Iran’s Government Insistence on Death Sentences and the Shadow of Silence Over Condemned Prisoners in Remote Prisons
Executions in the Shadow of Ignorance and Silence
The issuance and implementation of multiple death sentences within less than a month in prisons across various Iranian cities demonstrates that the ruling authorities and the judicial system of the Islamic Republic of Iran continue to insist on the continued use of the inhumane punishment of execution.
Sentences that are mostly issued against prisoners held in prisons in sometimes remote and deprived provincial towns, whose cases proceed through the courts in silence and under non-transparent conditions and through an unjust process. According to the statistics of the Iran Human Rights Organization, in the three weeks since the beginning of 2022, at least 29 people have been executed in Iran. The execution of Abdul Basit Riggi, a prisoner held in Zahedan Prison on December 27, 2021, was one of the most recent cases.
Mr. Riggi was arrested in the city of Saravan by the Sepah intelligence forces in early 2018. The process of arrest, interrogation, trial, and ultimately the issuance and implementation of Abdul Basit Riggi’s death sentence involved many ambiguities. Reports emerged of torture to obtain forced confessions against Mr. Riggi. Ultimately, Abdul Basit Riggi was sentenced by Branch One of the Criminal Court of Sistan and Baluchestan to two executions for the murder of Judge Karimi and participation in the killing of Sheikh Ali Dehvari, 25 years imprisonment for cooperation with opposition groups, 10 years imprisonment for burning a telecommunications tower, and 5 years imprisonment for carrying a colt revolver. The charge of murdering Judge Karimi was raised despite the fact that Judge Karimi had been killed 12 years before Abdul Basit Riggi’s arrest. The dark history of security and judicial apparatuses in file fabrication for such defendants, and certainly the striking similarities of many of these scenario constructions, increasingly render the process of silent and non-transparent legal proceedings meaningful; the lack of transparency and access to case details and the passage through stages in courts of which perhaps few people are aware and in the spotlight, ultimately compound the complexities and certainly the injustices inflicted upon the condemned and the taking of their lives in a more cruel manner.
Some time ago, news emerged of the death sentence issued against Seyyed Mohammad Javad Vafaei, a political prisoner held in Mashhad Prison. Babak Paknia, the defense lawyer for this political defendant, wrote on his Twitter page that his client was sentenced to death by Branch 4 of the Mashhad Revolutionary Court. According to Paknia’s statement, the charges brought against 26-year-old Mohammad Javad Vafaei were based on a verdict issued stating “corruption on earth through intentional burning and destruction of specific places, including a governmental punishment building.” Seyyed Mohammad Javad Vafaei, who is a boxing coach, was arrested by security forces in Mashhad in December 2019.
Among the common points in these cases that the Islamic Republic’s judicial system and government media emphasize are the charge of “damaging and destroying public places” by defendants or the imposition of the narrative of killing military and government personnel by them. Undoubtedly, the degree of media attention and public opinion has a significant impact on clarifying and bringing cases into the spotlight, and proceeding through non-transparent and dark paths of such cases in courts and lesser-known prisons has resulted in these defendants being in the shadow of ignorance, subject to double injustice and the danger of losing their lives. The execution of Haidar Ghorbani, a Kurdish prisoner, and the issuance of death sentences for Abbas Deris, a prisoner held in Mahshahr Prison, are recent examples of the judicial system’s use of the death penalty, particularly in small towns and lesser-known prisons.
Confirmation of Execution Sentence for Javanmardi Environmental Protector Broumand Najafi by the Supreme Court
The confirmation of the execution sentence for Broumand Najafi, a Kurdish environmental protector from Kermanshah, by the Supreme Court generated many reactions and once again brought the discussion of “qisas” (retributive justice) and the state’s relationship with it, particularly the judicial system, to the forefront. In a sense, this fundamental criticism regarding the qisas ruling—whether legitimizing this ruling (qisas) leads to the substitution of “personal revenge” for “criminal justice”—was once again raised.
In August 2015, during a confrontation between environmental protectors and illegal hunters in the Bistoon area of Kermanshah, one of the hunters was wounded and ultimately died. Mr. Broumand Najafi, an environmental protector, is accused of shooting at this hunter. His case proceeded in the criminal court of Kermanshah. Ultimately, with the opinion of the second prosecutor of the case, the charge of “direct participation in intentional murder” is considered for Mr. Najafi, and the court, in two sessions, confirms its verdict and sends it to the Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court also confirms the verdict of the first instance court. Circumstances that currently have effectively placed the final decision regarding the life of Mr. Broumand Najafi in the hands of the victim’s family, and now the satisfaction of the victim’s family is tantamount to Mr. Najafi’s exemption from execution.
The escalation of the danger of execution for Mr. Broumand Najafi has led to a wave of criticism against the possibility of executing this environmental protector from Kermanshah in virtual and real spaces and even among some government figures. The reactions to the issuance of the execution sentence for the environmental protector were actually the result of several important questions, perhaps the most important of which is whether the killing of an illegal hunter was “intentional or unintentional,” and of course other angles such as environmental protection or why illegal hunters are armed, and questions of this sort. Apart from the legal dimensions of the case and the course of the trial, the questions raised among public opinion, more than any other case involving a qisas ruling, highlighted the important aspects of the concept of “criminal justice” and its demarcation from “personal revenge.” The question of why the enforcement of law and the application of punishment, from the perspective of criminal justice which is a state function, should be in the hands of ordinary individuals or citizens whose personal motivations or economic interests form the basis for the implementation or non-implementation of such severe punishments.
Source: Iran Human Rights Campaign
