Omid Memarian

o.memarian@roozonline.com

Just a few days after the televised “confessions” of her client Haleh Esfandiary who is being held in prison in Iran, Shirin Ebadi the Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2003 spoke to Rooz Online about Esfandiary’s condition and said that she has been deprived of all her rights since her arrest. Read on for the excerpts of the interview.

Rooz Online (R): It appears that even though the investigative phase of Esfandiary’s case is over you still do not have access to your client? Do you know what is her condition in prison after the airing of the show that included Esfandiary? Do you see any chance that authorities will let her free on bail or let you see her?

Shirin Ebadi (SE): I should have been given access to my client from day one, and she should have spoken through legal counsel. But none of the rights provided to her as a citizen have been respected. This morning I was informed that Haleh had a telephone conversation with her mother, who called to inform me that her daughter’s voice sounded frail and sad, and who said she did not know what else she has to do, adding that she was tired and requesting that she be rescued from prison.

R: What is your understanding of what is happening to her?

SE: I have been trying without success for two and a half months to get permission to see my client. Based on international principles and also the provisions of Iran’s civil code, any statements obtained from a person under psychological pressure lack any credibility and value. Only when a person speaks in the presence of an attorney of his choice can one deduce that he is not under psychological pressure, and even then, the exchange must take place in an open and just forum. Therefore, none of the statements that Haleh Esfandiary made have any legal value and lack credibility.

R: Are statements made in prison, in the fabricated fashion that we witnessed, a violation of a citizen’s rights?

SE: Airing of Haleh Esfandiary on television and making repeated charges against her, as was done by the spokesperson of the Iranian judiciary and ministry of intelligence, and accusing her of acting against the security of the state and trying to “softly” overthrow the regime are all violations of her basic citizen rights. I am disappointed that institutions that were created to protect laws (some of which have been protested by me because they do not conform to human rights principles) engage in acts that violate those very laws just as those who are tasked with implementing the laws do not respect the laws that they themselves have legislated. Ms Esfandiary has been deprived of all her citizen’s rights from the day she was arrested.

R: Can this issue be legally pursued?

SE: Everything that has taken place regarding Ms Esfandiary is contrary to civil procedures and universal human rights principles, just as it is for other political prisoners, and in all cases the responsible authorities can be questioned about the human rights violations that they have engaged in.

R: Since the laws of the land do not have a provision called “soft regime overthrow”, what is the legal status of what was aired in the “In the Name of Democracy” television program?

SE: Generally what our publications and media refer to as “soft overthrow” or “velvet revolution” is an interpretation of the electoral victory of one group over another. According to these concepts, if a group takes power of a system through official elections, then the winner should be called the party that staged a “velvet revolution.” If that is the case then what is the philosophy in a public election? What is the meaning of parliamentary or democratic competition? Not only are such charges absent in our laws, but such activities do not constitute a crime from the legal perspective. The situation is the same regarding political parties. Political parties engage in activities to win political power. So if a political group that is trying to come to power succeeds in its endeavors, should its success be labeled an overthrow or act of a “velvet revolution”?

R: How did you feel when you saw your client for the first time on television?

SE: I had not plans to watch this television program. This is because I believe watching an unlawful event in a way constitutes giving it some credibility and legitimacy. I would have preferred that all citizens would have turned off their television sets the moment the program began, demonstrating their protest to this unlawful act. I turned my TV off when the program was going to be broadcast because I did not wish to watch people play with the dignity of others through unlawful acts.