Human Rights in Islamic Republic of Iran - Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions

The record of correspondence for 2007 is excerpted from the official United Nations report, A/HRC/4/20/Add.1.

Islamic Republic of Iran: Death Sentence of Rostam Tajik

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international standards relating to the imposition of capital punishment

The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has failed to cooperate with the mandate that he has been given by the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights.

I would like to bring to the attention of Your Excellency’s Government the situation of Rostam Tajik, a 20-year-old Afghan national. He is scheduled for execution on 10 December 2005 for the May 2001 murder of Ms. Nafiseh Rafi'i, a crime he allegedly committed when he was less than 18 years old.

According to the information I have received, Rostom Tajik was an apprentice with Ms. Rafi’i’s husband. In May 2001, he reportedly went into the couple's house with the intention to burgle it. However, once inside, he killed Nafiseh Rafi’i and cut the throat of her 11-year-old daughter, whose screams alerted the neighbours. Rostam Tajik fled the scene. The daughter was taken to the hospital for treatment where her life was saved. Rostam Tajik was later arrested in Qazvin, west of Tehran. He was sentenced to qisas (retribution specified by the victim's family) by Branch 9 of the General Court of Esfahan for the murder of Ms. Rafi'i. The sentence was reportedly upheld by the Supreme Court.

If the information I have received is accurate, there would be grounds for serious concerns. As Your Excellency is aware of, this is not the first case of juvenile offender being sentenced to death and/or facing imminent execution I have received so far this year. Indeed, you will recall that I had addressed this issue in previous correspondence with the Government of Your Excellency, some of which you have provided partial responses to (see letter dated 9 February 2005, 21 April 2005, and joint communication sent on 7 August 2005 with the Chairperson of the Committee on the Rights of the Child).

While I do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these allegations, I would like to draw your attention once again to the fact that the execution of Rostom Tajik and any further executions of juvenile offenders are incompatible with the international legal obligations of the Islamic Republic of Iran under various instruments which I have been mandated to bring to the attention of Governments. The right to life of persons below eighteen years of age and the obligation of States to guarantee the enjoyment of this right to the maximum extent possible are both specifically expressed in Article 6 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Besides, Article 37(a) expressly provides that capital punishment shall not be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age. In addition, Article 6(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that the death penalty shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age.

In this connection, I would also remind your Excellency of the discussions of this issue that took place between your Government and the Committee on the Rights of the Child in January 2005, in which the delegation stated that all executions of persons who had committed crimes under the age of 18 had been halted. This was reiterated in a note verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran on 8 March 2005 to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in which it was stated:

“In recent years the enactment of the death penalty for individuals aged under18 has been halted and there has been no instance of such punishments for the category of youth. The legal ban on under-aged capital punishment has been incorporated into the draft Bill on Juvenile Courts, which is at present before parliament for ratification.”

I would respectfully urge the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to take all necessary measures to comply with international human rights law and to prevent executions which are inconsistent with accepted standards of international human rights law. These measures were, in my view, accurately reflected in the recommendations issued by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, which called on Iran in January 2005 to “immediately suspend the execution of all death penalties imposed on persons for having committed a crime before the age of 18, to take the appropriate legal measures to convert them to penalties in conformity with the provisions of the Convention and to abolish the death penalty as a sentence imposed on persons for having committed crimes before the age of 18, as required by article 37 of the Convention.” (See CRC/C/15/Add. 254, 28 January 2005, at para. 30).

Finally, I would respectfully reiterate my requests for a comprehensive and detailed indication of the details of individuals who have been sentenced to death for crimes committed when they were less than eighteen years of age, even if such sentences have not yet been confirmed by the Supreme Court. These requests were contained in the above-mentioned previous communications sent to the Government of Your Excellency, in relation to the situation of at least 30 individuals under the age of 18 who were reportedly sentenced to death and were held in juvenile detention centres in Tehran and Raja’I Shahr. It is regrettable that no response has yet been received.

