Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

Get Adobe Flash player

 
Rumi - Quotes
 
“Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it.”
― Rumi

  
“Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I'll meet you there.

When the soul lies down in that grass the world is too full to talk about.”
― Rumi

 
“If you are irritated by every rub, how will your mirror be polished?”
― Rumi

 
“The minute I heard my first love story, I started looking for you, not knowing how blind that was.
Lovers don't finally meet somewhere. They're in each other all along.”
― Rumi

 
“What you seek is seeking you.”
― Rumi

 
“The wound is the place where the Light enters you.”
― Rumi

 
“Sell your cleverness and buy bewilderment.”
― Rumi

 
“You were born with wings, why prefer to crawl through life?”
― Rumi

 
“Don’t grieve. Anything you lose comes round in another form.”
― Rumi

 
“Dance, when you're broken open. Dance, if you've torn the bandage off. Dance in the middle of the fighting. Dance in your blood. Dance when you're perfectly free.”
― Rumi

 
“When I am with you, we stay up all night.
When you're not here, I can't go to sleep.
Praise God for those two insomnias!
And the difference between them.”
― Rumi

 
“When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy.”
― Rumi

 
“Ignore those that make you fearful and sad, that degrade you back towards disease and death.”
― Rumi
 
“Knock, And He'll open the door
Vanish, And He'll make you shine like the sun
Fall, And He'll raise you to the heavens
Become nothing, And He'll turn you into everything.”
― Rumi

 
“Forget safety.
Live where you fear to live. Destroy your
reputation. Be notorious.”
― Rumi

 
“My soul is from elsewhere, I'm sure of that, and I intend to end up there.”
― Rumi

 
“In your light I learn how to love. In your beauty, how to make poems. You dance inside my chest where no-one sees you, but sometimes I do, and that sight becomes this art.”
― Rumi
 
    

print this article Add this page to your favorite Social websites
Share |

Our Mission One, after Regime Change in Iran:
 
Establishing Common Law & Judicial Independence


“No pain that we suffer, no trial that we experience is wasted.
It ministers to our education, to the development of such qualities as patience,
faith, fortitude and humility. All that we suffer and all that we endure,
especially when we endure it patiently,
builds up our characters,
purifies our hearts, expands our souls,
and makes us more tender and charitable,
more worthy to be called the children of God . . .


Orson F. Whitney
By Freydoon Khoie

As we are getting ready for Regime Change in our beloved country Iran, I submit this paper to all the leaders of Pro-Democracy movements and our fellow freedom fighters and political activists in Iran and around the world with whom, I am sure, we will be holding hand-in-hand, assembling in Tehran’s Freedom Square, (Meydon Azadi), and singing our national anthem O Iran, not only to celebrate the demise of the cruel, despicable and loathsome Khamnei’s regime but far more importantly, prepare to draft our new constitution based on a secular political system in a not so distant a future.

To this end, let us remember that the first and foremost vital action after regime change is to establish a truly Independent Judicial System staffed by the best of our legal minds who possess impeccable reputation for honor and integrity so that we will not allow the repeat of tragic crimes committed by Khomaini when he came to power back in 1979 in the name of Islam and in the heat of revolutionary change he murdered so many innocent people.

In any true democracy, judicial independence is of paramount importance and individual judges and the judiciary as a whole should remain completely impartial and independent of all political affiliations, external pressures and of each other so that those who appear before them and the wider public can have confidence that their cases will be decided fairly and in accordance with Common laws ratified by the parliament of the people of Iran.

Historical background:

The fundamental concept of judicial independence came into being in England and Wales in 1701 with the Enactment of the Act of Settlement. This statute formally recognized the principles of security of judicial tenure by establishing that High Court Judges and Lords Justice of Appeal hold office during good behavior. Appropriate and formal mechanisms had to be in place before a judge could be removed.

Before 1701 senior judges held office at the sovereign’s pleasure and there are many examples of judges being removed from office for failing to decide cases in accordance with the wishes of the King or Queen. Since the Act of Settlement it has only been possible to remove a senior judge from office through an Address to the Queen agreed by both Houses of Parliament.
   

The "Glorious Revolution" thus established the rule of law in the place of the will of the monarch, although in the absence of a "written constitution", the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty meant that the law was whatever Parliament voted it to be. However, the independence of judges in the UK is protected in several ways:

Judges are independent of the executive and the legislature - and vice versa - and do not get involved in political debate. Apart from modern rules relating to age and health, judges of the High Court and above cannot be removed from office without an address passed by both Houses of Parliament. And judges are almost entirely immune from the risk of being sued or prosecuted for what they do in their capacity as a judge. The Constitutional Reform Act of 2005, which came into force in April 2006, considerably modified the role of the Lord Chancellor and in so doing, strengthened the independence of the Judiciary.

In April 2006 a new Judicial Appointments Commission began to operate. This ended the Lord Chancellor's position as head of the judiciary (courts of law in England and Wales) and power to appoint judges. And in July of that year, members of the House of Lords elected their first Lord Speaker. This new role assumed some of the Lord Chancellor's responsibilities, such as chairing debates in the Lords' chamber and speaking for the House on ceremonial occasions.

The Ministry of Justice was created in May 2007; it has responsibility for courts, prisons, probation and constitutional affairs. The present Lord Chancellor combines his role with that of Secretary of State for Justice. The judicial function of Parliament ended in 2009, when an independent UK Supreme Court was established. The court assumed the jurisdiction of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and the devolution jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is an independent institution, presided over by twelve independently appointed judges, known as Justices of the Supreme Court.

Controversies

Constitutional reformers have long held the UK's "fusion of powers" to be unsatisfactory and the position of the Lord Chancellor anomalous in a modern democracy. However, as with most of the UK's constitutional anomalies, the longstanding apparent evidence that the status quo "works", has meant that this argument had little appeal amongst the wider public. Nevertheless, to the surprise of many, in July 2003, the Government announced radical plans to reform the judicial system. The speed with which they were brought out led many to suggest that the plans were not well thought through: some claimed that the proposals were brought forward purely as a political maneuver to unseat the incumbent Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, who was opposed to any reform.

In July 2004, the House of Lords overturned provisions in the Constitutional Affairs Bill to abolish the historic post of Lord Chancellor. However, the House accepted those elements of the Bill relating to the appointments commission and the end of the Lord Chancellor's active judicial role.

The past 25 years have seen a growing judicial activism. Part of this stems from the growing body of supranational jurisprudence growing out of the UK's entry into the European Union, and part from the abandonment by governments of the postwar political and legal consensus. However, the Human Rights Act 1998 has had a profound impact in this sense. Notably, in the case of R (on the application of Q and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] 2 All ER 905, Justice Collins, sitting in the high court, criticized the provisions of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, stating that the removal of benefits from asylum seekers who did not apply on arrival in the country was unfair and breached their human rights.

This and similar cases, and an increasing willingness on the part of judges to speak out on political issues (notably that of the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf), have led Ministers to accuse judges of attempting to usurp the democratic process. Nevertheless, this trend predates the Human Rights Act: under the last Conservative government Home Secretary Michael Howard was publicly criticized by the Lord Chief Justice Lord Taylor on minimum sentencing, and by Lord Donaldson on the 1997 Police Bill. Proposals to broaden the diversity of the judiciary by selecting more women and ethnic minority candidates have raised concerns about jeopardizing the independence of the appointments system; the Crime and Courts Bill included in the Queen's Speech in May 2012 includes provisions to increase judicial diversity. However, the Judicial Appointments Commission has insisted that candidates for judicial office are "selected on merit, through fair and open competition, from the widest range of eligible candidates," although it also notes that it has a responsibility to "have regard to the need to encourage diversity in the range of persons available for selection for appointments."

