The Iranian government's insistence on the death penalty and the heavy shadow of silence over the cases of convicts in remote prisons

Execution under the shadow of ignorance and silence 

The issuance and execution of several death sentences in prisons in different cities of Iran in the past month shows that the government and the judiciary in the Islamic Republic of Iran continue to insist on the inhumane use of the death penalty.

Most of the sentences are issued against prisoners who were imprisoned in prisons in sometimes remote and deprived cities, and their cases are being heard in courts in silence, in non-transparent conditions, and in an unfair process. According to statistics from the Iranian Human Rights Organization, at least 29 people have been executed in Iran in the three weeks since the beginning of 2022. The execution of Abdolbaset Rigi, a prisoner imprisoned in Zahedan Prison on January 17, 1402, was one of the most recent cases.

Mr. Rigi was arrested by the IRGC intelligence forces in the city of Saravan in early 2018. The process of arrest, interrogation, trial, and ultimately the issuance and execution of the death sentence of Abdul Baset Rigi was fraught with many ambiguities. Reports of torture to extract forced confessions against Mr. Rigi were published. Ultimately, Abdul Baset Rigi was sentenced to death twice in the Criminal Branch 1 of Sistan and Baluchestan Province for the murder of Judge Karimi and participation in the murder of Sheikh Ali Dehvari, 25 years in prison for collaborating with groups opposed to the regime, 10 years in prison for setting fire to a telecommunications tower, and 5 years in prison for carrying a Colt weapon. The charge of murdering Judge Karimi was raised despite the fact that Judge Karimi had been murdered 12 years before Abdul Baset Rigi was arrested. The dark history of the security and judicial apparatus in preparing cases for defendants in such cases, and of course the similarity of many of these scenarios, makes the silent and opaque course of the trial all the more meaningful; The lack of transparency and access to the details of the case and its proceedings in courts that perhaps few people know about and are in the center of attention ultimately increases the complexities and, of course, the appearance of the cruelty inflicted on the convicts and the taking of their lives.

It was not long ago that news broke that Seyyed Mohammad Javad Vafaei, a political prisoner imprisoned in Mashhad Prison, was sentenced to death. Babak Paknia, the lawyer defending 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, the charges brought against Mr. Mohammad Javad Vafaei, 26, based on a court order issued, are “corruption on earth through deliberate arson and destruction of certain places, including the government prison building.” Seyyed Mohammad Javad Vafaei, a boxing coach, was arrested by security forces in Mashhad in March 2019.

One of the common points of these cases, which the Islamic Republic’s judiciary and state media emphasize, is the accusation of “damaging and destroying public places” by the defendants or imposing the narrative of killing military and government forces on them. Undoubtedly, the amount of media attention and public opinion has a great impact on the transparency and focus of the case, and the opaque and dark path of such cases in lesser-known courts and prisons has caused these defendants to be exposed to double cruelty and the risk of losing their lives in the shadow of ignorance. The execution of Heydar Ghorbani, a Kurdish prisoner, and the issuance of a death sentence to Abbas Daris , a prisoner imprisoned in Mahshahr Prison, are recent examples of the judiciary’s use of the death penalty, especially in small towns and lesser-known prisons.

Supreme Court confirms death sentence of Kermanshahi environmentalist Boroumand Najafi

The Supreme Court's confirmation of the death sentence of Boroumand Najafi, a Kermanshahi environmentalist, sparked many reactions and once again brought up the issue of "retribution" and the relationship between the government and the judiciary. In a sense, this fundamental criticism of the retribution ruling, whether the legitimacy of this ruling (retribution) would not lead to the replacement of "personal revenge" with "criminal justice", was raised once again.

In August 2015, during a clash between environmentalists and illegal hunters in the Bisotun region of Kermanshah, one of the injured hunters eventually died. Mr. Boroumand Najafi, the environmentalist, is accused of shooting at the hunter. His case is being heard in the Criminal Court of Kermanshah. Finally, and with the opinion of the second investigator of the case, the charge of “complicity in premeditated murder” is considered for Mr. Najafi, and the court confirms the verdict in two sessions and sends it to the Supreme Court, which at this stage also confirms the verdict of the lower court. The situation that currently has actually given the final decision about the fate of Mr. Boroumand Najafi’s life to the victim’s family, and now the victim’s family’s consent is equivalent to Mr. Najafi being released from execution.

The increasing risk of Mr. Boroumand Najafi's execution has led to a wave of criticism of the possibility of the execution of this Kermanshah environmentalist in cyberspace and real-life, and even among some government figures. Reactions to the issuance of the death sentence for the environmentalist were actually the result of several important questions, perhaps the most important of which is the issue of "intentional or unintentional" killing of one of the illegal hunters, and of course other angles such as the issue of environmental protection or why the hunters were armed and questions of this kind. Regardless of the legal dimensions of the case and the nature of the trial process, the questions raised by the public more than any other case tied to the qisas verdict highlighted important aspects of the concept of "criminal justice" and its demarcation with "personal revenge". Why should the enforcement of the law and the imposition of punishment, from the perspective of criminal justice, which is a sovereign duty, be left to ordinary individuals or citizens, when personal motives or economic relations are the basis for the implementation or non-implementation of such harsh punishments?

Source: Iran Human Rights Campaign