The Endless Process of Security Harassment Against Independent Lawyers in Iran
The methods and tactics employed by the Islamic Republic of Iran’s judiciary in exerting security pressure on independent lawyers have become a systematic and permanent procedure in recent years; the fabrication of cases against Farzaneh Zilabi, a lawyer representing a group of Haft Tappeh workers and her six-month suspension from legal practice, and the conviction of Mohammadhadi Erfanian Kasb, another lawyer, to 95 days imprisonment, are among the latest obvious cases of continued pressure on independent lawyers in Iran. The issuance of heavy prison sentences for human rights lawyers in Iran such as Nasrin Sotoudeh, Mohammad Najafi, Amir Salar Davoudi, and Giti Poorfazel is the result of the regime’s persistent narrative that the activities of independent lawyers in Iran constitute “propaganda against the system” and “threats to national security.” These are baseless charges made in reaction to the lawful and professional activities of lawyers defending political and ideological defendants.
The insistence of the Islamic Republic’s judicial authorities in dealing with independent lawyers is part of systematic security pressure within the judiciary against independent practitioners; recently, a group of Islamic Consultative Assembly representatives signed a proposal for “investigation and inspection of the sources of law license issuance,” which, according to many, is a new tactic to pressure lawyer independence and restrict the authority of the Iranian Bar Association.
Continuation of Security Harassment Against Independent Lawyers
A cursory review of the actions of the Islamic Republic’s judicial authorities in recent decades, including their treatment of human rights case lawyers and efforts to weaken the Iranian Bar Association, reveals that senior judicial officials have employed every stratagem and trick to achieve their goals; the suspension of Farzaneh Zilabi’s professional activities, a lawyer in the Haft Tappeh sugar factory case, based on an interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Code, is the latest example of this process in the Islamic Republic’s judiciary.
Shortly after the announcement of a “dispossession” ruling in the Haft Tappeh factory case, Farzaneh Zilabi was accused in a separate case of gathering and conspiracy, propaganda activity against the system, spreading false information, and membership in opposition groups, and the prosecutor issued an order prohibiting her from practicing law for six months.
This judicial order was issued at a time when the Haft Tappeh sugar factory had recently been reclaimed from the private sector. The demand for dispossession of the private sector from Haft Tappeh was the primary demand of protesting workers at this large factory. In pursuing workers’ demands, a number of them and workers’ rights activists faced severe security and judicial harassment.
Nasser Zarafshan, the lawyer for Ms. Zilabi, told the Human Rights Campaign in Iran regarding the issuance of the prohibition order against his client: “This order was issued under paragraph P of Article 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code, according to which the prosecutor can, proportionate to the committed offense, in addition to issuing a bail order, issue a judicial supervision order that includes one or more of the mentioned directives for a specified period.”
Nasser Zarafshan, pointing out that this judicial order was issued in accordance with paragraph P of this article, namely “prohibition from engaging in activities related to the committed offense,” told the Human Rights Campaign in Iran: “Emphasis on this provision implicitly carries the presupposition that we are dealing with a committed offense. With this interpretation of paragraph P, the meaning derived is that legal practice is related to the committed crimes.”
According to Nasser Zarafshan, Article 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code relates to the prosecutor’s authority and concerns matters in cases that are still in the investigation stage. Therefore, to the extent that it is possible for the accused to be convicted after this stage, there is equally the possibility that the charges are baseless and the accused will be acquitted in court.
Zilabi’s lawyer, explaining this point that “crime” has a specific definition in judicial language and only in court is a person’s crime determined, said: “When a case is in the investigation stage, it means no crime has been established yet. In a manner of speaking, the accused in investigation is still in the accusation phase, and at this stage we cannot speak of crime in any way.”
According to Nasser Zarafshan, “Given the issuance of an order restricting access to the case file, my client does not have access to its contents, and gathering and conspiracy, propaganda activity against the system, spreading false information, membership in opposition groups are among the charges communicated to my client by the prosecutor.”
Nasser Zarafshan believes that such interpretations of Article 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code are a dangerous innovation that specifically targets the independence of the legal profession.