Judicial Independence from whom and what?

It is vitally important in a democracy that individual judges and the judiciary as a whole are impartial and independent of all external pressures and of each other so that those who appear before them and the wider public can have confidence that their cases will be decided fairly and in accordance with the law. When carrying out their judicial function they must be free of any improper influence. Such influence could come from any number of sources. It could arise from improper pressure by the executive or the legislature, by individual litigants, particular pressure groups, the media, self-interest or other judges, in particular more senior judges.

Iran’s Independent Judicial System after Regime Change

This very brief overview of the British judicial system was mentioned as a background to draw a comparison with the judicial system of the tyrannical regime commonly known as the Islamic Republic of Iran whom the British political and commercial establishment have been doing lucrative business with no regards to the extensive harm being done to the people of Iran and Iranian society as a whole.

Without regime change in Iran, it is impossible to rid our judicial system of corruption and stop Khamnei and his partners in crime interfering in court decision.

The Islamic Republic judicial system answers to Khamnei alone and almost never sides with defendants. After the end of this illegitimate regime we need an anti-corruption mechanism which will oversee the conduct of all top officials in the government to eliminate corruption and other extrajudicial disturbances.

Local protectionism refers to municipal officials whom are appointed by the same center of power in Tehran exercising political influence over verdicts - in courts, where rule of law and independence of the judiciary are given lip service only and courts must answer to dictatorial authorities.

We should also make trials more efficient; provide complete protections for lawyers, and "open justice" through micro blogs and other new technologies. Under the Khamnei’s corrupt and terrorist regime guilty verdicts are usually a foregone conclusion. The trial of political opposition activists accused of internal security charges, a typical trumped up charge leveled against all dissidents with differing views or opinions and in the last minutes before the defendant is found guilty and sentenced to harsh sentences such as long term prisons if not given a death sentence.

Local municipalities of other states and cities are also charged with paying judges' salaries who were appointed by the central rule in Tehran and court proceedings in those regions are additionally opaque where the judge, the prosecutor, and the executioner are all in one with no such thing as due process and lawyers are not allowed.

Every head of the Judiciary in the last 34 years have been appointed by the unelected so called supreme leader, first Khomaini and since his death, Khamnei and each time they have vowed to tackle corruption in the judicial system, calling it a threat to the regime's very survival, but the corruption and conditions have progressively gotten worse. The current despicable head of Judiciary Larry-Johnny promised judicial reforms to no avail because he is himself member of the core group in charge of the terrorist regime. The entire system is so corrupt that no one dares to disclose the other’s corruption for fear of having his own corruptions disclosed. Khamnei’s regime is now a basket of rotten apples that the people of Iran must throw it all in a trash bin and start all over again even if another revolution is necessary.

The rotten regime, which is crumbling fast despite its attempt to keep a tight grip on power, has struggled to contain public anger at a seemingly endless stream of corruption scandals, particularly when officials are seen as abusing their powers and position to amass personal wealth and escape to Canada.

When fox is in charge of the hen house, pronunciations of intensified crackdowns on foxes are decoys for public deception only. Due to a lack of checks and balances the entire system has become irreparably corrupt and we have no choice but to launch a new revolution and regime change to bring about a whole new secular constitution, separating religion from the state and start building a new, modern judicial system based on the British and American model.

To start with, once the regime is overthrown, the interim government shall form a Constituent Assembly elected to write a new constitution and the same is ratified by the people in an open and free referendum, new elections laws will be introduced and parliamentary elections will be held and the new parliament will be convened to start drafting host of new laws to govern the country while highest priority should be given to the Anti-Corruption Laws and begin a trial program to improve oversight of the military and the executive branch.

The new government will have a firm commitment to assure judicial independence. The new leaders of the three branches of the government should remain strongly committed to righteousness, diligence and love for the people of Iran and never make compromises ... also remain firm on their insistence on judicial independence and press freedom and not give in under any circumstances.

Why judicial independence is so important?

A just society is one in which the citizen’s feel that they are secure and protected within the boundaries of the laws that are made by the consent of those governed by the said laws. It is impossible to have safe, secure and healthy society without a corruption free, competent and effective judicial system. To maintain the trust and respect of the citizenry for the laws of the land and the judicial system it is vital that each judge is able to decide cases solely on the evidence presented in court by the parties and in accordance with the law. Only relevant facts and the law should form the basis of a judge’s decision. Only in this way can judges discharge their constitutional responsibility to provide fair and impartial justice; and to do justice as Lord Brougham, a 19th Century Lord Chancellor, put it ‘between man and man’ or as Lord Clarke, former Master of the Rolls put it more recently in 2005, ‘between citizen and citizen or between citizen and the state’.

The responsibilities of judges in disputes between the citizen and the state have increased together with the growth in governmental functions over the last century. The responsibility of the judiciary to protect citizens against unlawful acts of government has thus increased, and with it the need for the judiciary to be independent of government.

Independence and the appearance of independence

As well as in fact being independent in this way, it is of vital importance that judges are seen to be both independent and impartial. Justice must not only be done - it must be seen to be done. It was for this reason that the House of Lords in the Pinochet case in 1999 held that a decision it had given had to be set aside and the appeal before it heard again by a panel of different Law Lords. It had come to light after the original decision that one of the Law Lords might have given an appearance that he was not independent and impartial because of a connection with a political campaigning organization which was involved in the case. In those circumstances, and even though there was no suggestion that the Law Lord was not in fact independent or impartial, the decision could not stand. Justice demanded that the appeal be heard again before a panel of Law Lords who had and gave the appearance to reasonable well-informed observers that they were independent and impartial. Compare this with the so called Islamic revolutionary Courts in Iran in which the judges are Muslim clergy and direct benefactor of the very Islamic regime in which they are in power and then they are sitting on judgment seat over those who oppose their tyrannical regime. What possible justice do we expect the accused to receive? How could we expect that in such a circumstances the scale of justice are evenly balanced?

The ways in which judicial independence is protected

While an independent and impartial judiciary is one of the cornerstones of a democracy, the practical ways in which this is given effect are often treated with suspicion. For example, judges are given immunity from prosecution for any acts they carry out in performance of their judicial function. They also benefit from immunity from being sued for defamation for the things they say about parties or witnesses in the course of hearing cases. These principles have led some people to suggest that Judges are somehow ‘above the law’.

However, it is not right to say that Judges are above the law. Judges are subject to the law in the same way as any other citizen. In the UK for example, the Lord Chief Justice or Lord Chancellor may refer a judge to the Office for Judicial Complaints in order to establish whether it would be appropriate to remove them from office in circumstances where they have been found to have committed a criminal offence. Yet, as we know in Khamnei’s Islamic regime judicial system, Judge Mortazavi who sentenced many journalists to long and harsh prisons and even death sentences and even personally ordering the execution could not be removed from office despite massive popular discontent and the presence of clear criminal cases against him and when he was finally removed from one office he was promptly appointed to another office even though he had blatantly committed not only injustice but murder. This is when judicial system is corrupt and it is not independent.

