http://www.zamaaneh.com/enhr/ Copyright 2010 A radio shows that learns from blogs Radio Zamaneh Zamaneh is a new radio channel operating in Netherlands and broadcast via the Internet , shortwave radio and digital satellite. Radio Zamaneh contact@radiozamaneh.com en Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:40:59 +0000 http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss At about that time a plain-clothes security guy started grabbing my arm, and together with several uniformed police they dragged me and my translator off to the Ministry of Interior building. I fared much better than my translator, whom they punched and kicked in the groin. They ripped off his ID and snatched away both our cameras. A passing police officer sprayed my translator in the face with pepper spray, although he was already being marched along the pavement by three policemen. Unfortunately my camera was still recording and the battery was dislodged in the hubbub, destroying the video file of the interview. As we reached the Ministry of Interior building they separated us and dragged my translator by his arms across the floor and down a flight of stairs; he eventually regained his footing on the second two flights of stairs leading downward to the holding cell, where about twenty people who had already been grabbed off the streets were kneeling on the floor in the darkened room with their hands tied behind their backs. All during this process my translator was being kicked and sworn at. The police told him how they "would put their dicks in his ass" and how "your mother/sister is a whore" and so on. At one point he was beaten with a belt buckle. At another moment, they beat him with a police truncheon across his back, leaving a nasty welt. My translator kept on insisting that he was an officially authorized translator working with an American journalist – which is perfectly true. At this time I was above ground, in the entrance to the ministry, yelling over and over at the police to "Bring me my translator!" It was clear that they didn't intend to beat me – although they may have wanted to – because I was a foreigner. After a few minutes they relented and sent someone off to retrieve my translator from their holding cell, three floors down in the Ministry of Interior building. They came into the holding cell and shouted "Where is the translator?!" and then, when he identified himself, they beat him again for "not telling them he was a translator." An English-speaking riot policeman tried to sweet-talk me, saying that in a riot situation anything can happen. I might have taken him more seriously had a riot actually been taking place when we were arrested. He also asked my translator to convince me not to report what had happened. Eyewitnesses are reporting that fully-credentialed foreign journalists are similarly being detained all over Tehran today. The deputy head of the Ministry of Guidance just told me on the phone that other journalists have also been beaten, and that the official permissions no longer work. Also, foreign journalist visas are not being extended, so all of those people who were allowed in to cover the elections are now being forced out in the messy aftermath. All in all, it made me really question what I am doing in this country. It has become impossible to work as a journalist without the risk of physical violence from the government. For more information about the current situation of Iran go to these links: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/15/iran.elections.protests/index.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8099952.stm http://www.voteforiran.com/ http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article2271183.ece/Tweehonderd_demonstranten_bij_ambassade_Iran on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1183013096#/pages/Iranian-Artists-in-Exile/109026567353 on Twitter: http://twitter.com/IranElection09 ]]> http://www.zamaaneh.com/enhr/2009/06/james_longley_in_iran.html http://www.zamaaneh.com/enhr/2009/06/james_longley_in_iran.html Personal stories Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:40:59 +0000 All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. In our continuing coverage of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we turn to Article 7, as interpreted by Nasim Ghanavi, a legal expert and a lawyer for the Ministry of Justice. [DOES HE REPRESENT THE MOJ OR IS HE ADMITTED TO PRACTICE BEFORE THE MOJ? TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET IT RIGHT.] Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that in terms of dignity and rights, all human beings are equal and have the right to legal protection. Any discrimination violates the declaration. Every human being is entitled to equal protection (even) against any threat. Here, I wish to discuss the issue from the perspective of rights in Iran. Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been incorporated into our Constitution. In Article 19 of the Iranian Constitution, in Chapter 3, which addresses the rights of citizens, it has been stated that, regardless of tribe or ethnicity, the Iranian people possess equal rights; neither color, race, language, etcetera, constitute an advantage. In Article 20 of the Constitution, it is stated that every citizen, regardless of sex, is entitled to the protection of the law, and every person possesses political, economic, social and cultural rights, while observing Islamic standards. Therefore, our Constitution has taken these matters into consideration. However, the difficulties that exist are laws that exist elsewhere, which are in effect a violation of the people's rights, such as the law of Islamic punishment, or special laws such as those pertaining to marriage and divorce, or civil law. For example, in the law of Islamic punishment, the blood money (diyeh) of a woman is half that of a man's. Article 209 of the laws for punishment states that whenever a Muslim man kills a Muslim woman with premeditation, he can be sentenced according to qesas (the concept of an “eye for an eye” in Islamic law). But before the criminal is punished according to qesas (that is, a punishment equal to the crime he has committed), the woman's guardian must pay half of the blood money (diyeh) for the man. In effect, Articles 19 and 20 of the Constitution have been totally violated by this (concept of punishment). In Article 210, it is stated that whenever a kafar-e zemni (I don't know what that means – translator) deliberately kills another kafar-e zemni (a zemni infidel), he will be subject to qesas, even though they believe in two different religions. And if the victim is a zan-e zemni (non-believing woman), before qesas, her guardian must pay half the blood money for the male non-believer. Therefore we see that based on the laws of Islamic punishment, as well as other laws, equal laws do not exist for religious minorities, some tribes and ethnic groups, or, in general, for men and women; some laws are even violated by other laws. In my view, these laws are not based on the foundations of Islam. We can make changes to them, just as in many other cases, gradual changes have occurred in the law. In our country, the rights of minorities can (legally) be violated; but everyone must be equally protected under the law. When a person's rights are not equally observed, a country must have a way and method for protecting that citizen. For example, consider the One Million Signatures campaign. It's clear that their only goal is to eliminate discriminatory laws. Women active in this campaign have neither a political agenda, nor do they belong to a special group or party. Their goal is only to eradicate inequality (working) within the framework of the Islamic system, its laws and sharia law. Many of the great ayatollahs believe in this issue, and they believe that the rights of men and women are equal. For example, in the case of the share of inheritance and blood money (diyeh), they consider men and women to be equal. At present, we are a witness to the fact that due to the activities and protests of women, changes have been made in the laws. Women have made themselves heard by the officials. Although some people believe that the executive or judicial branches of government should support such activities, I must admit that, unfortunately, that is not the way it is. We don't see any kind of support from authorities. I can speak specifically regarding the One Million Signatures campaign, because I acted as the attorney for many of the women who participated in that campaign. I must emphasize, again, that working within the framework of rules and regulations, our women made their voices heard by officials in charge. They merely requested the elimination of discrimination and inequality (between men and women). Nevertheless, they were confronted, and some of them were arrested and convicted. Only two weeks ago, one of the women activists was sentenced to three years in Evin prison. What was her crime? Her presence at an assembly at Hafte Tir Square on June 12, 2006. Merely because of her presence at that assembly, she was sentenced to three years suspended imprisonment (I don't know what "habs-e ta'lighi" means – translator). And, unfortunately, as of the month of Bahman (January 21 – February 19), her sentence was upheld. Unfortunately, in Iran, we do not benefit from the support granted in Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.zamaaneh.com/enhr/2009/04/equal_rights.html http://www.zamaaneh.com/enhr/2009/04/equal_rights.html Articles of the Universal Decleration of Human Rights Sun, 19 Apr 2009 19:35:58 +0000 As part of our special series, “A Case in the Judiciary,” attorney and human rights activist Mohammad Mostafie discusses, in the second of a two-part article, the execution of minors. The moral aspect of a criminal act is crucial to what constitutes a crime. In other words, the “will” and “criminal intent” [of the accused] must be gauged. Unfortunately, however, Iran’s Islamic Penal Code does not make this distinction. This means that an unintentional killing is viewed and dealt with in the same manner as a first-degree murder; and both types of killings are subject to the maximum punishment. In other countries, it has been scientifically established that people under the age of 18 have not reached rational maturity. In our country, anyone above the age of 15 is subject to capital punishment. An example is a case I was indirectly involved with a few years ago. During a fight between a couple of teenagers in the town of Saveh (near Tehran), a young boy called Mansour was killed by another teenager called Mohammad. The fight was over something really stupid, unimportant and trivial. Mohammad was one month shy of 15 when he committed the crime. Moreover, he was psychologically unstable and not quite sane. However, the authorities wouldn’t take these factors into consideration, even though the city’s medical examiner’s office found that the boy was mentally undeveloped and suffered from psychological problems. We even went to a number of jurists and clerics who were legal experts; they agreed that such a person should not be subject to capital punishment. Even though it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the boy was mentally and psychologically unfit and not fully formed (character wise), the court sentenced