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international standards relating to the imposition of capital punishment

Character of reply: Allegations rejected but without adequate substantiation

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the information provided by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, the SR would reiterate that, in light of the importance attached to the issue and the need for accuracy and certainty, he would be most grateful if the Government could provide a copy of Ms. Nazanin’s birth certificate, passport or other official document confirming that she was over 18 at the time of the crime.

Urgent appeal dated 10 February 2006 sent with the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and Special Rapporteur on violence against women.

We would like to draw the attention of your Government to information we have received regarding Ms. Nazanin, aged 18, who has reportedly been sentenced to death for a homicide committed when she was seventeen. According to the information we have received, on 3 January 2006, Nazanin was sentenced to death for murder by a criminal court, after she reportedly admitted stabbing to death one of three men who attempted to rape her and her 16-year-old niece in a park in Karaj in March 2005. She was seventeen at the time. Her sentence is subject to review by the Court of Appeal, and if upheld, to confirmation by the Supreme Court.

In this connection, we would like to draw your attention to the positive developments in a similarly situated case recently raised with your Excellency’s Government by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. In note no. 331-2/3459, dated 17 January 2006, your Excellency’s Government informs the Special Rapporteur that “according to information received from the Judiciary of the Islamic Republic of Iran legal counsels of Ms. Darabi appealed to the Supreme Court and raised the issue of her age at the time of the crime. On this basis the Supreme Court has overturned the sentence and has referred it to the Juvenile Legal Center for due consideration.

We wish to welcome the steps taken in Ms. Darabi’s case. We urge your Excellency’s Government to ensure on its own motion that Ms. Nazanin’s age at the time of the offence is taken into account in appeals proceedings and the death sentence overturned, whether or not her lawyer raises the issue. It would appear that only this course of action will ensure compliance of your Government with its international human rights obligations.

Response of the Government of Islamic Republic of Iran dated 22 February 2006 to an urgent appeal dated 10 February 2006

With reference to the letter dated 10 February 2006 of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Execution, the Special Rapporteur on the Question of Torture and the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, Its Causes and Consequences, the Islamic Republic of Iran has the honour to inform the Special Rapportuers that according to information received from the Judiciary of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ms. Nazanin was born in 1986. She, along with her niece, has committed murder about 9 months ago, when she was over 19 years of age. According to the records of the court, the crime has been committed based on personal .reasons and not in self defense as it has been reported to the Special Rapporteurs.

She has gone through due legal proceeding and the Criminal Court of the province bas reached its verdict, but the sentence must be presented to the Supreme Court and upon confirmation of the latter, it must be signed by the Head of the Judiciary. Therefore the case is still open and under consideration.

Follow-up letter dated 17 march 2006 to the urgent appeal dated 10 February 2006

I wish to refer to you letter dated 22 February 2006 in response to my communication of 10 February relating to the case of ms. Nazanin in which you mentioned that this person was born in 1986 and that “she has committed murder about 9 months ago, when she was over 19 years of age”.

I greatly appreciate the information which your Excellency’s Government has supplied in this particular case. Because of the importance attached to the issue and the need to accuracy and certainty, I would be most grateful if you could provide me with a copy of her birth certificate, passport or other official document confirming that she was over 18 at the time of the crime.

Additional response of the Government of Islamic Republic of Iran dated 16 May 2006 to an urgent appeal dated 22 Feburary 2006

With reference to its note verbale No. 3865 dated 22 February 2006, the Islamic Republic of Iran has the honour to inform the Special Rapporteurs that the court has ruled out self defense and sentenced Ms. Nazanin to retaliation. The sentence has been referred to the Supreme Court for final decision. Should the Supreme Court endorse the verdict, the case will be referred to an ad hoc commission of reconciliation to acquire the consent of the victim's heirs to commute the verdict to financial compensation. This is a lengthy process; therefore the legal process is not yet completed and the verdict stays for the time being.

Islamic Republic of Iran: Execution of Hojjat Zamani and Death Sentences of Valiallah Feyz Mahdavi, Saeed Masuri, and Gholamhossein Kalbi

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international standards relating to the imposition of capital punishment

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the information provided the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding the execution of Hojjat Zamani and the death sentences of Valiallah Feyz Mahdavi, Saeed Masuri, and Gholamhossein Kalbi.