Judicial independence mean that judges must be free to exercise their judicial powers without interference from litigants, political party in power, the State, the media or powerful individuals or entities, such as large companies. This is an important principle because judges often decide matters between the citizen and the state and between citizens and powerful entities. For example, it is clearly inappropriate for the judge in charge of a criminal trial against an individual citizen to be influenced by the state. It would be unacceptable for the judge to come under pressure to admit or not admit certain evidence, how to direct the jury, or to pass a particular sentence. Decisions must be made on the basis of the facts of the case and the law alone.

Judicial independence is important whether the judge is dealing with a civil or a criminal case. Individuals involved in any kind of case before the courts need to be sure that the judge dealing with their case cannot be influenced by an outside party or by the judge’s own personal interests, such as a fear of being sued for defamation by litigants about whom the judge is required in the course of proceedings or judgment to make adverse comment. This requirement that judges be free from any improper influence also underpins the duty placed on them to declare personal interests in any case before it starts to ensure that there is neither any bias or partiality, or any appearance of such.

A practical example of the importance of judicial independence is where a high profile matter, which has generated a great deal of media interest, comes before the court. Such matters range from trials of alleged dissident, the criminal trial of a person accused of a shocking murder, the divorce of celebrities, and challenges to the legality of government policy, for example the availability of a new and expensive drug to patients. In the 24 hour media age in which we live, it stands to reason that the judge hearing the case will often be under intense scrutiny, with decisions open to intense debate. It is right that this is so. But it is important that decisions in the courts are made in accordance with the law and are not influenced by such external factors.

In civil cases any errors by the trial judge may also be corrected by the Court of Appeal and in cases raising important points of the decisions of the Court of Appeal may be appealed to the Supreme Court.

It is important to recognize that, in both civil and criminal cases, what we read in the papers and see on the news will often only cover a fraction of what has been heard in court. This is not a criticism of journalists. They only have a certain amount of space or time to cover a particular story. It is worth bearing in mind that, for instance, in a criminal case there are often many mitigating or aggravating circumstances surrounding the offence and the offender. These will have had a direct bearing on the sentence handed down and are often difficult for the media to report in full. A good example of this is where a defendant pleads guilty to a crime. In such circumstances Parliament has directed that judges must significantly reduce the sentence.

The purpose of the above examples is not to suggest that judges never get it wrong, or that in criminal cases they have no say in the sentence handed down, but to give an idea of the factors they must consider when making decisions.

Judicial System in the Islamic Republic Iran

In 1979 the secular, progressive and westernizing Pahlavi Monarchy was overthrown and replaced by an horrific and destructive tyranny called “Islamic Republic” under the rule of a foreign agent known as Khomeini. While the revolutionaries did not dismantle the Pahlavi judiciary in its entirety, it replaced our highly secular-trained jurists "with seminary-educated ones, and codified more features of the sharia law into state laws - especially the Law of Retribution." Women judges were also removed (although they could still be lawyers, or after 1997, secondary judges in civil cases).

Between 1979 and 1982, the entire pre-Revolutionary judiciary was purged by the criminal elements that had come to power, and their duties replaced by "Revolutionary Tribunals" set up in every town throughout the country. These tribunals staffed by unqualified mullahs ruled on primitive "Islamic law", and were in practice unfair, biased, and inexperienced and often incompetent. Many innocent people were executed or given harsh punishments for both political and criminal acts with minimal due process and proper trials on international standards. There were no appeals either, and trials often lasted minutes in an un-orthodox "court". In 1982, the regular court system was reinstated, but with the mullahs as judges with basic training in Islamic law. The Revolutionary Courts became a part of this court system, ruling in matters of "national security" read opposition political parties, and such cases as drug trafficking and political actions and "anti-revolutionary" crimes, and even these courts were considered the "judicial arm of the new tyrannical regime" without any independence. In 1982, in response to several military coup threats, a separate "Military Revolutionary Court" was formed, handling military cases.

Structure of the judicial system in Islamic Republic of Regime

Even though the 1979 Constitution of the Islamic Republic called for the judiciary to be "an independent power," and charge it with "investigating and passing judgment on grievances; ... supervising the proper enforcement of laws; ... uncovering crimes; prosecuting, punishing, and chastising criminals;" taking "suitable measures" to prevent crime and reform criminals, in reality and in action, the Islamic republic judicial system turned out to be the regime’s instrument for persecution, prosecution, repression and terrorizing the nation and remained fully under the control of the so called supreme leader Khomaini and his cohorts. The constitution clearly states that the head of the judiciary is to be a "just” Mujtahid, (clergy), appointed by the Supreme Leader and serve for "a period of five years." But not a single truly “Just” mullah have been appointed in the last 34 years and willing to work with the regime.

Truly ‘just’ mullahs with public reputation as such having observed the depth of corruption and violence within by the ruling mullahs that came to power have completely kept their distance from the regime. Every head of judiciary that have been appointed by Khomaini from day one and Khamnei after his death are known to be collaborators, opportunist men of no honor, nor having the reputation of being ‘just’ nor ‘fair minded’. They all have been Muslim clergies like Shahroudi, Ejeie, and now Larry Johnny.

Head of the judiciary is supposed to be responsible for the "establishment of the organizational structure" of the judicial system; "drafting judiciary bills" for parliament (which its members are again hand-picked by the same supreme leader who appointed the Head of Judiciary); hiring, firing promoting and assigning judges. Even though the constitution said that the Judges cannot be dismissed without a trial, all the qualified judges from day one have been summarily dismissed and instead totally unqualified individuals possessing very basic legal education have been appointed as judges. In practice, this too was subject to the Supreme leaders’ whim and the head of the judiciary ran a judicial system like his private farm only at the service of the regime with its main concern to eliminate any and all dissident and political opposition leaders and organizations. Subsequently the judiciary ended up becoming an utterly corrupt institution in which justice and judgment are bought and sold like a commodity on a daily basis. It is a folk quip that if your file is set on the right hand of the judge’s desk, it means he has been paid and you will get your wish and if it is on his left hand, it means he has not been paid and you will not get a favorable judgment regardless of the merits of the case. The entire Islamic Republic judiciary and Khamnei’s justice system is based on who you are, who you know and how much are you able or prepared to pay for the kind of judgment that you wish to secure. Only after regime change and establishing our proposed Truth and Reconciliation Committee will we know the horrific dimensions and scope of injustice done to the people of Iran in the last 34 years.

Judicial authority is constitutionally vested in the so called Supreme Court and once again, the members of the four-member High Council of the Judiciary are appointed by the same supreme leader! And why all the fuss about so much control? Because the whole system is so completely corrupt and illegal and like a can worm that it should not be opened by an honest, honorable and uncompromising judge.

Article 160 of the constitution states that the Minister of Justice which is a cabinet level position has the responsibility in all matters concerning the relationship between the judiciary, on the one hand, and the executive and legislative branches, on the other and ( here is the catch ) the head of the judiciary ( an unelected body ) may delegate full authority to the Minister of Justice ( who is supposedly an elected body ) in financial and administrative areas and for employment of personnel other than ‘judges’ that are appointed by the head of judiciary who is in turn appointed by another unelected body like Supreme leader. Mud gets deeper and thicker.

