Temporary Release and Continued Limbo for ‘Alireza Barmarzpournak’, Suspect in the ‘Ekbatan’ Case

With the temporary release of ‘Alireza Barmarzpournak’, the case known as ‘Ekbatan’ has resurfaced, but does ‘justice’ have any meaning in this process?

Published reports indicate the temporary release of Alireza Barmarzpournak on the evening of Wednesday, December 12, 1404 (solar calendar). His release on bail of 50 billion tomans has once again drawn attention to the controversial ‘Ekbatan neighborhood’ case.

The Ekbatan case originated during the 1401 protests (the ‘Woman, Life, Freedom’ uprising) in Tehran’s Ekbatan neighborhood, when a 21-year-old Basij member named ‘Arman Alivardi’ was injured and died two days later. More than 50 residents of this neighborhood were arrested; however, ultimately indictments were issued for 14 individuals, and 8 were charged with crimes including ‘premeditated murder’, ‘moharebeh’ (enmity against God), or ‘disturbing public order’.

In November 1403, six of the defendants, including Barmarzpournak, were sentenced to death by Branch 13 of Tehran’s Criminal Court One; however, in summer 1404, the Supreme Court of Iran (the highest judicial authority in Iran) overturned the death sentences of all defendants in this case and returned the file to Criminal Court One for ‘addressing deficiencies and ambiguities’.

Barmarzpournak’s temporary release is a response to the overturning of the death sentence and a bail request of 50 billion tomans, but this release (even if temporary and conditional) raises serious questions about justice in this case. Specifically: ‘Is there actually evidence to prove ‘participation in murder’? Legal representatives of the defendants have previously emphasized that they found no valid and independent evidence to prove this charge.

Has the legal process been ‘fair’ according to international standards? Reports indicate that torture and pressure to extract ‘forced confessions’ were used during the interrogation and detention of some defendants.’

What guarantee does temporary release have when a final fair and transparent verdict is not issued? This is not the end of the mentioned case; rather, ‘legal limbo’ continues. Despite more than two years having passed since the initial arrest and one year since the first death sentence was issued, the situation of the 8 defendants in the Ekbatan case remains shrouded in ambiguity.

Human rights reports say that neither have lawyers been fully allowed to mount a defense, nor have families been able to systematically follow up on the situation of their loved ones. In such an atmosphere, Barmarzpournak’s temporary release may be only part of the equation, but it provides no guarantee for achieving ‘true justice’.

The Ekbatan case exemplifies the fate of thousands of young protesters arrested after the 1401 protests. Death sentences followed by their reversal and legal limbo in the court process represent an abuse of judicial and security power to suppress protesters. Moreover, temporary release without judicial transparency not only creates hasty relief, but can lead to ‘silent suppression’ of continued protests by critics.

The Ekbatan case is not only a symbol of the suppression of public protests, but a warning bell for ‘judicial justice’ in Iran. Barmarzpournak’s temporary release, especially with an exorbitant bail amount, may be a temporary and media relief, but as long as clear evidence has not been released, an independent legal process free from security pressure has not taken place, and the rights of the defendants and their families have not been respected, one cannot say the case has ended.

Now, ‘justice’ depends on whether the judicial system (if it truly seeks justice and not show trials) acts by issuing verdicts based on valid and transparent evidence, while respecting fundamental civil rights. Otherwise, temporary release, even if brief, becomes a cover for the continuation of silent suppression.