This report explores the ways in which the 2003 death of Iranian – Canadian photo journalist Zahra ( Ziba ) Kazemi illustrates chronic, systemic problems in Iran’s law enforcement and justice systems. The report examines specific violations of Iranian and international law that occurred in the Kazemi case and identifies numerous structural impediments to accountability for human rights violations in Iran, concluding that significant reform of the judicial system is needed to counter ongoing impunity for violators.
Table of Contents
Contents
II. METHODOLOGY
A. Sources
B. Report Structure
III. INTRODUCTION
A. Event Narrative
1. Kazemi’s Arrest
2. Detention in Evin Prison
3. Transfer to Baghiatollah al-Azam Hospital
IV. OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION EFFORTS INTO KAZEMI’S DEATH
A. Investigation and report by the Special Presidential Commission (SPC)
B. Investigation and Report of the Parliamentary Article 90 Commission
Findings of the Parliamentary Article 90 Commission
1. Illegality of Kazemi’s arrest under Iranian law
2. Interference with investigation efforts into Kazemi’s death
3. Interference with the Article 90’s Commission’s constitutionally mandated
public reporting mechanism
C. Trial and acquittal of Reza Ahmadi for the “semi-intentional” killing of
Kazemi
Key issues in Ahmadi trial
1. Witnesses
2. Evidence
3. Counsel’s access to information and court documents
4. Verdict
V. PROBLEMS ILLUSTRATED BY THE KAZEMI CASE
A. Structural impediments to ensuring accountability for human
rights violations
1. Absence of an impartial, independent judicial system
2. Broad and overlapping powers to carry out detention and interrogation
shared by multiple organs
3. Ineffectiveness of judicial remedies to address judicial violations
i. Judicial handling of the Kazemi case
4. Weak, ineffective human rights investigatory bodies
i. Parliamentary Article 90 Commission
ii. Other human rights investigatory bodies
5. Weakness of the Rule of Law
B. Violations of Domestic and International Law in the Kazemi Case
1. Torture
i. Torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is prohibited under
international law
ii. Torture is prohibited under Iranian domestic law
iii. Right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
was violated in the Kazemi case
2. Rights of the accused
i. Iran’s obligations under international law include protections for rights of
the accused
ii. A range of legal protections for the rights of the accused exist in Iranian
domestic law
iii. Failure to respect rights of the accused in the Kazemi case
3. State failure to protect and respect the right to life
C. Duty of states under international law to provide a remedy
1. Duty of states to investigate and prosecute violations
2. State and individual responsibility under international law
i. State responsibility for violations of international human rights law
ii. Individual responsibility for violations of international criminal law
I. Modes of Responsibility
II. Superior Responsibility
III. Superior Responsibility in the Kazemi case
VI. CONCLUSION
A. Strengthening mechanisms of accountability
B. Strengthening the rule of law
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In June 2003, photojournalist Zahra “Ziba” Kazemi was arrested in front of Tehran’s Evin Prison; she emerged after more than three days of interrogation with injuries that would prove fatal. Kazemi’s arrest and detention, and the aborted investigation efforts into her death, illustrate serious flaws in the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI)’s judicial and law enforcement systems.
A review of the information provided by both the Iranian government and individual witnesses raises serious doubts as to the legality of Kazemi’s arrest, detention and treatment in prison. These doubts, in turn, raise questions as to the independence and impartiality of the judicial system. Actions by judicial officials in the Kazemi case suggest that the judiciary, at least in circumstances where it works in conjunction with security officials, contributes to pervasive impunity for human rights violations and itself becomes a primary violator. Moreover, effective oversight and accountability are hindered by the current system in which a number of formal and informal security and intelligence organs appear to share overlapping authority to detain and interrogate accused persons.
In particular, efforts to determine the circumstances of Kazemi’s death were impeded by a series of improper actions by Tehran’s Chief Prosecutor, Saeed Mortazavi: coercion of witnesses to produce false or altered testimony; failure to cooperate with the investigation into Kazemi’s death, including failure to appear before a commission mandated by parliament to investigate Kazemi’s death; and alleged interference with the publication of that commission’s final report detailing its findings.
The trial of a junior-level intelligence ministry officer for the “semi-intentional killing” of Kazemi also displayed serious flaws, such as the court’s refusal to allow witnesses to be called (reportedly including at least twenty individuals who witnessed Kazemi’s initial arrest); failure to exclude or inquire further into visibly forged or altered documents submitted as evidence; and failure to provide counsel for the Kazemi family with access to the complete court file. Moreover, both the prosecution’s choice of defendant and the type of charge filed against him were sharply criticized by the victim’s family, who produced extensive evidence implicating other government officials.
The Kazemi case raises serious questions about whether Iran has satisfied its obligations under international law. These include guaranteeing the right to life, prohibiting the use of torture, the duty to thoroughly and impartially investigate alleged violations of international human rights law, and the duty to prevent or punish violations, through criminal sanctions if necessary. Available medical evidence indicates that Kazemi was beaten, tortured and raped while in state custody, making the explanation put forward by judiciary officials―that Kazemi became faint and fell, hitting her head―difficult to sustain. The evidence suggests that legal prohibitions against torture and protections for the rights of accused persons (under both international law and Iranian law) were violated.
The IHRDC concludes that significant and meaningful reform—particularly of the judicial system—is needed to strengthen accountability and the rule of law in Iran.