Omid Memarian
Dr Abdolfattah Soltani is a well-known Iranian attorney who has been defending victims of human rights violations in Iran, including Canadian-Iranian journalist Zahra Kazemi and Nobel Peace prize winner Shirin Ebadi. In a candid conversation with Rooz, he spoke of the capital punishment executions that have been carried in the country.
The growing number of death penalties in the country, according to him, is indicative of the fact that some people have become so “drowned in power that they have forgotten that even according to the Sharia, a violator must be given the chance to repent and become a good citizen.” Read on for the details.
Rooz (R): Do you notice a difference in the number of death sentences in Iran during the last three years and the periods before that?
Abdolfattah Soltani (AS): Unfortunately there are no detailed statistics about anything in our country. This is also true about the number of death penalty executions carried out. Because of the short-sighted attitudes, accurate and detailed information does not leak outside the official quarters. But still what is clear is that the number of executions has risen since the ninth administration came to power in 2005.
R: How has this changed in the judiciary?
AS: I believe that the judiciary can present laws relating to the judiciary to the cabinet and have them passed, and then take them to the Majlis assembly so that they are reviewed by the relevant committees with the goal of improving current laws. If some of the current laws are corrected, we would not be witness to such horrid events.
R: Some of the cases involving executions do not indicate the observance of due process of law. For example it is not clear whether a person whose death penalty was executed did have a fair trial and access to a defense counsel. What can be done about this?
AS: Cases that are handled in this manner have many faults. For example, political cases are handled in violation of article 168 of the constitution. This provision expressly states that those charged with political violations must be tried in general courts in the presence of a jury. Unfortunately during the last thirty years, almost none of the political trials have been given this treatment and all of them have lacked it.
R: Could you be more specific?
AS: Most such trials are held in camera and are without the presence of a jury. Some 99 percent of these cases are handled in revolutionary courts, rather than the general courts, and very harsh punishments are passed on to the defendants. Even in cases where the defendant has been charged with being a “hooligan” or “thug” the trials are not open to the public and so it is not known whether the defendant had an attorney at the trial or not, or whether due process of law and legal standards were observed during the trial. We notice that the judiciary is very reluctant in even giving its judgment to the defendant. I have had a case in which the court would not present me or my client with a single sheet relating to the judgment against him. Most of these cases are tried behind closed doors and without any media access. In many cases even the closest relatives (a mother or a wife) and next of kin are not allowed to participate in the trials. Under these circumstances one naturally asks that if the authorities did have sound reasons against the defendant then why they would be holding these trials behind closed doors and away from the purview of the public.
R: But why do you think such behavior takes place in courts?
AS: Foremost there is no real supervision over our judges. If a judge engages in a violation (for example does not present the defendant with a court judgment or prevents the presence of people in the courthouse), there is no way to deal with this. Another issue is that judges are very narrow-minded and conservative, and basically look at punishment as a form of revenge. You probably know that in the Quran and other religious texts, violators must be given a change to repent and become good citizens. In other words, God gives man a second chance to return to a normal life. How come then that we human beings do not even in the name of religion allow an 18-year old man to repent and return to normal life, even if he has actually committed a crime? In other words we are acting against the very views and words of Islam itself.