The Minister of Justice in any true democracy should be selected by the president when he is forming his cabinet, but in Khamnei’s bizarre tyranny the Minister of Justice himself is recommended by the head of the judiciary and to be confirmed by the same parliament whose members are hand-picked by the supreme leader who appointed the head of the judiciary. This is how ridiculous the whole Islamic republic system is. The head of the supreme court and Prosecutor-General are also supposed to be "just” mujtahids" or ‘just’ clergies "nominated" by the head of the judiciary "in consultation with the judges of the Supreme Court" who were appointed by him, and serving for a period of five years. As we note, instead of being a government of the people, by the people and for the people, it simply is a government of Khamnei (and his partners in crime) by Khamnei and for Khamnei.

Court structure

The Khamnei’s Regime’s court structure is yet another clear indication that the regime is more an occupation force than a government of, by and for the people. No other government in the world has so many different stand-alone courts by various names and labels. In the Islamic Republic tyranny there is Revolutionary Courts, Public Courts, Courts of Peace and Supreme Courts of Cassation. There are 70 branches of the Revolutionary Courts, just imagine, even though the so called revolution was over some 34 years ago, these revolutionary courts are still standing and the reason for that is these revolutionary courts were originally designed to deal with the mission of repressing the nation through fear and terror and subvert the opposition political leaders and activists and since, even after 34 years the opposition to the cruel regime has never ended thus revolutionary courts continue.

Public courts consist of Civil (205), Special Civil (99), First class criminal (86) and Second Class Criminal (156). Courts of Peace are divided into Ordinary courts (124), and Independent Courts of Peace (125), and Supreme Courts of Cassation (22) and all of them put together are not worth a baby’s used diaper because laws, rules, regulations, judgments, fines, etc are all considered by the public more as a joke than respectable institutions in charge of dispensing justice. From a simple car accident and a rent disputes, to a multi-billion dollar embezzlement case and from a real estate fraud cases, to divorce and custody, from violence, homicide and assassinations, to kidnapping and rape all are subject to the same basic rule: how strong you are in the society by virtue of your connections to mullahs and wealth. Which corrupt Mullah do you know and how much are you willing to pay if you don’t know him and you will get whatever you want from the judge and the judicial system at the right price. Imagine the poor millions with no money, no legal knowledge and no connections to the right people in high places. This is in short the essence of Khamnei’s Regime’s justice system.

Operation of Courts

The trouble for the people of Iran is that the courts in the Islamic Republic are based on an inquisitorial system, such as it exists in France, rather than an adversarial system of the United Kingdom. In Iran, the judge, who is not elected by the people, is the arbiter and decides on the verdict. According to the constitution which is totally ignored, in serious cases, he is supposed to be assisted by two other secondary judges, and in cases involving the death penalty, there is supposed to be four other secondary judges, but in practice there is only one judge who decides on the case and the sentence is executed the next day. There is also a public prosecutor. However, according to Article 168 of the constitution, in certain cases involving the media the constitution provides for a jury to be the arbiter. But the judge still holds absolute power. In practice, judges may be overwhelmed by cases, and not have the time to excogitate about each case. All judges are supposedly certified in Islamic sharia and Iran’s Common Law. But as mentioned in the previous paragraph, the essence of the law itself and how it is applied is truly not important because the decision making criteria is not based on dispensing justice but based on where the interest and where the money and the interest is. For example in land grab cases ( Zamin Khory ) if a minor inherited some land from his father who passed away and now that land is worth a fortune and the minor does not have a powerful guardian, or connections the land will be taken from him through a fraudulent scheme in partnership with the judge, the lawyer, the court secretary and the man who wants the land and at the end they may pay the minor who is the true owner of the land not even 1% of the true value. It will take God’s patience and an army of lawyers to investigate the large volume of extortions that have been committed in the area of land grab alone in the last 34 years.

Special Clerical Court

   
Ayatollah Broujerdi   Ayatollah Kadivar   Ayatollah Noori

The rulings of the Special Clerical Court, yet another regime controlled court, which functions independently of the regular judicial system framework and is accountable only to the Supreme Leader, are also final and cannot be appealed through the normal appeals court system but only through an internal appeals ( read special bribe depending on the case ) mechanism to which the ruling judge must agree. Princeton Professor Mirjam Künkler writes "It is not difficult to see how the Special Clerical Court, given its legal status outside any accountable, transparent check by a governmental office other than the Office of the Supreme Leader, is transformed into the Supreme Leaders’ primary instrument to discipline and prosecute dissident clerics." Case and point the above pictured three prominent clergies like Noori, Broujerdi, and Kadivar whom are vehemently against Khamnei’s blatant corruption are just a few to mention and because of their stand they have been brutally and violently punished using the Special Clerical Court which handles alleged violations committed by clerics, although it has also taken on cases involving lay people as its powers are arbitrary.

Islamic Revolutionary courts

Islamic Revolutionary Courts were originally created to try certain categories of offenses, including the so called ‘crimes against national security’, (read opposition political activists and dissidents who disagree with Khamnei and his partners in crime), alleged narcotics smuggling, and acts that are said to undermine the Islamic Republic, again, (read the opposition activists).

Shortly after the overthrow of the monarchy, communist style Revolutionary Tribunals were set up in major towns, with two courts in the capital city of Tehran - one in each of the two main prisons Qasr and Evin, and one traveling tribunal for Sadegh Khalkhali, a mentally unstable and sadistic thug from Mogol stock, in clergy outfit (known as the regime’s henchman ) who was known for his stiff and heartless sentences, on the spot executions to instill fear and terror in the heart of the population.

The courts’ presiding judges were unqualified clerics appointed by Khomeini himself only based on loyalty to his regime. The decisions rendered by the Islamic Revolutionary courts initially were final and could not be appealed, and so bypassed what remained of the Justice Ministry and its appeal system. In 1989, a law was passed allowing an appeal to be made to the Supreme Court of Cassation. If the appeal was recognized, then the case would be given a retrial. While many of the Revolutionary Court judges today are not clerics, nevertheless they remain clerics in thinking and heart, having sold their souls to the devil and loyal to the regime in return for abnormally high compensation along with huge side benefits through flood of bribes by innocent people caught in the net of fear and terror.

The barbaric revolutionary courts differed from standard Western law courts by limiting trials to a few hours, sometimes minutes. Defendants could be found guilty on the basis of 'popular repute, such as he worked for the one of thousands of companies owned by the class of people associated with the former Monarchs.' The concept of defense attorney was dismissed by Khomaini as a 'Western absurdity, Just imagine and he was supposed to be “Just Jurist”. Guilt by association was a charge that was widely applied against defendants but unfamiliar to many and invented by the demented mind of Khomaini was the charge called 'sowing corruption on earth' (mofsed-e-filarz). This covered a variety of offenses - "'insulting Islam and the clergy,' 'opposing the Islamic Revolution,' 'supporting the former government,' and ridiculous charges like 'undermining Regime's independence' by helping the 1953 Anglo-American coup and giving capitulatory privileges to the imperial powers." Something that even if true, it was done 26 years earlier by a whole set of other people. But who could expect logic and common sense from a herd wild beasts in the clergy outfit? For many, who went through the horror, it was the live performance of George Orwell’s Animal Farm.

Between 1979-1989, alone the Islamic Revolutionary Courts ordered the execution of at least 10,000 pro-democracy political activists, belonging to anti-revolutionary opposition groups, and sentenced others to death for alleged crimes such as drug trafficking, adultery, sodomy, kidnapping, "disruption of the public order", and "terrorism" Most of the charges were political and intended to eliminate and liquidate opposition and instill fear and terror in the heart of the population. It is hard to know how many actual political prisoners were executed, because often those executed for political crimes were also accused of "drug trafficking" or "sodomy" and most were buried in mass graves and their families did not dare to ask for their bodies in fear of similar treatment. All these horrible crimes will be investigated by the Truth & Reconciliation Committee after regime change and by the true representatives of the people of Iran and the perpetrators of these crimes will be identified and brought to justice.

