06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Legitimacy of the special cleric court system remains unclear ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 19595]

"The legitimacy of the special clerical court system continued to be subject to debate. The clerical courts, which investigate offenses and crimes committed by clerics and which are overseen directly by the supreme leader, are not provided by the constitution and operated outside the domain of the judiciary. In particular, critics alleged clerical courts were used to prosecute clerics for expressing controversial ideas and participating in activities outside the sphere of religion, such as journalism. The recommendations of the 2003 UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention included a call to abolish both the special clerical courts and the revolutionary courts.

In its 2003 report, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention noted failures of due process in the court system caused by the absence of a "culture of counsel" and the previous concentration of authority in the hands of a judge who prosecuted, investigated, and decided cases."

Document(s): Open document

08.03.2006 - Source: US Department of State

Unclear legitimacy of special clerical court system ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2005") [#46058],  [ID 18489]

"The legitimacy of the special clerical court system continued to be subject to debate. The clerical courts, which investigate offenses and crimes committed by clerics and which are overseen directly by the supreme leader, are not provided by the constitution and operated outside the domain of the judiciary. In particular critics alleged the clerical courts were used to prosecute clerics for expressing controversial ideas and participating in activities outside the sphere of religion, such as journalism. The recommendations of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention included a call to abolish both the special clerical courts and the revolutionary courts."

Document(s): Open document

08.2005 - Source: Freedom House

Judiciary ("Freedom in the World 2005") [#41317],  [ID 8426]

"[...]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

The clerical courts investigate offenses and crimes committed by clerics, are overseen directly by the Supreme Leader, and operated outside the domain of the judiciary/critics alleged that they are used to prosecute clerics for expressing controversial ideas ("Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2003") [#19747],  [ID 8427]

"The legitimacy of the Special Clerical Court (SCC) system continued to be a subject of debate. The clerical courts, which investigate offenses and crimes committed by clerics, and which are overseen directly by the Supreme Leader, were not provided for in the Constitution, and operated outside the domain of the judiciary. In particular, critics alleged that the clerical courts were used to prosecute clerics for expressing controversial ideas and for participating in activities outside the sphere of religion, such as journalism. The recommendations of the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention included a call to abolish both the Special Clerical Courts and the Revolutionary Courts, which were described as "responsible for many of the cases of arbitrary detention for crimes of opinion.""

Document(s): Open document

10.2002 - Source: UK Home Office

UK Home Office: Special Clerical Courts investigate offences and crimes that are committed by clerics and operate outside the domain of the judiciary ("Country Assessment - October 2002") [#9556],  [ID 8429]

"4.16. The legitimacy of the Special Clerical Court (SCC) system has been a subject of wide debate. The clerical courts, which were established in 1987 to investigate offences and crimes that are committed by clerics, are overseen directly by the Supreme Leader, are not provided for in the Constitution, and operate outside the domain of the judiciary. In particular, critics alleged that the clerical courts were used to prosecute certain clerics for expressing controversial ideas and for participating in activities outside the area of religion, including journalism. According to the US State Department on Human Rights Practices for 1999 in November 1999, former Interior Minister and Vice President Abdollah Nouri was sentenced by a branch of the SCC to a 5-year prison term for allegedly publishing “anti-Islamic articles, insulting government officials, promoting friendly relations with the United States,” and providing illegal publicity to dissident cleric Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri in the pages of Khordad, a newspaper that was established by Nouri in late 1998 and closed at the time of his arrest. Nouri used the public trial to attack the legitimacy of the SCC.

4.17. In April 1999 a branch of the SCC convicted Hojjatoleslam Mohsen Kadivar, a Shi'a cleric and popular seminary lecturer, to 18 months in prison for “dissemination of lies and confusing public opinion” in a series of broadcast interviews and newspaper articles. Kadivar advocated political reform and greater intellectual freedom and criticised the misuse of religion to maintain power. In an interview published in a newspaper, Kadivar criticised certain government officials for turning criticism against them into alleged crimes against the State. He also observed that such leaders “mistake themselves with Islam, with national interests, or with the interests of the system, and in this way believe that they should be immune from criticism.” He also allegedly criticised former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini and demonstrated support for dissident cleric Ayatollah Montazeri. Kadivar's trial was not open to the public."

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 the Press Courts, the 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 8428]

"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