Mohammad to death—a verdict affirmed by the Supreme Court. Ultimately, Mohammad was not executed because the Judiciary Chief intervened and the victim’s family consented to commuting the sentence. But that is not the point. The point is if there wasn’t a last-minute intervention, a minor with clear signs of mental problems would have been hanged. The boy spent a few years in jail and is now free. ]]> http://www.zamaaneh.com/enhr/2009/04/the_execution_of_minors_part_2.html http://www.zamaaneh.com/enhr/2009/04/the_execution_of_minors_part_2.html Special cases Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:17:42 +0000 As part of our special series, “A Case in the Judiciary,” attorney and human rights activist Mohammad Mostafie discusses, in parts one and two of this article, the controversial subject of executing minors. Some of the crimes that are punishable by death in our country include murder, drug trafficking and rape. After a death sentence is issued by a court, the “Verdict Implementation Bureau” is charged with executing it. In some cases the death sentence is commuted with the consent of the victim’s family, a pardon by the supreme leader, etc. In today’s world, capital punishment has been abolished in many countries. In 1984, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution entitled “Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty.” It states, among other things: “In countries that have not abolished the death penalty, capital punishment may be imposed only for the most serious crimes, it being understood that their scope should not go beyond intentional crimes with lethal or other extremely grave consequences.” Unfortunately however, in our country, even unintentional murder is punishable by death. Elsewhere in the resolution it is stated: “Capital punishment may be imposed only for a crime for which the death penalty is prescribed by law at the time of its commission, it being understood that if, subsequent to the commission of the crime, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby.” Fortunately, this piece of international law is adhered to in Iran. The resolution also states: “Persons below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime shall not be sentenced to death, nor shall the death sentence be carried out on pregnant women, or on new mothers, or on persons who have become insane.” Unfortunately, in Iran, minors are subject to the death penalty and execution. Another part of the resolution states: “Capital punishment may be imposed only when the guilt of the person charged is based upon clear and convincing evidence leaving no room for an alternative explanation of the facts.” In our country, the judicial process is anything but [just]. For one thing, the defense attorney is barred from the preliminary investigation and from the interrogation phase of his or her client. Moreover, on many occasions, the evidence by which the accused is convicted is nowhere near “clear and convincing.” As a consequence, many innocent people have and continue to receive death sentences in Iran. Last but not least, the resolution proclaims: “Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to appeal to a court of higher jurisdiction, and steps should be taken to ensure that such appeals shall become mandatory.” And, “Capital punishment shall not be carried out pending any appeal or other recourse procedure or other proceeding relating to pardon or commutation of the sentence.” However, in Iran, once the process runs its course and the case is referred to the “Verdict Implementation Bureau,” there is no additional remedy or a way to keep the sentence from being carried out. In conclusion, I believe if our judicial system adheres to these simple, basic and fair rules, the number of executions in our country will dramatically decline; and we will no longer appear on or near the top of the list of countries with the highest numbers of executions every year. ]]> http://www.zamaaneh.com/enhr/2009/04/execution_of_minors_part_1.html http://www.zamaaneh.com/enhr/2009/04/execution_of_minors_part_1.html Special cases Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:02:56 +0000 Mohammad Oliyaifar is a lawyer at the Ministry of Justice and a civil rights activist in Iran. [How is that possible? editor.] He is the head of the Center for Legal Studies, concentrating [does the center concentrate in discrepancies or does he? And where is the Center for Legal Studies, is it affiliated with some other organization? editor] in discrepancies between International law and current Iranian law. He discusses Article 3 of the International Human Rights Charter. Article 3 of the International Human Rights Charter states that every individual has the right to life, freedom and security. My interpretation is that the right to life, freedom and personal security are among the most self-evident rights an individual has in society. Therefore, in a democratic society, the right to life, freedom and personal security must be guaranteed by law to every individual. Therefore, countries which, with their own special ideology, which can be any ideology, restrict or deny the right to life, freedom or personal security are acting in conflict with Article 3 of the International Human Rights Charter, as well as (in violation of) international accords. It can be argued that if such laws are passed and implemented, they are a violation of fundamental human rights. With respect to the right to life, we may ask governments that do not accept the annulment of executions, in view of the social contracts to which they are a party and intend to implement as a legal order, whether they have the power to deny life to