p
E 1 T L
19S4
(2
BE
Amnesty International Publications
1 Easton Street 0 London WC1 X 8DJ 0 United Kingdom
BPOOOO81
Iran
Arnnesy Internationa l
continued to be con-
cerrted about the lar e
number of executions;
______________________________________ numerous allezauon.s
of torture and other fonr.s of ilI-treatxnent of prisoners; the imprisonment
of many prisoners of conscience; and the denial of fair trials to political
prisoners. The organization recorded 399 executions during 1983, but
reaarded this as a minimum figure; it was concerned that executions
took place after summary or arbitrary legal pro:eedings or, in some
instances, after none. Information was received concerning both the use
of torture to obtain confessions and information and whipping as a
judicial punishment.. The number of prisoners of conscience was not
known, but many of the thousands of political prisoners were held
because of their non-violent political or religious beliefs or activities, or
their relationship with people who had engaged in opposition to the
government. Arrest, detention and legal procedures all appeared to be
arbitrary. Detainees were held for long periods beforc being charged
and when trials did take place they lacked the safeguards ‘.vhich would
ensure a fair trial.
Throtighout the year Amnesty International frequently raised its con-
cerns with the authorities. On 23 August 1983 in a letter to Ayatollah
Ruhollah Khomeini it state&
t _ j:.
• jz;—' •“-‘ --- ‘ /
•• • ::c
-
333
“AjTtnestv International continues to be most seriously concerned
about reported human rights violations in L-an in con.ravention of
Iran's obligations as a State Party to the Internaticnal Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights and of many articles of Lrans o n Con-
stitution.. Amnesty International has accu.-nulated since 1979 a
large body of material doctmnenting these violatior s, including
personal tesiirnonies from former prisoners and relatives of prison-
ers who have left Iran . . The usual practice of .A.mnesty
International is to support all its statements and claims with
specL9c cases. This is not always possible in the case of Lan, because
much of the information Amnesty International receives concern-
ing individual cases is given in c6afidence, due to fear that the
revelation of names may endanger the prisoners or their fa.rni1ies
Amnesty International is, however, confident that the rna .erial in
its possession justifies its serious concern and would welcome an
opportunity to present further information to Your Excellency in
person and to discuss its concern with you and members of the
Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
No reply was received.
By the end of 1983 Amnesty International had recorded 5,447
executions in Iran since the revolution of February 1979, of which some
400 took place in 1983; the total number of executions was certainly
much higher, with hundreds of executions reportedly taking place
unannounced.
Those executed included members of the Baha'i faith, Kurd.s and
members of political groups opposed to the government In June, 59
Kurdish prisoners were reported to have been executed in Mahabad
prison in retaliation for an attack by members of the Kurdish
Feshmargah (Vanguard) forces, on the Mahabad garrison in May. Also
in June, 17 Baha'is were executed in Shiraz. Among them were 10
women, ranging from 18 to 54 years of age and including a mother and
her daughter. People were also executed on charges of espionage,
murder, and sexual and drug offences; from September to December
]983 more than 200 people convicted of drug -tra fTickingwe:e executed.
On 28 June the Iranian daily newspaper Jomhuri Eslami (Islamic
Republic) reported that a man who had killed his preguant .fe had been
executed by his father-in-law in the city of Qom. The dea sentence,
reportedly passed by a court in Qomn, was said by the r.ewspaper to be
the first to have been carried out under the Law of Retaliation, which
allows injured parties to choose between financial compensation or a
stipulated punishment and to carry out the punishment personally if
they choose to do so.
Amnesty International was particularly concerned that the decisions
to execute sometimes appeared to precede trial proceedings; that in
334
some cases no trial at all seemed to have taken place prior to execution
and that in those cases where trials did occur, they lacked the
safe uads necessary to ensure a fair trial. In May 1983 Arnries:v
Inte-national appealed to the Iranian authorities against the execution
bfmem'cers of the Tudeh (Communist) Party following a reported state-
ment on 10 May by Mohsen Rezai, the head of the PcsdarGn
(Rcvclutionary Guards) that “We are in no hurry to execute them, they
still have much to confess, hut by their confessions they have signed
their own death warrants.” The trials of Tudeh Party members did not
start until December 1983.
As in previous years, some people- initially sentenced to terms of
imprisonment were subsequently executed, in some cases apparently
without any further legal proceedings having taken place. Iraj Massali
Markieh, who had not engaged in political activities himself but was
related to someone actively opposed to the government, was arrested in
April 1982. At his first trial he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
He was tried again in March 1983 and executed in July 1983. The
charges against him were not known. As in most other cases, his family
did not learn of the execution until after it had taken place.