In 1982, with continuous military coup threats, the Military Revolutionary Court was created.

By the 1990s, executions of political opposition became less common, but not unheard of, and by the 21st century and under international pressure it has become secretive or given long, harsh prison sentences that are worse than being executed. Belonging to pro-democracy and an anti-regime "armed" opposition group could also result in a death sentence. In recent years, the Revolutionary Courts operate more like normal courts, although they are still considered politically allied with Khamnei rather than the regular, public courts which are seemingly neutral. Oftentimes, Revolutionary courts exist side by side with public courts. They still try political dissidents which the regime refers to as national security cases, as well as drug trafficking, smuggling, and "disturbance of the public order", another title for speaking publicly against injustice.

Khamnei’s Prison System

Khamnei's prison system was "centralized and drastically expanded" after coming to power. Under the Shah prisons had been administered separately by Intelligence Ministry SAVAK, the urban police, and the gendarmerie. The new regime entrusted their management "to a supervisory council of three clerics, appointed by the non other Supreme Leader."

In Tehran, all four prisons where political dissidents were kept have been expanded. Evin was enlarged "with two new blocks containing six wards and imagine this, six hundred solitary cells" so it could accommodate "an additional 6000 inmates." Qezel Hesar, a modern prison built during the Shah, was also expanded. Construction of the new Gohar Dasht prison had been started under the shah; it "was completed with hundreds of solitary cells and large wards housing more than 8000 inmates."

Despite all this new capacity, Regime's prisons "were seriously overcrowded by 1983". Komiteh prison, built for 500, had 1500 inmates; Evin Prison, built for 12000, had 18,000; Qezel Hesar, built for 10,000, had 18,000; and Gohar Dasht prison, built for 8000, had 17,000. Meanwhile, "Qasr Prison, which had housed 1500, in 1978, had more than 6000." The prison population in 2013 has been reported to be the highest in the dark history of Iran and dangerously overcrowded with additional make shift prions in warehouses and buildings not designed for prison.

For political prisoners, prison life was and is considerably harsher in the Islamic Republic than under the Pahlavi Monarchy according to those who had tasted both.
One who survived both writes that “four months under [warden] Asadollah Ladjevardi took the toll of four years under Shah’s SAVAK”.

Political prisoners were and are "incessantly bombarded with propaganda from all sides ... radio and closed-circuit television ... loudspeakers blaring into all cells even into solitary cells and what is called 'coffins' [the horizontal coffin shaped hole for harsher treatments]. Any reading material of a secular nature such as Western novels, or even religious material like the Bible, Torah, Avesta and others that didn't agree ideologically with the Islamic Republic and such works by anti-Mullah writers like Kasravi, Shariati etc are banned. In the Evin prison the Persian Nowruz celebration is banned. In the prison literature of the Pahlavi era, the recurring words had been 'boredom' and 'monotony.' In that of the Islamic Republic, they were 'fear', 'death', 'terror', 'horror,' and most frequent of all 'nightmare' (kaboos)." By the year 2000s prison life was less harsh, although torture was and is still is carried out on political inmates (even allegedly criminals). But after the 2009 elections, and Green Movement revolution the situation for political prisoners has deteriorated and gotten much worse than it was all this time. Torture, rape, beatings, secret executions are taking place daily.

Although classical Sharia law does not mention imprisonment, prisons are widely used in Khamnei’s Sharia ruled regime. Typically, it would be given as a discretionary punishment from the civil code. In other cases, the defendant receives a sentence of internal exile, that is long term solitary confinement which would be carried out in a prison. There are also exiles such as sending the prisoner to neglected places like Zabol, and other such places which acts like our Gulags. In 2005, with the prison capacity of 180,000, the actual number of prisoners was close to 260,000 people.

Civil Law: Banking

After the disastrous 1979 Islamic Revolution, all banks had to follow Sharia banking procedures, including the forbidding of interest (riba) and the forbidding of usury, even though they charge far more interest only calling it administrative charges or profit. The Supreme Audit Court of the regime regulates banking and financial operations. In recent years, the regime has created free trade zones, such as on Kish Island and the port of Chahbahar where such rules are not applied in order to stimulate foreign investment, similar to other Muslim countries with very little success since the world knows that there is no security and rule of law under the Khamnei’s Regime. The stories of massive corruptions in the government owned banks are widely publicized in the press and electronic media.

Criminal Law

           After the mock elections of the first Majles (Parliament) of the Islamic Republic, and the unelected Guardian Council quickly codified important features of the sharia law by passing two landmark bills:

  1. Qanoon-e Ta'zir (Discretionary Punishment Law). Ta'zir laws dealt not only with criminal law but this law gave judges the authority to execute and imprison those found guilty of such ridiculous crimes as 'declaring war on God' (equivalent to treason/terrorism) and 'plotting with foreign powers.' It also gave them the power to sentence offenders to as many as 74 lashes to those who "'insult government officials,' 'convene unlawful meetings and assembly even though it is allowed in the constitution,' sell alcoholic beverages,( even though the slogan of the revolution was ‘Independence and Freedom’, fix prices, hoard goods, kiss illicitly, fail to wear the proper hijab, something that the people of Iran find it fraudulently deceptive, and 'lie to the authorities, and this when the whole regime and system is based on lies.

  2. Qanoon-e Qisas (Retribution Law). This law codified other aspects of the sharia. It subdivided crimes into hadd or (Limit) those against God - and those against Man, especially other families. Some punishments are mandatory; others, discretionary. "Based on the notion of lex-talionis, (the principle or law of retaliation that a punishment inflicted should correspond in degree and kind to the offense of the wrongdoer, as an eye for an eye, a tooth for s tooth ) the barbaric Qisas Law calls for 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life', unless the victim or his/her family forgive the perpetrator, and/or accept compensation for the death/injury (blood money). So there have been many examples of removal of the defendant’s eye, or limb, in a grossly inadequate, opaque and primitive legal system in which the defendant, especially if he/she has no money and connections in high places is disadvantaged to get a fair trial.

Modification to sharia law: a National Disaster for Iranians

According to some of the Regime officials, the judiciary of Regime does not follow Sharia law, but its civil law ratified by the Parliament. However, all agree that multiple aspects of sharia law are incorporated and observed in the regime’s opaque and corrupt legal system.

According to one source, the new laws of the Islamic Republic modify the sharia in three significant ways:

  1. They give the state the "ultimate say" over the death penalty by allowing a new High Court to review death sentences passed by lower magistrates." In contrast, sharia "in its pure form" had no appeals system and gave local judges final say. However, virtually all other countries using sharia law now have an appeals system. While in lesser sentences, the judge’s verdict would be final, in more serious crimes, the sentence could be appealed to the Provincial Appeals Court. In a capital crime, it would be appealed to the Supreme Court of Cassation. Sometimes criminals get multiple appeals that last for years, depending upon the evidence against them along with "reasonable doubt". Retrials can be ordered, typically in the same court that convicted the prisoner.