However, the SR would note that the information provided does not reflect the thorough investigation of allegations that confessions were extracted with torture or that due process rights were violated during trial proceedings.

In addition, the SR would note that the information provided does not address a number of the more general issues raised in his communications, including the rules and practices governing (i) the handing over of mortal remains to the families of those executed and (ii) the scheduling of executions and the information provided death row inmates, their families, their lawyers and the public at large with regard to executions.

Urgent appeal dated 22 February 2006 sent with the Special Rapporteur on Torture

We would like to draw the attention of your Government to information we have received regarding four members of the People’s Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI) sentenced to death after having been allegedly tortured in pre-trial detention. One of the men, Mr. Hojjat Zamani, was reportedly recently executed, while the other three, Messrs. Valiallah Feyz Mahdavi, Saeed Masuri, and Gholamhossein Kalbi, are said to be at imminent risk of execution.

Hojjat Zamani, aged 30, was most recently detained in Ghordasht prison in Karaj. We have received reports that intelligence agents removed Hojjat Zamani from his ward on 6 February 2006. He was hanged the following morning at Ghordasht Prison.

Hojjat Zamani was the subject of two communications by us to your Excellency’s Government, on 24 September 2004 and 12 May 2005. In those communications, we expressed the concern that Hojjat Zamani might have been sentenced to death following a trial in which his right to effective counsel was denied, in particular because judicial officials did not cooperate with his appointed lawyer. We also brought to your Government’s attention reports that he was tortured in Evin Prison in order to force him to confess to the national security-related offences he was convicted of. We urged your Excellency’s Government to suspend the capital punishment against him until the allegations of torture had been thoroughly investigated and all doubts in this respect dispelled. We received no response to our queries. (Your Excellency’s Government replied to our communications on 24 May and 8 August 2005, but this reply only referred to the case of Esmaeil Mohammadi).

Valiallah Feyz Mahdavi, Saeed Masuri, and Gholamhossein Kalbi are members of the People’s Mojahedin of Iran sentenced to death on national security related charges. They are also held at Ghordasht prison. Their death sentences have reportedly been confirmed by the Supreme Court.

We would further like to draw the attention of your Government to information we have received regarding Mr. Esmaeil Mohammadi. He was the subject of two urgent appeals sent on 8 September 2004 and 12 May 2005. In those communications, we brought to your Excellency’s attention allegations that his death sentence was based on a confession extracted by torture. As in the case of Hojjat Zamani, we urged your Excellency’s Government to suspend the capital punishment against him until the allegations of torture had been thoroughly investigated and all doubts in this respect dispelled. Your Excellency’s Government replied on 24 May and 8 August 2005. In the latter communication, your Government informed us that he had been sentenced to death “after due legal process”, but that “[n]evertheless, the sentence has been put on hold after further consideration”. We have received reports that Esmail Mohammadi was executed on 3 September 2005 (i.e. less than a month after your assurances), in Oroumiye Prison, in western Iran. Some days later, his family went to the prison to visit him, but were told that he had been executed. They were reportedly given his clothes and personal effects, but not his body.

We have recalled the principles applicable under international law to these cases in numerous communications to your Government, including those in the cases of Hojjat Zamani and Esmaeil Mohammadi of 8 September 2004 and 12 May 2005. These include that there is an absolute prohibition on torture; that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made; that in capital punishment cases, the obligation to observe rigorously all the guarantees for a fair trial set out in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) admits of no exception; and that these guarantees include the right not to be compelled to confess guilt and the right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of one’s defence.