In response to the question of why there is security and judicial pressure in Ms. Zilabi’s case, Nasser Zarafshan tells the Human Rights Campaign in Iran: “If we step outside the purely legal sphere, it is clear that this is a political and class matter; it is natural that those who acquire people’s national wealth and common property at a cheap price under the name of privatization have power and influence and connections within the regime and do not sit idle.”
According to Nasser Zarafshan, “Ms. Zilabi is essentially paying the price for defending Haft Tappeh workers, and there is no material element whatsoever in the charges against Ms. Zilabi, and it is clear that this is a form of retaliation against my client.”
In another recent action by the judiciary in dealing with independent lawyers, Mohammadhadi Erfanian Kasb, a lawyer, was sentenced to 95 days in prison for what was described as an interview regarding the killing of his client Alireza Shirmohammadi, a political prisoner. Alireza Shirmohammadi, a political ideological prisoner, was attacked by two other inmates on June 10, 2019 in prison and died.
Amir Salar Davoudi, Nasrin Sotoudeh, and Mohammad Najafi are among independent lawyers whose primary charges were solely due to their activities in human rights cases.
The Regime’s Determination to Destroy the Independence of the Iranian Bar Association
Apart from security harassment of independent lawyers, the process of weakening the independence of the Iranian Bar Association by the country’s judicial authorities is being pursued seriously. A process whose roots can be traced back several decades; from the establishment of a parallel body to the Bar Association called “The Center for Lawyers, Experts and Family Consultants of the Judiciary” in April 2000 to the addition of a note to Article 48 of the Criminal Procedure Code and restricting the choice of lawyer by political defendants from among the list of lawyers approved by the head of the judiciary in June 2015; or from the establishment of the “Supervision of Lawyers” department in the judiciary structure in October 2020 to the proposal for “investigation and inspection of the sources of law license issuance” in May 2021.
Nasser Zarafshan evaluates the issuance of a prohibition order for Farzaneh Zilabi separately from an unprecedented crackdown on lawyers themselves, on a broader level, and noting that a lawyer in the capacity of legal practice must be protected by “immunity” and “freedom” to be able to practice law, told the Human Rights Campaign in Iran: “A court can reject or accept a lawyer’s arguments, but a lawyer cannot be prevented from speaking through pressure and such methods. When there is a threat that due to professional legal work, through recourse to this provision (paragraph P of Article 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code), the lawyer loses his job, it means they have already prevented the performance of professional legal duties, and this is a clear example of censorship.”
Nasser Zarafshan, stating that a lawyer cannot be “prosecuted” for performing his professional duties, tells the Human Rights Campaign in Iran: “If recourse to paragraph P of Article 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code becomes a practice in the judiciary for prohibiting lawyers from practicing or invalidating their licenses, then lawyers no longer have freedom in the capacity of defense and immunity for lawyers in performing their professional duties has no meaning.”
Nasser Zarafshan, emphasizing that the issuance of a judicial order for Farzaneh Zilabi is a warning to the legal community, says: “If recourse to this provision of Article 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code becomes an innovation, then this will be like a sword over lawyers’ heads, especially in such cases, and the lawyer, fearing that through recourse to this provision he may lose his job and livelihood, will actually be unable to provide complete and free defense.”
According to Nasser Zarafshan, “The current issue is not limited to Ms. Zilabi’s case and is a general matter that requires bar associations and unions to be involved, since the primary duty of a professional organization is to protect professional interests.”
According to Nasser Zarafshan, the behavior of judicial authorities is in line with a long process to deprive and weaken the institution of the Iranian Bar Association and is in complete contradiction with the bill on the independence of the Iranian Bar Association.
The issuance of a prohibition order from practicing law for Farzaneh Zilabi, lawyer in the Haft Tappeh sugar factory case, prompted 366 lawyers to issue a statement declaring the issuance of this judicial order as “a strange innovation, contrary to law and justice” and demanding its revocation.
The Bar Association of Gilan Province also, in a statement in response to the issuance of this judicial order, considered this action equivalent to “disregard and disbelief in the principle of independence of this civil and professional institution” which Article 1 of the Bill on the Independence of the Bar Association emphasizes, and which requires immunity from threats and restrictions to professional practices by security and judicial agencies.
Source: Human Rights Campaign Iran
