Abol-Fazl Chezani: Hasty Execution of Death Sentence for Child Offender by Judiciary
An informed source, calling the execution of Abol-Fazl Chezani Sharahi’s qisas (retribution) sentence unjust, told Iran Human Rights Campaign that besides the defendant being a child at the time of the crime, the case contained numerous ambiguities that, had a request for retrial been accepted and reinvestigated, would have led to the annulment of the death sentence.
Abol-Fazl Chezani Sharahi, a resident of Qom, was hanged on the sixth of Tir (June 27, 2018) at age 20 in Qom Central Prison. Abol-Fazl, during a childish dispute when he was less than 15 years old, wounded one of his peers with a knife in Dey month 1392 (December 2013), and the injured person, who was his peer, died in the hospital ten days later.
The informed source told the campaign that despite the death of the injured person, ten days after the dispute and given the child’s status of the perpetrator, Qom’s Criminal Court sentenced him in 1393 (2014) for intentional murder to qisas (death sentence). This source expressed surprise at the issuance of the qisas ruling, telling the campaign: “Abol-Fazl was almost at the end of his 14th year during the dispute and had not yet turned 15. During the dispute, he stabbed one of his peers with a knife. The injured teenager was taken to the hospital and died after about ten days in the hospital. Here, aside from the issue of being a child, it is possible that death resulted from lack of medical care and the knife wounds alone did not cause death, but the judge issued a qisas sentence.”
The appeals court, three months after the first judgment in Azar 93 (December 2014), upheld the qisas sentence, and Abol-Fazl Chezani and his lawyer’s request for retrial was also rejected by the Supreme Court. The informed source told the campaign that after the sentence became final, to verify the defendant’s mental maturity and soundness at the time of committing the crime, the court referred the case to forensic medicine, but the Qom Province’s forensic medicine office, by asking ambiguous questions to an 18-year-old youth, determined that he had possessed mental maturity and soundness like an adult at age 15.
This source commented on how mental maturity and soundness were verified, telling the campaign: “When Abol-Fazl was taken to forensic medicine for assessment of mental maturity and soundness, he was about 18 years old and three years had passed since the crime. The forensic medicine office, by asking questions about murder, death, sin, and the time of sexual maturity, ruled that he three years earlier had possessed mental maturity and soundness, was not considered a child, and therefore execution was correct.”
Verifying the defendant’s mental maturity and soundness at the time of committing the crime is one of the innovations of the drafters of the new Islamic Penal Code and the subject of Article 91 of this law. According to this article, whenever minors under eighteen years old do not comprehend the nature of the crime committed or its prohibition, or there is doubt about their mental maturity and soundness, they are sentenced to lighter punishments. In the note to this article, it is stated that the court can request the opinion of forensic medicine or use any other method it deems appropriate to determine mental maturity and soundness.
The informed source told the campaign that the court determined the defendant’s mental maturity and development as sufficient, while he had no concept of his death sentence for up to two years after his arrest and believed his family’s claims about early release: “Abol-Fazl was simpler than his age, so much so that he was unaware his sentence was death, and for two years thought he would soon be released. That is, he understood even less than the average mental development of 15-year-olds. I don’t know how the forensic medicine confirmed his mental maturity and soundness.”
According to this source, even with acceptance of the issued ruling, there was still the possibility of settlement and gaining the consent of the victim’s family, but the judiciary hastily closed all possible ways to save his life: “Non-governmental organizations like Imam Ali Society had been pursuing his case, both for hiring a lawyer and moving the case forward and for gaining the victim family’s consent. They had made progress, but the judiciary’s interest in execution, especially the execution of young people, did what it does.”
Iran is among the few countries that continues to insist on executing child offenders. According to reports by anti-death penalty activists, since the beginning of this calendar year, four people have been executed (qisas) for committing murder under the age of eighteen, and dozens more are awaiting execution.
Source: Iran Human Rights Campaign