In light of the apparent lack of transparency with regard to the process followed in the cases of Hojjat Zamani and Esmaeil Mohammadi between confirmation of the death sentence by the Supreme Court and their execution, we would like to additionally draw your attention to the fact that a person’s due process rights and the right to be treated humanely do not come to an end with the imposition of the death sentence. A lack of transparency regarding the post-conviction process and timetable for execution implicates two sets of rights. The first is that the failure to provide notice to the accused of the timing of his execution may undermine due process rights. Most notably, in addition to “the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal” (ICCPR Article 14(5)) – which Hojjat Zamani and Esmaeil Mohammadi were reportedly able to exercise – the death row prisoner has “the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence” (ICCPR Article 6(4)). The uncertainty and seclusion inflicted by opaque processes compromise this right. In addition, and regardless of the actual due process consequences, to conceal from someone the facts of their preordained fate will constitute inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. There are, of course, legitimate interests in security and privacy that necessarily limit access to death row and the publicity accorded to some information. However, these interests can and must be accommodated without violating rights.

Moreover, for the prisoner and for his or her family a lack of transparency in what is already a harrowing experience — waiting for one’s execution — can result in “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” within the meaning of Article 7 of the ICCPR. The views of the Human Rights Committee in a recent decision that responded to an individual complaint of the mother of an executed Belarusian prisoner illustrate this matter. The Human Rights Committee found that “[t]he complete secrecy surrounding the date of execution, and the place of burial and the refusal to hand over the body for burial have the effect of intimidating or punishing families by intentionally leaving them in a state of uncertainty and mental distress.” This amounted to inhuman treatment in violation of Article 7 of the ICCPR (Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 886/1999: Belarus, para. 10.2, 77th Sess., April 28, 2003, CCPR/C/77/D/886/1999).

We therefore urge your Excellency’s Government to take all necessary measures to guarantee that the rights under international law of Valiallah Feyz Mahdavi, Saeed Masuri, and Gholamhossein Kalbi are respected. This can only mean

(i) providing full information to the three men, their families and lawyers, as well as to us about their outstanding remedies against capital punishment, and about the process to be followed up to their execution;

(ii) reviewing the fairness of their trial, including whether the right to assistance by counsel was respected at all stages, whether there were periods of incommunicado detention, and whether allegations of torture have been thoroughly investigated and all doubts in this respect dispelled;

(iii) suspension of the capital punishment against the three men until the two requirements above have been fully met.

In view of the urgency of the matter, we would appreciate an expeditious response on the initial steps taken by your Excellency’s Government, in addition to subsequent updates on developments in these cases.

Moreover, it is our responsibility under the mandates provided to us by the Commission on Human Rights and reinforced by the appropriate resolutions of the General Assembly, to seek to clarify all cases brought to our attention. Since we are expected to report on these cases to the Commission, we would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters:

1. Are the facts alleged in the above summary with regard to the executions of Hojjat Zamani and Esmaeil Mohammadi accurate?

2. What rules govern the scheduling of executions and the information of death row inmates, their families, their lawyers and the public at large with regard to executions?

3. Why was Esmaeil Mohammadi’s family denied hand-over of his mortal remains? And has the family of Hojjat Zamani been officially informed of his execution and been handed over his body?

We would further like to reiterate the questions asked in our communication of 12 May 2005, which have remained unanswered in your Government’s communications of 24 May and 8 August 2005.

Response of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran dated 15 March 2006

With reference to letter dated 22 February 2006 of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions and the Special Rapporteur on the Question of Torture, the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran has the honour to enclose herewith the information received from the Judiciary of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

1- Mr. Esmaeil Mohammmadi: According to the local judicial authority of Western Azerbaijan, Mr. Esmaei1 Mohammadi had been charged with terrorist armed activities which resulted in the murder of an individual by the name of Ebrahim Badeh Bedast. After legal proceeding he had been sentenced to execution. Based on his appeal, his sentence was put on hold for further consideration. Appellate court rejected his appeal and the verdict was carried out after legal formalities

2- Mr. Hojjat Zamani: He has been charged with bombing the property of the Tehran Revolutionary Court that caused 3 casualties and 22 injured, possession of illegal weapons, terrorist activities, escaping from the prison and illegal departure from the country. He was sentenced to execution. The verdict bas been upheld by the Supreme Court and was carried out in the presence of the victims' families.