In some cases those executed were people under the age of 18.
Article 6(5) of the International Covenamon Civil arid Political Bichts
specifically prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for crimes
committed by persons under 18 years of age.
During the year Amnesty International interviewed many former
political prisoners who were living outside Iran. In every case they
reported the widespread use of torture in prisons throughout the
country. Tne most frequently reported forms of torture were whipping
with woven leather whips, electric cables, hosepipes and flexible
wooden strips bound with wire. Amnesty International also leamed of
relatives having been tortured in order to induce confessions or to obtain
information from prisoners and of mock executions. One of the former
prisoners interviewed was Hossein Dadkha.h who was arrested in
December 1982 and alleged that he had been tortured first in the
Pasdaran headquarters in Shahrood and subsequently inEvin prison in
Tehran. He escaped from custody in February 1983 and eventually
arrived in Paris where he was examined on 19 March 19S3 by two
doctors from Amnesty InternationaFs French Section Medical Com-
mission. In their detailed report they concluded that there was a strong
likelihood that the injuries they observed were the result of the torture
described by Hossein Dadkhah.
The use of torture to obtain information or to induce confessions is
prohibited by Article 38 of the Iranian Constitution, but whipping as a
judicial punishment is officially sanctioned and carried cut on a large
scale throughout the country, sometimes allegedly resulting in death.
Amnesty international regards this as cruel. inh rnan and de adine
punishment, as prohibited by Article 7 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Ri hts. The Human Rights Ccmrninee. set up to
monitor observance of the Covenant, has held that corporal punishment
is prohibited under the terms of Article 7.
Among the thousands of political prisoners he!d in Iran durina the
year many had been involved in violent opposition to the 2overrnenL
but Amnesty International believed that many others were prisoners of
conscience, imprisoned solely because of their non-violent political or
religious activities, or in some cases just because they were associated
with people actively opposed to the govemment It was not possible to
arrive at even a rough est ate of the number of prisoners of conscience,
because of the difficulty of obtaining information, because of the.
imprecision of the charges, even when these were known, and because
of the lack of fair trials, which in most cases prevented Amnesty
International from assessing the validity of the tfnarges with any
accuracy. Among those prisoners the organization believed to be
prisoners of conscience were Abolfazi Ghassemi, one of the leaders of
the iranian National Front and Secretary Genera] of the Iran Party,
who was elected to the Iranian parliament in the first elections after the
revolution (seeAmnes1y1fl(erflaflOflalReP0 1981, 1982, 1983). and
Moharnmad Taqi Darnghani. a member of the Iranian Bar Association
who had been detained without trial since January 1982.
Amnesty International also appealed for the release of Esrnail
Movassaghiyan, a 72-year-old writer, who was arrested together with
other members of his family in 1981, all having been apparently
suspected of membership of, or sympathy for, Rahe Kcre gar (Way of
the /Vorker), a non-violent left-wing party. Esmail Movassaghiyan was
sentenced to death, which was commuted to life impriscnrnent. The
date of his trial and the charges brought against him were no: known. He
was reported to be paralyzed in both legs, to suffer from serious stomach
and kidney problems and near blindness in both eyes. Amnesty
International believed that he had been ill-treated early in his imprison-
ment.
Following the banning of Baha'i institutions on 29 August 1983,
390 members of the Baha'i religion were arrested bringing the total of
imprisoned Baha'is in the country to more than 700. The Bahais are the
only substantial religious minority not recognized under the Iranian
Constitution- Those arrested were usually accused of espionage and
Zionism, apparently because the Baha'i international headquanerS are
in Israel, but Amnesty International believed that the cr,lv reason for
their imprisonment was their religious belief which is regarded as
heretical by the Iranian authontieS.
The situation of most prisoners of conscience, as cf all political
S.
336
prisoners in Iran. was exacerbated by their total lack of recourse to legal
prc:ection. Amnesty International beL eved that the guarantees necessary
for a fair trial were lacking in cases heard by Islamic Revolutionary
Tribunals, which dealt with all political cases. Defendants were not
usually told the exact charces agair.st them; they were not allowed
defence counsel of their choice or to call defence witnesses or to
question witnesses against them; most trials were closed to the public;
there was r o effective riahi of appeal and no effective presumption that
defendants were innocent until proved guilty. Many detainees were held
for long periods without charge or trial.
