The head of Iran’s Center for the Defense of Human Rights and the recipient of the 2003 Nobel Peace prize expressed her regret for the execution of Kurdish activist Ehsan Fatahian in her interview with Rooz and proposed that her family request that the body of Ehsan be inspected before burial. Here are the details of the interview.
Rooz: What is your take on the execution of Ehsan Fatahian as a political-ideological prisoner as reflected in his case, particularly the insistence of the judiciary officials on this?
Shirin Ebadi (Ebadi): The judgment and execution of a political prisoner is the worst violation of human rights. No court can issue a death sentence for whatever reason, even a crime. Unfortunately, the government of Iran has had the highest number of executions in recent years after China, according to international reports, and this is most unfortunate. What is even worse is that judgments of execution of political prisoners and individuals who had committed a crime when they were still minors (i.e. younger than 18 years of age) are issued and implemented and this is really shameful. I have personally expressed my condolences to Ehsan Fatahian’s family members and am saddened that despite all my efforts and those of other human rights activists and his respected defense attorney did not yield any results and so we were witness to the execution of a young man for political reasons. It must be noted that Fatahian never engaged in any sort of violence and was merely a sympathizer of a political group. The government cannot claim that just because it does not recognize a political party, it has the right to punish its members or sympathizers. So long as a person has not engaged in any violent acts and has not committed a crime because of his political views, he cannot be punished simply because of his views or believes, let alone be condemned to capital punishment, i.e. the death penalty. Regarding Mr. Fatahian, the first court judgment against him was a 10 year prison term. But before this case was reviewed and upheld by the supreme court, a provincial appellate court ruled that he be given the death penalty, which was executed. As a mother I ask of the judge who passed this judgment whether he has the conscience and peace of mind to remain with his own children after issuing such an unjust and illegal judgment.
Rooz: Fatahian’s family members were not allowed to see their son before his execution. What is the legal status of this?
Ebadi: According to Islamic principles and human principles, every person has the right to see his family members before being executed and pass them his will. I am very sorry that an innocent person was not allowed to meet his family members in the last moments of his life simply because of his views and beliefs. I recommend to Fatahian’s family members that before burying the body of their member, they should have a trusted physician inspect the body to make sure that he did not die because of unusual circumstances and then was executed to cover up the death through the death penalty and the subsequent execution. Even though there is little possibility of this, but it is a good idea to make sure of this. My suggestion is that before burying the body, a trusted physician should inspect the body.
Rooz: Are you seeing such a possibility because of the influence that powerful political and security circles have been exerting on cases involving prisoners of conscience cases in recent years?
Ebadi: The execution of Ehsan Fatahian demonstrated the injustice that exists in the judiciary system and unfortunately speaks of the non-independence of the judiciary branch. I would like to raise another issue here. One of my colleagues, Mrs. Nasrin Sotudeh who is a well known attorney and a defender of human rights and my colleague at the Center for the Defense of Human Rights was summoned to a revolutionary court a few days ago. She refrains from going because the summons had not been issued according to set procedures and the law. Such a summons should not be respected by an attorney. But since she is a law-abiding citizen, she instead sent her attorney Ms Jaafari to the court. There, to Ms Jaafari’s surprise, a member of the prosecutorial team tells her to tell Mrs. Sotudeh to go to the special security bureau of the ministry of intelligence where she will be interrogated. My question is this: Why does an independent judge loses his judicial independence and asks an attorney of the court to go to the ministry of intelligence for an interrogation? Unfortunately this is how things are done in some political suits. In other words, the decisions of the court are bases on the requests of the ministry of intelligence.
Rooz: Could such judgments be the signs of a return to the dangerous trend in the first years of the revolution where political activists were executed?
Ebadi: Conditions today are completely different today. We live in the information age. Thirty years ago, there was no Internet or mobile (cell) phones. Today, people all across the world immediately learn about events taking place anywhere on this globe. The events that took place in the first years of the 1979 revolution cannot take place again. The world is now sensitive to what takes place in other countries and the international telecommunication network passes such information and news across the globe soon after it has taken place.