a human being? This can be set as the criterion (mesdagh) for execution. (If the above paragraph is not clear, it is because the original Persian is not clear to me – translator.) [Yes, I don't get it either! editor.] However, with respect to freedom, it includes the freedom of speech, freedom to express an opinion, and freedom in art. So long as this freedom does not infringe upon other people's rights, one can view it as positive and use it to one's benefit. (The writer or speaker says "freedom of opinion". Obviously anyone has freedom to have an opinion, as long as this opinion is not expressed. Iranians, in general, are not careful with words. Furthermore, I have never heard of "freedom in art," even in the West, where certain lyrics in music are being banned – translator) The only red line in freedom is not infringing upon the rights of another individual. Therefore, freedom of speech, freedom to express an opinion, freedom in art, freedom to choose one's employment, etcetera, can be among the criteria of the article in this charter. Not sure I understand highlighted. The same applies to personal security. That is, based on his or her circumstances in society, an individual has the right to personal security, including security of employment, security of dignity, and the security which the law has provided for him or her. (I would like the author to define "freedom". In the freest society, what does it mean to be free? Can one be totally free? And what is the "security of dignity," heysiat? – translator) [Yes, a weak piece all around. ed.] Therefore, though this article [in the charter] is very short, it is full of meaning, with the potential for vast interpretation. It can be argued that this article is one of the main pillars of a democratic society. Therefore, societies where people deprive individuals of freedom and personal security can be called totalitarian. Such societies are not only unable to bring about progress, but they deprive their people of the most self-evident human rights. Unfortunately, in the Islamic Republic, such restrictions exist. Most laws in the Islamic Republic violate Article 3 of the International Human Rights Charter. http://www.zamaaneh.com/enhr/2009/04/freedom_and_security_the_right.html http://www.zamaaneh.com/enhr/2009/04/freedom_and_security_the_right.html Articles of the Universal Decleration of Human Rights Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:25:22 +0000 As part of our special series focusing on the systematic violation of human rights in Iran, Gholam-Reza Harsini, an attorney for the Gonabadi Dervish* community, discusses the destruction of their house of worship in Isfahan. The razing of the Gonabadi Dervish community's house of worship in Isfahan was the third of its kind in the last couple of years. It was preceded by the destruction of our dervish community centers in Qom and then Borujerd. Usually the meetings of our community took place on Saturdays, Mondays and Fridays. The poor gathered there for traditional prayer and worship. Nearly 3,000 people used to come to our gatherings. Most of them were in need of food and other basic necessities. Late one night the authorities stormed our “Hosseiniyeh” (religious center), looted the place and then bulldozed it to the ground. At the time, there were only a few custodians and guards in the Hosseiniyeh. Many books, including a number of Qurans, were among the items taken. What should we do? Do we not have the right to live? Are we not human? Are we not Shiites? Are we asking for anything but the right to live? All we want is a place of worship of our own. We don’t even know why they are doing this to us. It makes no sense. A while back, we bought a place called “Reza Hosseiniyeh,” but they forced us out. Then we sought sanctuary at the cemetery, but they threw us out of there as well. We intend to file a complaint. We might even sue the government. Unfortunately, these people don’t understand or respect the law. If they did, they would have known there is absolutely no justification for destroying and looting our property. The authorities don’t know the first thing about the law and don’t care to learn. About eight years ago, they also tried to bulldoze our Hosseiniyeh but were unsuccessful because women and children threw themselves in front of the bulldozers. For a while, we gathered in small congregations in people’s homes (17 or 18 small gatherings all over Isfahan). Then the authorities told us they have no problem with us. But then, all of a sudden, they came and razed our Hosseiniyeh in the middle of the night. Even they know what they did is wrong, otherwise they would have done it during the day. They are nothing but thieves. And it isn’t just in Isfahan, Qom and Borujerd. Soon after the revolution, they attacked our Hosseiniyeh in Tehran, looted it and then burned it to the ground. Who is responsible? As far as we know, the culprits are so-called “pressure groups” affiliated with the Basij, working in cooperation and coordination with security and intelligence forces. When you ask them why, they say “we were defending our revolution,” as if we are anti-revolutionaries—they immediately add that it wasn’t them or the “pressure groups,” but “the people.” The fact is the public abhors such acts and would never resort to such a disgraceful act. Everyone knows who is responsible. It is those salaried government mercenaries. * Dervishes are Sufi Muslims, known for their pacifism, extreme poverty and austerity. http://www.zamaaneh.com/enhr/2009/04/as_part_of_our_special.html http://www.zamaaneh.com/enhr/2009/04/as_part_of_our_special.html Special cases Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:21:26 +0000 Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” As part of our special series focusing on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Mohammad-Ali Dadkhah, an attorney and a civil rights activist, discusses Article 12 of the Declaration. Mr. Dadkhah is also a renowned legal historian. As far as the Iranian judicial system and Article 12 of the Declaration is concerned, we have to focus on three areas: 1) Iranian customs, norms, culture, civilization, traditions and way of life; 2) Iran’s legal system; and 3) a comparative look at the laws of Iran and international law: In 534 B.C., Cyrus the Great of Persia declared the “Charter of Human Rights,” which in many ways was more progressive and complete than the 1947 UN Declaration of Human Rights. Specifically, it addressed privacy rights and proclaimed that the views, beliefs, customs and religions of all nations under the great and vast Persian Empire are to be fully respected. Cyrus himself was of course a Zoroastrian. Except for a reference in some texts to Ahura Mazda (the Zoroastrian God), in none of his decrees, orders or declarations did the monarch or the Achenmeian Empire promote or endorse the Zoroastrian faith over others. This set a standard throughout the centuries and millennia of Persian civilization: No one may breach the privacy rights of others, nor persecute them for their views or beliefs. Even when Islam came to Persia, the Iranian version of Islam respected this principle by stating: “We do not have the right to unveil the ugliness, faults, imperfections and shortcomings of others.” The principle is also unambiguously stated in the 1906 Constitution, which came about as a result of Iran’s Constitutional Revolution. There is a very famous proverb in the Persian language that says “Char Divari Ekhtiyari,” which roughly translates into “What one does under one’s roof is his or her own business.” However, we have seen this principle violated by governments past and present. The same principle is even included in Article 22 of Iran’s current Constitution, which states: “The dignity, life, property, rights, residence and occupation of the individual are inviolate, except in cases sanctioned by law.” In fact, one factor that led to the 1979 Revolution was SAVAK's (the Shah’s feared secret police) systematic violation of citizens' privacy rights. It should be noted that many of the enlightened, progressive, liberal and tolerant views and principles expressed in the post-revolution Constitution are a direct consequence of the cruel actions of the previous dictatorship in Iran. One example is Article 25, which states: “The inspection of letters and the failure to deliver them, the recording and disclosure of telephone conversations, the disclosure of telegraphic and telex communications, censorship, or the willful failure to transmit them, eavesdropping, and all forms of covert investigation are forbidden, except as provided by law.” However, I take issue with “except as provided by law.” This is a copout and it isn’t limited to this single article. Examples include Article 24: “Publications and the press have freedom of expression except when it is detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam or the rights of the public. The details of this exception will be specified by law.” And Article 168: “Political and press offenses will be tried openly and in the presence of a jury, in courts of justice. The manner of the selection of the jury, its powers, and the definition of political offenses, will be determined by law in accordance with the Islamic criteria.” Hence, we see that the Constitution as the “supreme” and “mother law” is violated and superseded frequently through “regular” laws and statutes ratified by the judicial and legislative branches. This is trampling upon the Constitution pure and simple. Viewing it from the prism of international law, two points need to be raised: The first, instances in which human rights are violated in outright breach of the Constitution, international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the second, “exceptions” such as “except as provided by law,” added to the Constitution to provide a “green light” to draft and ratify laws contrary to principles of human rights, international law and the Constitution. I now want to discuss Iranian morals, customs, norms, culture, civilization, traditions and way of life. Persians not only want but expect their privacy rights to be respected. In a boarder and more general sense, they accept the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is also reflected in the ethics and morals of ancient Persia, the 1906 Constitution and the post-1979 Constitution. However, we see that in practice the ruling establishment violates these principles. Elsewhere, there is Article 9 of Iran’s Civil Code, which states: “Treaty stipulations, in accordance with the Constitution, concluded between the Iranian Government and other governments, shall have the force of law.” In addition, there is “the Rights of Citizens,” drafted by the Judiciary and ratified by the Majlis (Parliament). But we see that, day in and day out, all of these laws are ignored and dishonored by officials in charge. Recently Iran’s president stated that the “the Rights of Citizens” should be respected. The question is who should respect it? Human rights is a pact between the government and the people. But the fact is in Iran one side (government) doesn’t abide by its obligations. I also want to mention Article 27 (Internal Law and Observance of Treaties) of the 1969 Vienna Convention, which states: “A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.” This shows