Dadban- During the nationwide uprising of the Iranian people, three members of Iranian paramilitary (Basij) forces, namely “Mohsen Cheraghi”, “Mohsen Hamidi” and “Mohammed Karimi”, were killed in the “Khane Isfahan” neighbourhood guard square, in the city of Isfahan.
Dodban Legal Education and Counseling Center has recently received the writ issued by the primary court and Supreme Court of Iran in connection with this case. In accordance with the Dadban team of lawyers and jurists, the 43-page document indicates obvious contradictions and defects in the case, proving that the allegations against the detained protesters are unfounded. The purpose of this report is to explain the contradictions that exist within the case and the clear violation of the rights of the defendants.
On the day of the incident, security forces arrested many protesting citizens, including Saleh Mirhashmi (allegedly for “Moharebeh (War against God)” by drawing a pistol), Majid Kazemi (allegedly for “Moharebeh (War against God)” by drawing an AK-47 gun), and Saeed Yaqoubi (allegedly for “Moharebeh (War against God)” by drawing a gun). The primary court sentenced all defendants to death. In its ruling, the Iran Supreme Court upheld the sentence and rejected the appeal of the defendants.
It appears that Branch 9 of the Supreme Court has overlooked the case’s fundamental flaws and errors.
The defendants were only present during the protest rally on November 16th. Their presence and their friendship prior to the incident are what gave rise to their charges of “organizing a group with the intention of engaging in armed activity against the regime”.
Several other acquaintances and friends of the defendants have also been arrested and have been subjected to severe pressure and forced to confess against each other. It was later on the basis of these forced confessions that the verdict was rendered.
The defendants, however, have denied what the IRGC intelligence officers serving as judicial officials in this case described as their confessions.
In accordance with Article 218 of the Islamic Penal Code, confessions are only valid if they are made before a court judge. In addition, article 38 of the Iranian constitution clearly states that torture is prohibited in order to obtain a confession or information. It is not permissible to force a witness to testify, confess, or swear, and such testimony or confession has no legal value or credibility.
As an example, Saleh Mirhashmi, one of the defendants in the case, openly declares in front of the investigator that he never shot at anyone and that he had purchased a gun the year before his arrest, but had never used it. Due to the fact that the alleged weapon has never been discovered by judicial officers, these statements are true.
According to the final order issued by Branch 11 of Isfahan Revolutionary Prosecutor’s Office, the alleged weapon – which, according to judicial officers, Saleh Mirhashmi, was used to shoot- has not been found, and it is unclear from which gun the bullets that killed the officers originated.
In fact, Saleh Mirhashmi denies his forced confession that he saw Majid Kazemi shoot with an AK-47 and openly states that he never saw Majid Kazemi engage in firing at the police officers.
In his forced confessions, Majid Kazemi also denied shooting at the officers, and as a result of the pressure caused by hours of torture, he admitted only to some shots into the air. Majid clearly states in his forced confessions that Saleh Mirhashmi fled as soon as the officers clashed with the protesters. Thus, according to the testimony of Majid Kazemi, Saleh Mirhashmi was not present at the scene of the clash between officers and protesters or at the time of the shootings. In his confession to the investigator, Saleh Mirhashmi also brought this issue to the investigator’s attention. As well, Majid Kazemi informed the investigator that he had not seen Saleh Mirhashemi holding a weapon.
Moreover, Saeed Yaqoubi denied possessing any weapons and, as a result of pressure and torture, he only accuses Majid Kazemi of shooting. From a legal and Islamic standpoint, these forced confessions obtained from the defendants against each other are not admissible evidence. Numerous case courts and Supreme Court decisions have repeatedly stressed the inadmissibility of such accusations. Earlier in September 2008, the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic, Ali Khamenei, explicitly discredited the use of cross accusations as the basis for court decisions. According to Article 164 of the Islamic Penal Code, confession is an admission of committing a crime against the confessor.
Amir Nasr Azadani, the other defendant, was also only present at the rally and did not perform any acts that indicated his involvement in a criminal offense. According to the Supreme Court’s recently released document, it is unclear to the court which criminal act was committed by Amir Nasr-Azadani.
In the “Khane Isfahan” case, Dadban has received evidence indicating extensive violations of process and trial regulations. Defendants were not permitted to consult with an appointed lawyer prior to the final session of the court. According to Article 190 of the Criminal Procedure Regulations, if a defendant cannot select a lawyer, the case investigator must assign one to them. The regulations mandated the presence of a lawyer at the beginning of the investigation.
“Organizing of an armed group to overthrow the Islamic Republic” is fundamentally an inadmissible criminal title.
Claims about apriori friendship between defendants as their intention to “form an armed group” must be refuted as the “evidence” behind that claim constitute friendly parties and gathering involving the defendants which obviously cannot be argued as sessions to organizing an armed group. Saleh Mirhashei is also charged with “collaboration with the People’s Mojahedin of Iran” merely based on a Telegram group he is a member of.
The obvious contradictions in the accusations attributed to the defendants are not limited to these instances. The allegations are also refuted by another prominent example. The Prosecutor’s Office and the Isfahan Revolutionary Court, in cooperation with the Intelligence Office of the Isfahan IRGC, as judicial officers, have accused the defendants of committing warfare rather than murder in order to facilitate the sentence and execution of the death penalty. However, the Supreme Court has given the right to pardon the defendants to the next of kin of the victims. It essentially means that the Supreme Court upheld the death penalty based on the defendants’ involvement in the murder, a charge for which none of the defendants were convicted.
In addition, the court report indicates that only the next of kin of one of the three agents who died as a result of the accused’s shooting demanded retribution. It is one of the agents’ brothers who is the commander of the Basij base. Retribution was not requested by the others.
Furthermore, there is no mention of the fingerprints found on the weapons discovered. For the court’s decision, the investigation documents include only information regarding the shooting at the location as well as the forced confessions of the accused. The identity of the perpetrators of the shooting is not known even in the testimony of eyewitnesses cited in the case. The shooting is merely described as having taken place. The perpetrators of the shooting were not identified by any of the witnesses.
There are several references in the case documents to the fact that the shooters had covered their faces. Thus, it is unclear on what basis the judicial officer (Isfahan Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Intelligence Office) identified and accused the defendants.
In this case, the investigation and trial have been particularly rapid. This indicates that the judicial system feels a sense of urgency in issuing a sentence. Contrary to the usual practice of handling murder-related crimes, which usually takes several months, this case was completed within six weeks of the arrest of the defendants.
The fact that neither the trial court nor the Supreme Court paid attention to all of the flaws and shortcomings in the case indicates that there is an illegal intention behind the case of “Khane Isfahan” to conceal the truth and fabricate an untrue account of what occurred on November 16, 2022. It would only take one of the problems mentioned above for the Supreme Court to overrule the primary decision.