3- Mr. Feyz Mahdavi had undergone military training in Iraq and bas gone back to Iran carrying explosives. He was charged with measures against internal security of the state and sentenced to execution, He has not appealed the verdict and thus it was upheld by the Supreme Court, however the sentence has not been carried out and it is still pending for consideration for his amnesty.

4- Mr. Saeed Masuri and Gholamhossein Kalbi have been charged with measures against internal security of the state due to their participation in terrorist activities of MKO terrorist group and possession of illegal weapons raid the Ministry of information and the seat of the Supreme Leader. They have been sentenced to execution but their case has been sent to relevant authorities for possible amnesty. The verdict has been so far stayed.

We would like to draw the attention of your Government to new information we have received regarding Valiollah Feiz Mahdavi who is said to be at imminent risk of execution. We remind your Excellency’s Government that we already intervened in this case in our communication dated 22 February 2006.

According to the information received, Valiollah Feiz Mahdavi was arrested in 2001 by Intelligence Ministry agents and charged with undermining national security and attempting to join the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran in Iraq. He was kept in solitary confinement for 546 days, during which time he was interrogated and subjected to torture. He was reportedly kept in a little, dimly lit cell and when moved for any purpose he was shackled, cuffed and blindfolded. Valiollah Feiz Mahdavi was sentenced to death by the 26th branch of the Revolutionary Court in Tehran. At his trial, he reportedly rejected all the charges against him and had no legal representation. He is now being held in Gohardasht prison in Karaj. It has been brought to our attention that over the past two weeks, the prison chief and his executive deputy told Valiollah Feiz Mahdavi that he would be executed during the Persian New Year holidays.

As your Excellency will be aware, the principles applicable under international law to this case include the absolute prohibition of torture; moreover, any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made. We also recall that in capital punishment cases the obligation to observe rigorously all the guarantees for a fair trial set out in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) admits of no exception; and that these guarantees include the right not to be compelled to confess guilt and the right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of one’s defence.

Finally, we wish to remind your Excellency’s Government that the death row prisoner has the right to “seek pardon or commutation of the sentence” (ICCPR art 6 (4)) and that the failure to provide notice to the accused of the timing of his execution may compromise this right.

In our previous communication, we asked your Excellency’s Government to take all necessary measures to review the fairness of Valiollah Feiz Mahdavi’s trial, including whether the right to assistance by counsel was respected at all stages, whether there were periods of incommunicado detention, and whether allegations of torture have been thoroughly investigated and all doubts in this respect dispelled. Your Excellency’s response dated 15 March 2006 did not provide information relating to the concerns we had raised and mentioned that Feiz Mahdavi was charged with measures against internal security of the state and sentenced to be executed; it also explained that Valiollah Feiz Mahdavi’s sentence had not been carried out and that it was still pending for consideration of an amnesty.

In view of the urgency of the matter, we urge your Excellency’s Government to stay Valiollah Feiz Mahdavi’s execution until the allegations of torture and unfair trial have been thoroughly investigated and all doubts in this respect dispelled.

Response of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran dated 29 June 2006 to an urgent appeal dated 10 May 2006

With reference to the letter dated 10 May 2006 of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions and the Special Rapporteur on the Question of Torture, the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran has the honour to draw the attention of the Special Rapporteurs to its note verbale No. 4174 of 15 March 2006 in which the Mission stated: "Mr. Feyz Mahdavi has undergone military training in Iraq and has gone back to Iran carrying explosives. He was charged with measures against internal security of the state and sentenced to execution. He has not appealed the verdict and thus it was upheld by the Supreme Court, however the sentence has not been carried out and it is still pending for consideration for his amnesty".

It is worth adding that a process of amnesty for him has been initiated by relevant department in the Office of Public Prosecutor and the case is under consideration for this purpose. The sentence would not be carried out until this process reaches a clear conclusion on the case.

It is also to be noted that the seriousness of the crime (undergoing military training by Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein aiming the security of the state, and carrying explosives in a suitcase) has to be taken into account. He has been charged by the competent court (the only authority legally authorized to do this in the system of justice in Iran) and there has been no record of him being tortured, held in incommunicado or deprived from legal defense.

