interest or benefit or Islam will not be temporary. Some interests such as those based on the achievements of human rights will be permanent.

A judge that is oblivious to the interest of the Islamic society and renders a judgment without taking it into account is not competent to judge. It is the truth and common interests that matter, not personal or trivial interests.

Legal Perspective

In studying many cases of adultery involving married women, I have found the main source to be the inadequacies of the legal system in Iran. In several cases, the forced marriages of daughters led to family murders and violence and in some other cases disobedience on the part of the wife and ultimately hidden or illicit relations with another man. In Iranian laws, the father’s agreement to marriage is required. This requirement can of course safeguard the rights of daughters in marriage but improper use of this requirement, particularly in rural areas and among the uneducated, has caused forced marriages for girls who at times are between 15 and 18 years old and forced to marry men of 50 or 60. In addition, lack of the right to divorce for women who are abused by their husbands forces them to put up with extremely difficult conditions. As a result, in recent years, for instance, we have been witness to a number of suicides in the Ilam Province. The large numbers of female suicides in Ilam (400 cases of self-burning, 300 of which were women) are largely caused by forced marriages, age difference between husbands and wives, and family violence.

The incident in Qazvin is another example. After fleeing from her first husband, Mokarameh files for divorce. Iranian courts usually do not respond to these divorce requests in the hope that with the passage of time a compromise is reached and there is no need for divorce. Accordingly, for several years Mokarameh’s request remains unanswered while in divorce cases the reasons for the filing for divorce, in this case her forced prostitution by her husband, should take priority. In reality, Jafar and Mokarameh could and should not have been convicted of adultery with a married woman essentially because her previous husband had forced her into prostitution and a man who forces his wife into such an unethical, illegal and un-Islamic situation essentially voids the marriage contract and the woman cannot be considered the legal and religious wife of the man.

The existence of such problems in the legal system of Iran, particularly regarding the rights of women, has created conditions for the emergence of many social problems. It could conceivably be said that some of the ones who commit family violence, flee, engage in honor killing or illicit relationships are themselves victims of a legal system in need of reform. Approaching the demand for reform politically only inhibits needed reforms. Some think that the acceptance of some legal reforms is backing down from the position of power. This is while there are disastrous consequences to the ignoring of legal reforms. At the same time, illogical approaches in the demand for legal reform that threaten those in power in ways that are not conducive to reform are also ultimately responsible in the prevention of necessary reform. There is a real need for dialogue, explanatory effort in convincing authorities regarding the need for the reform of the legal system and regarding women and children related laws.

Emotional Impact

Mokarameh, the woman sentenced to stoning in Qazvin, has four children from her previous husband and two from Jafar, one of whom is 11 years old. Eleven years has passed from the marriage of Jafar and Mokarameh, eight of which have been in prison awaiting execution by stoning. During this period, what has happened to their children? The young and innocent children who have no one to rely on and have to carry the heavy weight of their parents’ dishonored name? Can one expect these children to lead normal lives? The same situation applies to the parents of the convicted couple and their siblings? Think about similar heartrending and disastrous situations that have occurred many times over. Think about it for a second. If something similar happens to your family, what will happen? Do you think these events are occurrences that people are looking forward to or are willing to lay their lives for? Just think for a second about the incredibly destructive impact these sentences have on whole families? How could we easily pass by these painful incidences?

Historical and Sociological Perspective

Stoning, which prior to Islam was described in Judaic law and since it was mentioned in the Torah was implemented extensively, did not find its way into the Qur’an and was not affirmed by it. However, since it was among forceful societal traditions, its clear rejection was not possible. At the same time, stoning was prevalent in Europe, the United States, and Islamic societies for centuries after the outset of Islam. Stoning is among punitive laws that were prevalent throughout the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic societies until 18th century. In 17th century in some western societies capital punishment was handed out for adultery, including in the United States as reported by Alexis de Tocqueville. From the end of 18th century a new era identified by Durkheim as the age of reparation laws began, which today expands to half of the world. Under the previous age of punitive laws the objective was to impose pain, harm on the convicted, extracting vengeance, but in the new age the objective is to keep the criminal away from the society, preventing harm to the society, and also rehabilitating the criminal.

Islamic jurisprudence is also impacted by social conditions. According to Ayatollah Motahhari the fatwa of an urban Islamic jurist smells urban and the fatwa of a rural one smells rural. Accordingly, in the new age, stoning is not something popular or acceptable as evidenced by the refusal of people to be present at such events. And this is why many clear-sighted Islamic jurists consider it as detrimental to Islam. And it is on that basis that Ayatollah Shahrudi, the head of the Iran’s Judiciary, has ordered its suspension. What is astounding, however, is that the secretary for the Human Rights Headquarters of the Judiciary presents stoning as though is it among the integral commands of Islam, saying “we have to correctly justify stoning. We have made a revolution so that Islamic commands can be implemented…. We will never sacrifice Islam to the challenges related to human rights” (ILNA, 30 May 2007). Later he says, “Stoning is based on Islamic law and is not against or in opposition to any of the Islamic Republic’s international obligations.” (E’temad-e Melli, 15 July 2007).

Summing Up

Our criterion for judging stoning and other laws and commands is human rights. This criterion is based on a prior principle that human rights have no conflict with religion. In a prior juridical research which relied on the opinion of a well-known religious scholar, entitled Human Rights and Rights of the Pious, it was shown that the basis for Qur’anic thought is the belief in intrinsic human generosity and dignity. Hence Islamic jurisprudence or legal system must be formed on that basis. Although the implemented stoning sentences in recent years did not comply with the standards of traditional Islamic jurisprudence and even went against it, the point of this writing is to say that stoning has no Qur’anic basic, and is not to the interest of the society and Islamic principles We can and must abandon it as a punishment and its abandonment is in no way against religiosity or religion.

In many areas such as juridical commands and regulations regarding capital punishment, stoning, and minimum age for the criminal culpability for children we are in dire need of new interpretations (ijtihad). Islamic scholars who cannot practice new ijtihad regarding recent events and issues will disappear in history along with their ideas. The need is for the validation of human experience and beings and the reform of laws on that basis.