Why is the Hamid Nouri case and the Stockholm court's ruling a historic turning point for Iranian litigants?

After 92 court sessions in the case of Hamid Nouri, a former judicial official and one of the accused in the killing of political prisoners in the 1960s, the Stockholm Court sentenced Hamid Nouri to life imprisonment.

Why is this trial important for the rights movement in Iran? What lessons did what happened during this trial teach Iranian rights activists and the public? What points does a comparison of the process of this trial and the mechanisms of the Swedish judicial system, which relies on international law, highlight with the judiciary of the Islamic Republic? It seems that the process of Hamid Nouri's trial and the resistance and persistence of the families who lost their loved ones more than thirty years ago created a strong and accurate image of the concept of rights advocacy in the eyes of public opinion in Iran, which will undoubtedly be reflected in the future.

Through a fair trial until the verdict is issued 

When we talk about "fair trial" in a judicial system, we are actually talking about an interconnected and systematic judicial chain in all structural and legal elements that ultimately results in the issuance of a verdict that is referred to as a "fair" or, in other words, "defensible" verdict.

The path taken in the Hamid Nouri case and the eventual issuance of a life sentence is a precise example of this continuous and systematic judicial chain that implemented a fair trial process under the rule of law and international judicial standards, and of course, a democratic political structure that guarantees the rule of law.

This legal chain, or in other words, the chain that strengthens the rule of law, is achieved in a process in which laws are drawn up in accordance with international standards and human rights, and as a result, a case is registered in such a judicial system in line with international legal standards, and then the trial process begins, and in fact it reaches the next link in the chain, namely the court, which ultimately issues the verdict. According to the Universal Jurisdiction Regulation in Sweden, the prosecutor, the plaintiff, or the convicted person can object to the court's decision and request a review. A path that is actually the product of the continuity of the rule of law chain.

What transpired during the more than 90 sessions of Hamid Nouri's trial was a clear picture of the fair handling of a human rights case. Specifically, in this case, among the outstanding examples of fair judicial process, the following can be mentioned:

• Holding 92 public court sessions (nearly a year)

• The defendant (Hamid Nouri) has permanent access to two lawyers.
• The defendant's (Hamid Nouri) access to mass media and also a tablet
• Possibility of complete and continuous defense of the defendant (Hamid Nouri) and his lawyers in court during various sessions

In addition to all these, it is necessary to mention the appropriate atmosphere of the court sessions, the careful and pre-announced planning, and the strict observance of the procedures for holding the sessions. Maintaining continuity and the accurate progress of a court process with such a large number of sessions and a large number of plaintiffs and witnesses is another aspect of a fair trial. This issue even affected the defendant's own defenses and the form of his positions towards the judge or the tone of the conversation with the interpreters. Although Hamid Nouri tried to mock the court in a certain tone on occasion, at many points, the defendant's acknowledgement of the fair conduct of the trial could be seen openly in his words.

From "five-minute" trials with pre-written verdicts to 92 court sessions 

The death sentences (state murders) of many political prisoners in the 1960s were issued in courts that lasted less than ten minutes and were carried out shortly after the verdict was issued. These state murders were carried out under the direct supervision of the "death commission" and with the cooperation of officials and agents such as Hamid Nouri. More than three decades after those years, the trial process and holding of trials related to political and civil activists and cases of so-called "security" officials are still being followed in the style of that era. Although the judicial system of the Islamic Republic of Iran has tried to present a different image of itself, the reality of the way it deals with political opponents and civil activists protesting against the rule of law has rendered the fabricated image of the judiciary ineffective.

The holding of Hamid Nouri's trial and its various aspects reflected among public opinion and political and civil activists have made it a matter of reflection to compare the conditions prevailing in the judicial system and the legal system of universal jurisdiction in Sweden and the Islamic Republic's rule in Iran. The observation that Hamid Nouri, a former official of the Islamic Republic's judiciary and convicted of participating in the murder of thousands of prisoners, can benefit from powers and facilities that are not even available to detainees in cases of political and ideological defendants in Iran, more than anything else, reveals the severity of discrimination in the courts of the Islamic Republic.

What we witness in dealing with most political and civil activists and prisoners of conscience during the judicial review of their cases is precisely the deprivation of the same things that are denied as a self-evident right of prisoners and contrary to international and legal standards in the Islamic Republic of Iran; from the prohibition of exercising the right to a lawyer of one's choice and the lack of the possibility of defending oneself in court to the lack of public hearings and the lack of access to the simplest means and facilities of mass communication.

After the first hearings of Hamid Nouri's trial began in Stockholm, Sweden, Saeed Dehghan, the Afkari family's lawyer, compared the process of holding the trial of Navid Afkari in the judicial system of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the trial of Hamid Nouri in a tweet, writing: "In the Swedish monarchy, the program of the Nouri trial includes 72 public sessions over 9 months with 3 lawyers and a punishment other than death, but in the Islamic system of Iran, the trial of Navid Afkari was a 3-hour closed session without a chosen lawyer, investigation, and permission to defend."

Even if we were to compare the process of examining Hamid Nouri's case with the process of holding trials for political and civil activists, and for example, consider the trial of a group of victims of the downing of a Ukrainian plane by the IRGC, we still see that the simplest legal standards and procedures were not observed during that trial. A trial in which the plaintiffs were not even allowed to see the faces of the defendants and were prohibited from attending the court session.

Hamid Nouri's Trial: A Historic Turning Point for Iranian Lawyers

As many plaintiffs and observers believe, regardless of the court's decision to sentence Hamid Nouri to life in prison, the very fact of holding this trial was in itself the greatest achievement for the litigation movement in Iran, which over the past forty years, despite all the hardships, hardships, and government pressure that continues to this day, succeeded in making their voices heard around the world and reviving the concept of litigation in the eyes of the public.

What led to the holding of 92 court sessions and the eventual issuance of life sentences was, above all, the recording and documentation of the events by the families of the plaintiffs and activists who, without giving up, did not stop recording the reality all these years and believed in the light of truth. Recording and recording those bitter realities in a time when the possibilities for this (recording and documenting discrimination) were much less than they are today, makes the importance and strong belief of these plaintiffs more meaningful than ever; an issue that gives credibility to the deep meaning of litigation in connection with the past and looking to the future.

Although the authoritarian government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has always tried to destroy the protest and demanding movements of society with security tricks, scenario-making, and narratives based on lies, it can never use this trick to trivialize and destroy the narrative and resistance of the claimants, because the narrative of the claim is based on recording and recording reality and believes in the ultimate goal of transparency and the implementation of justice in accordance with international standards and levels, human rights, and under the rule of law.

The Iranian advocacy movement also has an important impact. 

Source: Iran Human Rights Campaign