Islamic Republic of Iran: Death Sentences of Khaled Hardani, Shahram Pour Mansouri, and Farhang Pour Mansouri

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international standards relating to the imposition of capital punishment

I would like to draw the attention of your Government to information I have received regarding Khaled Hardani and his two brothers-in-law Shahram and Farhang Pour Mansouri who have been sentenced to death for their attempt in hijacking an aircraft in January 2001. Reports indicate that at the time of hijacking, Shahram Pour Mansouri was aged 17.

According to the information received, Khaled Hardani was one of 11 members of an extended family who attempted to commandeer a scheduled flight between the southern Iranian cities of Ahvaz and Bandar Abbas, and force it to fly to Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. Security guards already on board ended the hijack attempt by shooting Khaled Hardani while the plane was still on the runway at Ahvaz. Khaled Hardani had persuaded Shahram and Farhang Pourmansouri's to board the plane without telling them his plans, and they reportedly only intervened to help him as the security guards opened fire.

The three men were sentenced to death on charges of "acts against national security" (eqdam ‘aleyhe amniyat) and Moharebeh, or enmity with God, rather than charges relating specifically to hijacking an aircraft.

The death sentences have been upheld by the Supreme Court, while the Amnesty and Clemency Commission (Komisyon-e ‘Afv va Bakhshoudegi) has rejected an application for a pardon from their lawyer.

The Head of the Judiciary ordered the executions of all three men to be stayed because of Shahram Pour Mansouri’s age. In this context, I urge your Excellency’s Government to ensure that because of his age at the time of the offence the death sentence is commuted in conformity with the relevant international human rights obligations undertaken by your Government. The execution of a person for a crime committed while a juvenile would clearly violate the terms of both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

It is my responsibility under the mandate provided to me by the Commission on Human Rights and reinforced by the appropriate resolutions of the General Assembly, to seek to clarify all such cases brought to my attention. Since I am expected to report on these cases to the Commission, I would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations. I would appreciate a response on these matters before any irreversible steps are taken in relation to the fate of the accused individuals. I undertake to ensure that your Government’s response is accurately reflected in the reports I will submit to the Commission on Human Rights for its consideration.

Islamic Republic of Iran: Death Sentences of Jaafar Sawari, Risan Sawari, and Abdulredha Nawaseri

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international standards relating to the imposition of capital punishment

I would like to draw the attention of your Government to information I have received regarding Messrs. Jaafar Sawari, Risan Sawari and Abdulredha Nawaseri, three men reportedly sentenced to death and at imminent risk of execution.

According to the reports received, Jaafar Sawari, Risan Sawari and Abdulredha Nawaseri were sentenced to death or had their death sentences confirmed by Branch 3 of the Revolutionary Court in Ahvaz on 10 June 2006. It would appear that the three men and others were tried on charges related to bomb explosions in Ahvaz City in June and October 2005, which killed at least 14 people, as well as explosions at oil installations. They were among nine men shown making a confession of responsibility for these terrorist attacks on Khuzestan Provincial TV on 1 March 2006. Among them were also Mehdi Nawaseri and Ali Awdeh Afrawi, who were hanged in public the following morning.

Reports indicate that the lawyers of Jaafar Sawari, Risan Sawari and Abdulredha Nawaseri and their co-accused were not allowed to adequately prepare the defense of their clients: they were notified of the trial date only one or two days in advance, and could not study their clients' files fully. Moreover, they were not allowed to meet in private with their clients despite their requests to this effect. Seven of the lawyers who appeared before Branch 3 of the Revolutionary Court in this case brought these shortcomings of the proceedings to the attention of the president of the court in writing, but it would appear that their complaint has remained without any effect. Because of the secrecy reportedly surrounding the trial, my sources have not been able to inform me about the precise procedural posture of the cases of Jaafar Sawari, Risan Sawari and Abdulredha Nawaseri, whether they have appealed the death sentence, and about what remedies they still have at their disposal.

