08.2005 - Source: Freedom House

Judiciary ("Freedom in the World 2005") [#41317],  [ID 8421]

"[...]The judiciary is not independent. The Supreme Leader directly appoints the head of the judiciary, who in turn appoints senior judges. Civil courts provide some procedural safeguards, though judges often serve simultaneously as prosecutors during trials. Political and other sensitive cases are tried before Revolutionary Courts, where detainees are denied access to legal counsel and due process is ignored. Clerics who criticize the conservative establishment can be arrested and tried before the Special Court for the Clergy.[...]"

Document(s): Open document

25.02.2004 - Source: US Department of State

Trials in the Revolutionary Courts, in which crimes against national security and other principal offenses are heard, were notorious for their disregard of international standards of fairness ("Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2003") [#19747],  [ID 8422]

"There are several different court systems. The two most active are the traditional courts, which adjudicate civil and criminal offenses, and the Islamic Revolutionary Courts. The latter try offenses viewed as potentially threatening to the Islamic Republic, including threats to internal or external security, narcotics and economic crimes, and official corruption. [...]

Trials in the Revolutionary Courts, in which crimes against national security and other principal offenses are heard, were notorious for their disregard of international standards of fairness. Revolutionary Court judges acted as both prosecutor and judge in the same case, and judges were chosen in part based on their ideological commitment to the system. Pretrial detention often was prolonged and defendants lacked access to attorneys. Indictments often lacked clarity and included undefined offenses such as "anti-revolutionary behavior," "moral corruption," and "siding with global arrogance." Defendants did not have the right to confront their accusers. Secret or summary trials of 5 minutes duration occurred. Others were show trials that were intended merely to highlight a coerced public confession."

Document(s): Open document

10.2002 - Source: UK Home Office

UK Home Office: Revolutionary Courts investigate crimes against national security and other principal offences; trials have been notorious for their disregard of international standards of fairness ("Country Assessment - October 2002") [#9556],  [ID 8423]

"4.15. Trials in the Revolutionary Courts, where crimes against national security and other principal offences are heard, have been notorious for their disregard of international standards of fairness. Revolutionary Court judges have acted as prosecutor and judge in the same case, and judges have been chosen for their ideological commitment to the system. Pre-trial detention often is prolonged and defendants lack access to attorneys. Indictments have often lacked clarity and included undefined offences such as “anti-revolutionary behaviour,” “moral corruption,” and “siding with global arrogance.” Defendants do not have the right to confront their accusers. Others have been show trials that are intended merely to emphasise a coerced public confession. In 1992 the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights concluded that “the chronic abuses associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Courts are so numerous and so entrenched as to be beyond reform.” The Government has undertaken no major reform of the Revolutionary Court system since that report. The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights then concluded that these courts were associated with abuses."

Document(s): Open document

22.01.2002 - Source: Federal Foreign Office (Germany)

Stellungnahme v. 22.01.2002 an VG Stuttgart ("Stellungnahme v. 22.01.2002 an VG Stuttgart") [#6251],  [ID 8424]

Document(s): Open document

11.2001 - Source: Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation

00.11.2001 - ACCORD: Minimum international legal obligations in regard to fair trial often violated in Press Courts, Revolutionary Courts and the Special Court for the Clergy ("7th European Country of Origin Information Seminar Berlin, 11 - 12 June 2001: Final Report - Iran") [#7661],  [ID 8425]

"Art. 14 of the ICCPR sets out the minimum requirements for fair trial. In addition to a competent, independent and impartial court, these include prompt information of the individual about the charges against him; provision of adequate time for the preparation of his defence and communication with counsel of his own choosing, trial in a public hearing without undue delay, in the presence of the defendant and with assigned legal assistance in any case where the interests of justice so require. In addition, Art. 14 (5) of the ICCPR states that everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right that his conviction and sentence be reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law.

In practice, however, these minimum international legal obligations are often violated by procedural irregularities in the Press and ‘special’ courts, such as Islamic Revolutionary Courts and the Special Court for the Clergy. [...]

Art. 14 (5) of the ICCPR states that everyone convicted of a crime has the right to appeal the conviction and the sentence. Art. 44 of the Theologians’ Law, however, states that ”Verdicts of courts for theologians’ affairs shall be final...” and there is also only a limited scope for appeal in Islamic Revolutionary Courts which are based on the
defendant’s challenge of the competency of the judge or if the verdict deals with execution or corporal punishment. Such limitations do not conform to the internationally recognized right for a person convicted to challenge his or her conviction and sentence in a higher court.

In particular, the SCC is not subject to the jurisdiction of the judiciary. As it is an extraordinary court it violates international human rights standards which provide the right for people to be tried by ordinary courts using established judicial procedures."

Document(s): cois2001-irn.pdf