  2. Laws allow circumstantial evidence to be used in deciding a case "under the rubric of 'the judge's reasoning.'"

  3. The legal system has introduced long-term imprisonment - which was also traditionally not used in sharia law - under 'discretionary punishment.' Traditionalist judges, however, "continue to prefer corporal punishments ..." in sentencing. In 2008, the then Head of Judiciary Shahroudi (who is even considered a moderate) asked judges to carry out more corporal punishment and less imprisonment, suggesting amputation of limbs because "long term imprisonment is expensive”.

Qisas or Retribution

Qisas (the barbaric law of retaliation/retribution) is a sharia class of crime involving personal injury. It is similar to a civil law tort. If a person has intentionally murdered or maimed another person, the victim (or victim's family) is entitled to retribution (an eye for an eye in the case of personal injury or a life for a life in the case of murder). However, the victim's family can forgive the perpetrator and have the punishment not carried out. If so, the perpetrator must pay blood money (diyya) to compensate for the injury/death. Woman’s life is worth half of the life of a man.

If the death was intentional murder (qatl-e-amnd) or intentional injury (zarb-jahr amnd), qisas can be applied. If the death was unintentional (manslaughter) (qatl-e-na-amd) or unintentional injury (zarb-jahr na-amnd), qisas cannot apply, but the person can receive up to 3 years in prison in order to pay the money. If an unborn child was killed, while considered intentional murder, the maximum punishment is 1–3 years in prison.

If the death/injury was unintentional, the perpetrator must pay diyya, he/she cannot receive qisas. The judge only convicts the perpetrator; he has no say in whether qisas will be applied or not (although he can try to influence the decision). It cannot be overturned upon appeal either unless the person is found not guilty on appeal. Imagine, the age qisas is applied to is 15 years, which has resulted in huge controversy due to juvenile executions (that the authorities claim they are powerless to stop). In 2012, the authorities said that qisas would not be applied anymore for youths under 18 years of age, except in rare cases.

If forgiven, the intentional murderer/injurer can also get a discretionary civil law sentences as well (such as 10 years imprisonment on a murder charge), if there were aggravating circumstances. All murderers must serve a minimum of 2–3 years in prison. Unintentional murderers cannot receive any additional punishment unless they also committed another crime, such as drinking. However, as a general rule, murder is considered to be more of a tort rather than an offense against the state.

Sadly, Qisas which is a barbaric penal code is considered by Khamnei and other mullahs to be extremely fair and just! In western countries, the family of the victim has no say in the punishment that the perpetrator receives, yet in Islamic law; a murderer could be executed or forgiven depending upon the wishes of the family of the victim. This is wholly inadequate especially when the forgiveness can be bought with money and if the defendant has no money he will executed not because of the crime but because he had not enough money to by his freedom. It should be the Laws that decide his punishment and no amount of money and connections should be able to buy his punishment. In intentional qisas cases, the sentence would sometimes be delayed for 5 years in order to increase the chances of a settlement, and allow the prisoner to amass the blood money while he remain in jails!

Qisas cannot be applied in cases of self-defense, manslaughter, where the case lacks the proof requirements, on minors (age 15 for boys, 9 for girls prior to 2012, after 2012 aged 18 in most cases), on insane people, a person who murdered a spouse and/or their lover caught in the act of adultery, a father who murders his children, etc. Depending on the crime, they would be punished through a tazir discretionary sentence, ranging from no prison to 2 years in prison to life imprisonment. A man killing his wife and her lover in the act of adultery will get no punishment!!! Joe Simpson should have lived in Khamnei’s Iran. Sometimes the death penalty can be used if the person has been found guilty of "spreading corruption on earth" or "moharebeh" war against Allah.

Crimes of passion are not recognized as a legitimate defense, with the exception of the poor wife caught in adultery who will be stoned to death, if not killed by the husband, according to Sharia Law. Self-defense and insanity is also narrowly defined. With the exception of manslaughter, and where proof requirements are lacking, none need to pay diyyeh either. If a murderer was working on the orders of another and he/she can prove it, they will receive a tazir punishment (imprisonment, fines and/or whipping, sometimes even death), while the person(s) who ordered the killing will suffer qisas/diyye-blood money. But no death penalty? How convenience for a regime who orders the assassination of so many.

From our secular view the (Qisas) Law of the Regime is discriminating against women, non-Muslims, and the poor people; as reviving horrific physical punishments; and assuming parts of the human body can be converted into money. Qisas punishments "threatens to create an nation of handicapped victims. And it 'paves the way for judicial torture' by permitting the use of forced confessions."

A barbaric qisas case that received publicity by Amnesty International was a 2011 sentence of blinding by a Islamic court against a man who had blinded a woman in Tehran. In 2004, Majid Movahedi poured several liters of acid on the face of Ameneh Bahrami, blinding and severely disfiguring her face, after she had rejected his proposals of marriage,
which is the result of the Regime’s poor and primitive educational system in which coed education is outlawed and boys and girls are raised in a totally isolated environment, developing massive psychological hang ups and complex causing abnormal emotional reactions to simple rejection by a girl. Movahedi was tried in 2008 and found guilty, and for his sentence arrangements were made for the victim Bahrami to inject "twenty drops of acid" into each of Movahedi's eyes while he was under anesthesia in a Tehran hospital. After appeals the punishment was set to be carried out on 14 May 2011, but has been postponed, and later Bahrami forgave Movahedi, thus sparing him the punishment.

Diyyeh (Blood Money)

In any case of personal injury, the victim's family may accept diyyeh, or blood money to compensate for the death/injury. Thousands are languishing in prisons for not having the financial resources to pay the said blood money. The official Sharia rate for diyyeh is a price equal to 100 camels (this precedent was set by Islamist law some 1400 years ago). However, the blood money must be paid in cash only, not by bartering or any other means. While the victim's families have a right to retribution (qisas) when the crime is committed intentionally, they are recommended by the Qu'ran and judges to forgive the defendant but due to massive poverty most of the time the families demand blood money and send the offender who cannot pay to a sort of debtor’s prison.

The ridiculous part is that after all the laws, in practice, blood money, for which the life of a woman is worth half of the life of a man, is settled through negotiation between the two parties, and the final sum is usually more or less the value of the official "100 camels" unless both sides could not reach a settlement. Just imagine, in the 21st century and a country who claims to be developing nuclear energy, people have to go around and find out the current value for 100 camels to settle serious legal matters.

In an intentional murder case, the money must be paid at once, and the person must remain in prison until the money is paid, which has resulted in keeping thousands of young men and some women in debtor’s prison indefinitely because they cannot pay. In unintentional cases, the blood money can be paid over a period of 1–3 years, if the person fails to generate the money, they will go to debtor's prison until it is paid. The family of the murderer/injurer is expected to help pay the blood money.

In rape/sodomy/rape cases, the rapist must pay "jirah", which is similar to blood money, but equivalent to a woman's dowry (mehr), usually in exchange for forgiveness. In addition, they may be forced to also pay diyyeh as well, for injuries inflicted during the rape.

Hadd ( Limit ) Crimes

Khamnei’s terrorist regime uses Shia based Jaafari school of Islamic jurisprudence. Some of the hudud punishments differ from other countries, such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Some of these laws are part of Regime's penal code, while others are un-codified. These laws are more for guidance for sentencing and are rarely applied, but in serious cases they can be applied. All of these crimes have civil/tazir code punishments, but in serious cases, hadd punishments would be carried out.