While I am fully aware of the serious nature of the crimes these three men have been found guilty of, I respectfully remind your Excellency that “in capital punishment cases, the obligation of States parties to observe rigorously all the guarantees for a fair trial set out in Article 14 of the (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) admits of no exception” (Little v. Jamaica, communication no. 283/1988, Views of the Human Rights Committee of 19 November 1991, para. 10). Relevant to the cases at issue, these guarantees include the right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of one’s defence and the right to communicate in private with counsel of one’s own choosing.

Article 14 also enshrines the right of every criminal defendant to a “public hearing” and requires that “any judgment rendered in a criminal case […] be made public”. While the courts may exclude the public “from all or part of a trial” where publicity would imperil national security under the specific circumstances of the case at hand, a trial implicating a national security interest does not automatically justify a wholly secret trial. Moreover, secrecy may never extend beyond the hearing itself. The requirement that the judgment be made public allows only the narrowest of exceptions which clearly find no application in the case at issue.

I urge your Excellency’s Government to take all necessary measures to guarantee that the rights under international law of Jaafar Sawari, Risan Sawari and Abdulredha Nawaseri are respected. Considering the irremediable nature of capital punishment, this can only mean suspension of the death sentence against the three men until the complaints regarding their right to be assisted by counsel in the adequate preparation of their defense have been thoroughly investigated and all doubts in this respect dispelled.

In view of the urgency of the matter, I would appreciate a response on the initial steps taken by your Excellency’s Government, including confirmation that Jaafar Sawari, Risan Sawari and Abdulredha Nawaseri are still alive.

Moreover, it is my responsibility under the mandate provided to me by the Commission on Human Rights and reinforced by the appropriate resolutions of the General Assembly, to seek to clarify all cases brought to my attention. Since I am expected to report on these cases to the Human Rights Council, I would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters:

2. Please provide full details with regard to the limitations allegedly placed on the lawyers assisting Jaafar Sawari, Risan Sawari and Abdulredha Nawaseri in the consultations with their clients and in the preparation of the defense. Please explain how the lawyers’ complaint in this regard has been dealt with.

3. Please provide details regarding the publicity of the trial of Jaafar Sawari, Risan Sawari and Abdulredha Nawaseri and of the sentences imposed on them. Please elaborate on the steps taken to make information about the trial, judgment and sentence available to the public in Iran.

4. Please provide details concerning the current procedural posture of the cases of Jaafar Sawari, Risan Sawari and Abdulredha Nawaseri, on the legal remedies already exercised by them and those still open to them to challenge their conviction and the sentence imposed.

Islamic Republic of Iran: Death Sentences of Seven Men in Connection with Bombings in Khuzestan Province

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international standards relating to the imposition of capital punishment

I would like to draw the attention of your Government to information I have received regarding Messrs Yahia Nasseri, Nazem Boraihi, Abdolemam Zaeri, Abdolzahar Olichi, Hamza Sawaeri, Ali Helfi and Zamel Bawi who were reportedly sentenced to death and are at imminent risk of execution. According to the information received:

They were sentenced to death by the Islamic Revolutionary Court in Ahwaz on 7 and 8 June. They are believed to be at imminent risk of execution as they are awaiting an execution order from the “Supreme Court” in Tehran. The seven men were tried on charges related to last October bombings in Ahwaz and other cities in Khuzestan province. Reports indicate that the only evidence presented by the prosecutors related to issues such as advocating a boycott of the last presidential elections, writing and managing university newspapers and advocating human rights of Arab minority and hence "endangering the security of the state". Other charges included distributing CDs containing human rights reports published by the Ahwaz Human Rights Organization, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

Concern is also expressed that they were tried in secret. Therefore, I do not know whether the men have appealed their death sentence and which remedies they had at their disposal.