that the principle of national sovereignty may be superseded by international law toward preserving the rights of peoples. Distant examples include the Nuremberg Tribunals, and more recent examples include the court that tried former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, the Rwanda and Haiti tribunals, and the recent arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court issued for the Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. One other point I would like to make is that after September 11, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the privacy rights as well as the life and liberty of many innocent people were and continue to be infringed upon. In order to protect and safeguard the life of innocent human beings around the world, a global response and mechanism are required. ]]> http://www.zamaaneh.com/enhr/2009/03/the_right_to_privacy.html http://www.zamaaneh.com/enhr/2009/03/the_right_to_privacy.html Articles of the Universal Decleration of Human Rights Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:27:23 +0000 As part of our special series focusing on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Mohammad Mostafaie, an attorney and a human rights activist, discusses Article 11 of the Declaration. Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in two parts, states: “(1) Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense. (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offense, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offense was committed.” The spirit of this article – the presumption of innocence – also exists in various domestic laws and legislation and even in Sharia law (Islamic canon law). Moreover, Article 37 of the Iranian Constitution specifically addresses this issue by stating: “Innocence is to be presumed, and no one is to be held guilty of a charge unless his or her guilt has been established by a competent court.” Hence, being accused of a crime is by no means proof of guilt. Guilt can only be established if the accused receives a fair trial in a legal and impartial court. Furthermore, any such hearing must allow the defendant to retain a defense attorney for representation during the proceedings, provide sufficient time for defense, not resort to torture or mistreatment, present evidence or documents proving guilt and ultimately make the case beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, the defendant and his or her attorney must have access to the same documents and evidence the prosecution has and intends to use in making its case on culpability. Also, the proceedings must be open and public. Closed trials are permissible and legal only under very special circumstances. All of the above is stressed and unambiguously stated in Article 11 of the Declaration, Iran’s Criminal Code as well as other domestic laws and statutes. Another important point is that no one can be convicted of a crime unless such an offense is expressly defined in law. In other words, one cannot be found guilty of anything and punished for it, if the offense and its punishment cannot be attributed to a particular law, statute or legislation. For example, on cyber and computer crimes, as well as on political offenses, Iranian law is mostly silent. In other words, these offenses have not been codified into law. Consequently, in a legal sense, those who have been tried, convicted and incarcerated on political charges are not guilty of any crime. Of course, it should be said that many political prisoners have been charged and convicted of other (non-political) offenses. In conclusion, all countries – including Iran – must adhere to the principles set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by holding fair and impartial hearings, upholding human rights and preventing the miscarriage of justice. ]]> http://www.zamaaneh.com/enhr/2009/03/article_11_of_the_universal_de.html http://www.zamaaneh.com/enhr/2009/03/article_11_of_the_universal_de.html Articles of the Universal Decleration of Human Rights Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:04:07 +0000 * Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charges against him. As part of our special series focusing on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Mohammad Rezaie-Vahdati, a legal expert and journalist, discusses Article 10 of the Declaration. Article 35 of the Iranian Constitution states: “Both parties to a lawsuit have the right in all courts of law to select an attorney, and if they are unable to do so, arrangements must be made to provide them with legal counsel.” However, the Special Court for Clergy (SCC) does not allow defendants to freely choose their attorney. In fact, the accused has no choice but to select a lawyer from a short list approved by the SCC. Elsewhere, a very important and crucial Article in the Iranian Constitution is Article 166, which states: “The verdicts of courts must be well reasoned and documented with reference to the articles and principles of the law in accordance with which they are delivered.” Moreover, this principle is reiterated in various laws, statutes and legislation ratified during the last three decades. However, an overwhelming majority of the rulings issued by the courts and judicial authorities either provide no reason, rationale or explanation for the verdict or the reasons provided have absolutely no basis in logic and are entirely irrational. What kind of justice is this? The other significant issue I want to address -- which I believe is a major impediment to getting Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as Articles 35 and 166 of the Iranian Constitution realized and implemented -- is that