Hadd crimes are considered to be "crimes against Allah", and they are punishable by a mandatory, fixed sentence that was laid down in the Koran and Hadith. They are very rarely applied in practice, because they require a high standard of proof and if the person is repentant or if there is any reasonable doubt, it may not be carried out, however, the regime routinely uses “crimes against Allah” to punish pro-democracy activists and dissidents. Two witnesses or a confession are required for a conviction. For sexual crimes, 4 witnesses are required.

They are:

  • Waging War against Allah (moharebeh) and Spreading Corruption on the Earth (mofsede-fel-arz) - read dissidents who disagree with this barbaric regime- : judge has several options such as 1) death penalty; 2) crucifixion for three days; 3) amputation of right hand and left foot; 4) exile/imprisonment. This crime is for somebody who used a weapon to strike fear and spread disorder, for example through armed robbery, kidnapping, terrorism/violent armed crimes, rape, and gang violence. This is the law by which Khamnei, head of revolutionary guards and all those mullahs working for and with the Khamnei’s terrorist regime will be judged by, because that is exactly what they have done in the last 34 years to the people of Iran. Using weapons and Striking fear in the hearts of our people.


  • Theft (sirqhat-e-haddi): This barbaric law calls for 1st offense, amputation of the 4 right fingers; 2nd offense, amputation of the 5 left toes; 3rd offense, life imprisonment; 4th offense, death penalty. Remember this is the law of the religion that its followers start their day with (In the name of Allah, the merciful, the Compassionate) There are numerous mitigating factors, such as poverty, repentance, failure, if it was public property, if it was not in a secure place inside of a house/store, and such. Due to huge pressure by the people, Regime’s judicial authorities do not carry out amputation though they have many in the past and since the judges and the whole system is corrupt the offender either pays a bribe to the judge or becomes a member of the revolutionary guards to carry out criminal missions for them in return.

  • Apostasy (irtaad): giving up Islam, converting to other religions. Officially not a crime, but still punished because to instill fear and terror in the heart of Muslims. Death penalty for men, life imprisonment for women. (If person had converted and then became apostate, three days are given to repent, otherwise execution is carried out). This is a blatant criminal conduct because Quran itself clearly says there are to be no compulsion in religion, meaning that all are free to choose their religion without fear and terror and persecution.

  • Adultery (zena): Unmarried (fornication), 100 lashes, death penalty for married couples. Yet, men are going through hundreds of temporary marriages and it’s not considered fornication. Mitigating Factor: repentance, lack of evidence, marrying partner, temporary marriage in some cases. Just imagine this is a regime in the 21st century as we are building colonies on Mars.

  • Married Women: death penalty (stoning or hanging) for having a fling!!! Mitigating Factor: repentance, lack of evidence, forgiveness by spouse, (in practice if partner did not die, no death penalty given) It could be reduced to 99 lashes discretionary punishment. Another source of corruption. Buy the judge and all things are possible in Khamnei’s Judicial system.

  • Rape: death penalty for rapist (4 witnesses needed in most cases) (That is why when the revolutionary guards were raping the members of the pro-democracy movement in solitary confinements they made sure there are no witnesses). Mitigating factor: repentance, forgiveness of victim, paying compensation "jirah" to victim, lack of evidence.

  • Sodomy (lavat): Rape, death penalty for rapist; Consensual; 100 lashes for active partner, death penalty for passive partner?? unless repentant (prior to 2012, it was death penalty for both). Mullahs are widely accused of child molesting throughout the history. Mitigating Factor: repentance, lack of evidence, (see adultery's mitigating factors)

  • Takhfiz (non-penetrative homosexuality): 100 lashes; 4th offense, death penalty. Mitigating Factor: repentance, lack of evidence.

  • Lesbianism (mosahegheh): 100 lashes; death on 4th offense Mitigating factors: repentance, lack of evidence. Death???

  • Procuring of prostitute (ghavvadi): This is rich. 100 lashes; 4th offense, death penalty. If widespread prostitution rings were run, person could be sentenced to death as a "corrupter of the earth". Mitigating factor: repentance, lack of evidence. What is the difference with what some mullahs are doing in various shrines under the law of temporary marriage? That is no prostitution?

  • False Accusation of Sexual Crimes (ghazf): 80 lashes; 4th offense, death penalty. Mitigating factors: forgiveness of the falsely accused person.

  • Consumption of alcohol (This is truly a criminal action by the regime against the people of Iran because it is strictly none of state’s business if the citizens wish to drink or not) or shurb-e-khamr: 80 lashes; 4th offense death penalty Prior to 2008, 3rd offense, this also applies to drug users. Mitigating Factors: repentance, lack of evidence, promising to receive treatment for addiction.


Tazir/Deterrent Crimes

A tazir crime is a crime in Sharia law that receives a discretionary sentence by a judge. A deterrent crime is a tazir crime that has a punishment in Khamnei’s Penal Code (mostly based on pre-Revolutionary French civil law). These crimes are divided into felonies, misdemeanors, and contraventions. All criminal acts have a civil code penalty in Iran, and are usually punished as such.

A judge can also give a sentence of up to 74 lashes for an individual crime (and possibly more if multiple crimes were committed at once), and up to 99 for sexual crimes. Imprisonment, fines, and other penalties can be implemented (the maximum being life imprisonment, usually for recidivists and serious criminals). The law is variable, and the judge decides depending upon each individual case. The vast majority of criminal cases in Iran are punished as "tazir", and generally they receive a lesser punishment than a hadd ( Limit) crime.

Tazir crimes are considered "claims by the state", so criminals will generally receive a tazir punishment even if they avoided qisas or hadd. Examples are:

  1. A thief was not given the hadd punishment for theft (amputation of right fingers). He receives the tazir punishment for theft instead (1 year in prison at a minimum, and maximum of 74 lashes).

  2. A rapist was forgiven by his rape victim, avoids death but given tazir punishment of 99 lashes, and an additional 8 years in prison.

  3. An adulterer was repentant, and was given tazir punishment (99 lashes, 1 year in prison)

  4. A drug addict avoided the hadd punishment of 80 lashes because he was addicted to the drug, and he promised to enter a drug rehabilitation program.

Civil crimes such as hooliganism (ashrar), aggravated assault (sherarat), rape (tajavoz-be-onf), armed robbery (serghat) receive prison sentences. In some cases, where the crime is severe that it is tantamount to the hadd crime committed (such as moharebeh- war against Allah), the person can even receive the death penalty on the basis of that hadd crime. This is reserved for political opposition members.

If a person is accused of serious crimes "against the regime", such as espionage, treason, activism, terrorism, and such, read all opposition activities that will be labeled as such, they could receive the death penalty for "moharebeh" and "mofsede-fel-arz". Large scale economic crimes can also be punishable by death for "mofsed-fel-arz" if the stability of the financial system was threatened. None of the regime’s members who committed all these crimes have ever been punished unless he was politically in the opposition.

Regime's Anti-Narcotics Law specifies that a person who commits the following drug offenses would be sentenced to death. (Typically applied on the second or third offense, and even then some are given life imprisonment) -Possession of 30 grams of heroin/ cocaine / methamphetamine /morphine/LSD.

The death penalty is commuted for first-time offenders if the amount is less than 100 grams and the criminal did not make a sale. -Possession of 5000 grams/5 kilograms of opium/marijuana/cannabis/prescription drugs/industrial chemical drugs/hemp juice. The death penalty is commuted for first-time offenders when the amount is less than 20000 grams/20 kilograms and the criminal did not make a sale. -Armed smuggling of any narcotics, or being part of or the head of a narcotics smuggling gang (normally would receive a prison sentence prior to execution). Usually the first offense would be imprisonment, but the second or third offense would be death. The death penalty would be applied if the crimes are deemed to be at the level of "mofsed-fel-arz" (see definition for moharebeh/mofsed-fel-arz).

