Siamak Namazi: There is disagreement among Iranian judges over considering America as a hostile state; the Supreme Court should rule

Siamak Namazi, an American-Iranian dual national citizen who has been imprisoned in Iran for over six years, has requested in a letter to the head of Iran’s Supreme Court the issuance of a unified ruling regarding the classification of America as a hostile state.

Siamak Namazi is currently imprisoned in Evin Prison, but a copy of his letter has reached Voice of America in which Mr. Namazi, addressing Ahmad Mortazavi Moghadam, the head of Iran’s Supreme Court, emphasizes that based on inquiries made with Iran’s Foreign Ministry and the Supreme National Security Council, Iran and America are not in a state of hostility. Mr. Namazi has also referenced the ruling of Omid Kokabi and several other cases in which it was stated that political differences between Iran and America do not constitute hostility, and Tehran’s Court of Appeals has confirmed this ruling.

Some Iranian courts punish political prisoners with severe sentences for the crime of collaborating with a “hostile state.” This is while some judges and defense lawyers argue that Iran and America are not in a state of hostility and such rulings should be rejected.

According to Article 508 of the Islamic Penal Code, “anyone or any group who cooperates with a foreign hostile state in any way against the Islamic Republic of Iran, if not recognized as an enemy combatant, shall be sentenced to one to ten years imprisonment.”

Judges such as Abolghasem Salavati, who are handling Siamak Namazi’s case and several other dual nationals, argue that Iran and America are in a state of hostility and therefore have sentenced these individuals on charges of “cooperation with a hostile state” to the maximum penalty (ten years imprisonment).

Siamak Namazi has asked the head of Iran’s Supreme Court that, given the differing interpretations by judges, the Supreme Court should issue a final ruling on this matter. According to the laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran, if courts issue different rulings on a particular subject, the matter can be put to a vote in the plenary session of the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court’s opinion serves as binding judicial precedent for the courts.

Source: Voice of America