the judges, prosecutors and the other judicial officials charged with the awesome responsibility of administering justice are quite simply incompetent and lack the proper education, professionalism, ability, character and judgment for the job. It has been my personal experience that many of the judges in civil and “dispute resolution” courts [arbitration?] lack secondary and in some cases even primary education. It goes without saying that they have absolutely no legal training. I also want to discuss these “dispute resolution” courts or councils, as they are called. They have become ever more prevalent of late in Iran and are expanding exponentially. The concept behind the formation of such councils was to try to solve disputes in a way a village or tribal chief would resolve differences in his village or among his tribe -- fairly and amicably. However, the reality is that these “dispute resolution” courts, with their semi-literate judges, are not only unsuccessful in resolving disputes, but in fact they issue harsher sentences (long prison terms), and heavier fines (at times in the millions of dollars) than even official judicial courts. Under the status quo in Iran, Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 35 of the Constitution, which state all people are equal under the law and have identical rights, cannot be realized. How can people have such a right when the necessary tools for it do not exist? How can they exercise their rights when the judges and other judicial authorities who have the most vital and critical role in imparting justice lack the requisite qualifications, training, education or competence?]]> http://www.zamaaneh.com/enhr/2009/03/everyone_is_entitled_to_a_fair.html http://www.zamaaneh.com/enhr/2009/03/everyone_is_entitled_to_a_fair.html Articles of the Universal Decleration of Human Rights Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:02:34 +0000 * Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.” Article 9 forbids governments from arbitrarily arresting, imprisoning or exiling citizens. Of course, in Iran, neither the Constitution nor existing laws, statutes or legislation permit arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. The problem is the officials in charge. For example, the law allows temporary detention of suspects for investigation and interrogation purposes. However, the law is also clear that the temporary detention period must be short and limited in duration. But in Iran, as well as in other countries like ours, temporary detentions are anything but. I stress again that we don’t have a shortage of laws in Iran. To the contrary, there is an abundance of laws. In fact, it can be said that there are too many laws. The Majlis (Parliament) ratifies two to three thousand pages of new legislation every year. As I said before, the trouble is in the execution. The laws are applied in such a random, general and non-specific manner in Iran that even the best of laws become unjust when put into action by the authorities. Another important issue is interpretation. Often times the law is either interpreted incorrectly or in a manner to support the prosecution. It should be the other way around. The law should be interpreted in favor of the accused. In other words, in addition to the presumption of innocence, the prosecution should not be seeking the maximum punishment for the accused from the outset. For instance, in dealing with first-time offenders, the minimum penalty, or even probation, or a suspended sentence should be entertained and imposed. In Iran, we have the “Rights of Citizens,” which is even more progressive than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Moreover, the Iranian Constitution forbids discrimination and persecution based on views, opinions or beliefs. But the point is that none of these laws are enforced. According to the “Rights of Citizens” and the Constitution, no one is supposed to have the right to ask me what my religion is, what I believe, or even, as Mr. Obama puts it, question whether I am a “nonbeliever.” Last but not least, the most significant and dire problem we have is the fact that preliminary judicial investigations in Iran are carried out in secret and without any transparency. Speaking broadly, there are two legal systems in the world. One is the French system founded on religion and originated in Rome and later developed in Germany. The other is the “Common Law” system practiced in Britain and the United States. Under “Common Law,” the accused has the right not to incriminate himself or herself unless an attorney is present. The right to stay silent is provided for under “Common Law” as well. There should be some sort of a balance between the accused and the prosecutor. Having a lawyer present on behalf of the detainee does create a balance. However, under our current prevailing system, when a person is arrested, he or she is presumed guilty and treated as such. Moreover, there are no constraints in place limiting the methods and the time limit the prosecution has to conduct its investigation and interrogation. What’s worse is that the system does not allow the suspect to have a defense lawyer present during the preliminary investigation or the interrogation phase. France used to have a similarly unjust system, but it was reformed after Napoleon, and that was nearly two hundred years ago. Unfortunately however, it is still practiced in Iran.]]> http://www.zamaaneh.com/enhr/2009/03/no_one_may_be_arrested_detaine.html http://www.zamaaneh.com/enhr/2009/03/no_one_may_be_arrested_detaine.html Articles of the Universal Decleration of Human Rights Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:35:50 +0000