Criticism and human rights issues

Death penalty

During the early, more tumultuous years of the disastrous Islamist revolution, back in 1979 a great number of political prisoners consisting of some of the best Iranian political, social science, military and academic minds were executed without a meaningful trial. In 1979, more than 800 highly educated and professional people were executed. Between 1981 and 1985, 7,900 political activists opposing the terrorist regime were executed. In 1988, a mass execution of political prisoners was carried out, with estimates that between 4,500 and 5,000 prisoners were executed without trial or any serious offense other than being against the Khamnei’s terrorist regime. The overwhelming majority of those executed (90%) were political prisoners, although many executions were carried out under the auspices of crimes such as "drug trafficking", "terrorism", or "sodomy" the facts are that they were all political opposition parties. These crimes cannot and will not be forgotten until the perpetrators are arrested, tried and punished no matter how long we have to fight.

Like some other under developed countries in the world, Khamnei’s Regime carries out capital punishment. As a State party to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Regime has undertaken not to execute anyone for an offence committed when they were under the age of 18, but it continues to carry out such executions, and Khamnei’s regime is one of only six nations in the world to do so. According to Article 6 of the ICCPR, "Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age."

The legal methods of execution are hanging, firing squad, and more barbaric forms like stoning, beheading, and throwing from a height. However, in practice only hanging is carried out (firing squads were used for many military/political crimes up to the 1990s). There are few records of beheading or throwing from height executions. Stoning was used rarely, but has been in practice and removed as a punishment in recent years after massive campaign by Iranian Human Rights Commission. In 2012, the penal code was amended to officially remove stoning as a punishment (although it could still technically be applied in unspecified circumstances). If the crime was serious, the execution could be carried out in public at the scene of the crime. This is because the regime is constantly in need of creating fear and terror in the hearts of the population to buy illusive security.

Another bizarre point in Khamnei’s Regime is that the Judiciary does not recognize the concept of sexual orientation, and thus from a legal standpoint there are no homosexuals or bisexuals - only heterosexuals "committing" homosexual acts.

On 19 July 2005 two teenagers, Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni, aged 16 and 18, were publicly executed by hanging in Edalat (Justice) Square in the city of Mashhad. They had been convicted of sodomizing and raping a 13-year-old boy in 2004, and other charges included alcohol consumption, theft, and disturbing the peace. They were detained for 14 months in prison awaiting execution and sentenced to 228 lashes. Regime officials complained that foreign and domestic media emphasized that the two were mere boys. "Instead of paying tribute to the action of the judiciary, the media are mentioning the age of the hanged criminals and creating a commotion that harms the interests of the state". Nobel Peace laureate Shirin Ebadi condemned the hanging of Asgari and Marhoni as a violation of Regime's obligations under the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, which bans such executions.

Gender inequality

Our complaint from Regime's legal system (and sharia law in general) is that men receive twice as much blood money (diyyeh) as women do. While that is true in some circumstances, diyyeh is almost always negotiated between the victim (and his/her family) and the perpetrator's family. As a result, generally the amount of diyyeh given is different than the "official" amount, and in practice women receive equal blood money. In 2008, Regime officially made diyyeh equal in insurance cases.

Human rights activist and Nobel Prize winner Shirin Ebadi complains that the section of the penal code "devoted to blood money, diyyeh, holds that if a man suffers an injury that damages his testicles, he is entitled to compensation equal to a women's life," inferring that the value of a woman’s life is equal to that of a man’s testicles and this failure to make account for individual differences or cases is unfair. It means, according to Ebadi, that "if a professional woman with a PhD is run over in the street and killed, and an illiterate labor gets one of his testicles injured in a fight, the value of the life of the woman with PhD and the damaged testicle of a labor are equal." While this is not always accurate, she does point out a shortcoming of the legal system.

Ebadi has also protested that while "the Islamic Revolution had anointed the Muslim family the centerpiece of its ideology of nation" and envisions a "restoration of traditional and authentic values" through women playing the role of "Muslim mother" staying home to care for "her multiplying brood," at the same time its family law automatically grants fathers custody "in the event of divorce," and makes "polygamy as convenient as buying a second bicycle." However, polygamy is not popular in Iran, it must receive a court order, and the husband must "treat all of his wives equally" otherwise he could face divorce. In a divorce, if a father is deemed unfit, custody is given to the mother. Prior to the age of 7, children are also always given custody with the mother, and when they are older, they can choose to live with either parent. These mild improvements are all because of never ending political struggles by the people of Iran.

Reform

In regards to any reform of the Regime there two school of thoughts:

  1. Including this writer, the first camp believes that the nature and the rigid Islamist doctrine behind the Constitution of the Islamic republic leaves absolutely no room for Reform and the kind of reform that we are talking about and it is required will tantamount to abolishing the Islamic republic Constitution and regime change so why call it reform?

  2. The second camp is under the illusion that reform is possible but they have failed to clearly communicate and explain what do they mean by reform. If they mean democratic reforms and abolishment of the Supreme leader position along with Guardian council, assembly of experts and Expediency council, then this will amount to regime change. So reform proposal is meaningless and misguiding.

Some Reformist politicians have attempted in the past to push for such a minor and incremental reforms like challenging the death penalty, as well as to enforce the rule of law concerning the illegal use of torture in prisons, with no success and as I have stated again and again, they are under the illusion on comical scale. Journalists and human rights advocates in Iran who attempt to raise awareness of these issues often risk imprisonment and the death sentence themselves, such as in the case of Akbar Ganji. On 18 December 2003, President Khatami stated, "I don't like the death penalty, although if there is one case where there should be an execution, the fairest case would be for Akbar Ganji. But I would never wish for that."

Due to the power and scope of the institution of velayat-e-faqih (Head of the Clergy), which includes the Council of Guardians and the Office of the Supreme Leader, as well as the Judiciary, mock elected institutions such as the Majlis (Parliament) and the Office of the President are often unable to challenge laws because they are constitutional, which is why the vast majority of the people of Iran have no choice but to demand regime change and the abolition of the constitution altogether and establishment of a new secular constitution to get rid of these old, opaque seventh century laws.

As noted in this paper, the single source of all these tragedies and agonies for the people of Iran under Khamnei’s regime is the fact that Islamic republic Constitution is based on Islamic Sharia law when we should have our constitution based on Secular and Common laws, guaranteeing freedom of press, speech, assembly and political parties, and none of these horrible misdeeds would have been committed against the people of Iran in the last 34 years and counting.

To this end, I close this paper by inviting all thinking Iranian people from all walks of life, political activists, writers, artists, businessmen, engineers, doctors, academicians, teachers, labor leaders, trade unionists, artisans, women and students to join forces, set aside our doctrinal and ideological differences and let us build an all-powerful Iranian Republican Party and start moving towards regime change and abolishing this cruel and criminal regime and remove Khamnei and his partners in crime from power and punish those who had committed murder, torture, theft, rape and other serious crimes and forgive the rest and start building a new, free, open and civilized Iran and secure the future of our children and our posterity. So Help Us God.

comments powered by Disqus

     
 
Home   |   About Khoie   |   Books   |   Articles & Essays
2014 © mrkhoie.com, All rights reserved. International copyright laws apply to all content