While I do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these allegations, I respectfully remind your Excellency that “in capital punishment cases, the obligation of States parties to observe rigorously all the guarantees for a fair trial set out in Article 14 of the (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) admits of no exception” (Little v. Jamaica, communication no. 283/1988, Views of the Human Rights Committee of 19 November 1991, para. 10). Relevant to the cases at issue, these guarantees include right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

Article 14 enshrines the right of every criminal defendant to a “public hearing” and requires that “any judgment rendered in a criminal case […] be made public”. While the courts may exclude the public “from all or part of a trial” where publicity would imperil national security under the specific circumstances of the case at hand, a trial implicating a national security interest does not automatically justify a wholly secret trial. Moreover, secrecy may never extend beyond the hearing itself. The requirement that the judgment be made public allows only the narrowest of exceptions which clearly find no application in the case at issue.

I urge your Excellency’s Government to take all necessary measures to guarantee that the rights under international law of Yahia Nasseri, Nazem Boraihi, Abdolemam Zaeri, Abdolzahar Olichi, Hamza Sawaeri, Ali Helfi, and Zamel Bawi are respected. Considering the irremediable nature of capital punishment, this can only mean suspension of the death sentence against the three men until the complaints regarding their right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law have been thoroughly investigated and all doubts in this respect dispelled.

In view of the urgency of the matter, I would appreciate a response on the initial steps taken by your Excellency’s Government, including confirmation that Yahia Nasseri, Nazem Boraihi, Abdolemam Zaeri, Abdolzahar Olichi, Hamza Sawaeri, Ali Helfi, and Zamel Bawi are still alive.

2. Please provide details regarding the information made publicly available in relation to the trial of Yahia Nasseri, Nazem Boraihi, Abdolemam Zaeri, Abdolzahar Olichi, Hamza Sawaeri, Ali Helfi, and Zamel Bawi and to the sentences imposed on them.

3. Please provide details of any avenues of appeal already exercised by the defendants and those still open to them to challenge their conviction and sentence.

Islamic Republic of Iran: Death Sentences and Risk of Death Sentences against 22 Ahwazi Arab Activists

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international standards relating to the imposition of capital punishment

I would like to draw the attention of your Government to information I have received regarding the reported trial on charges carrying capital punishment of 22 Ahwazi Arab activists. According to the information received, the following 20 men and two women were arrested by your Excellency’s Government in June 2006: Ali Motirijejad (m), Abdullh Solymani (m), Mlik Banitamimt (m), Abolamir Farjaolh Chaabi (m), Mohammad Chaabpour (m), Khalaf Khozairi (m), Alireza Asakereh (m), Majed Albog Hbaish (m), Ghasem Salamat (m), Abdolreza Sanawati (m), Said Hamydan (m), Fahimeh Esmaili Badawi (f), Toameh Chaab (m), Nasser Farajolah Kia (m), Majid Mazaal (m), Jalil Moghadam (m), Mehdi Saad Nasab (m), Hoda Hedayati Rezaie (Hawashemi) (f), Sharif Asei Nawaseri (m), Jalil Boraihi (m), Mohammad Sawari (m), and Abdolreza Salman Delfi (m).

It is my understanding that they are accused of having received training in Iraq by officials of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Israel, and of having returned to Iran with the intent to destabilize the country, to sabotage oil installations and to attempt to overthrow Your Government. They are allegedly being tried in secret. According to the reports received, the competent prosecutor-general, Mr. Iraj Amirkhani, has given the official news agency ISNA an interview announcing that he was seeking the death penalty for all the accused.

It is not my general practice to write to Governments with regard to cases of criminal defendants who have not been sentenced to death yet. In the present case, however, due to the secrecy surrounding these proceedings, I see myself forced to write to you already at this stage. My concerns are heightened by the failure of your Excellency’s Government to reply to the concerns I raised in letters of 30 June and 2 August 2006 regarding 10 further Ahwazi activists (Yahia Nasseri and Others) reportedly sentenced to death after a secret trial by the Islamic Revolutionary Court in Ahwaz on 7 and 8 June.

While I do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of the allegations reported above, I respectfully remind your Excellency that “in capital punishment cases, the obligation of States parties to observe rigorously all the guarantees for a fair trial set out in Article 14 of the (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ICCPR) admits of no exception” (Little v. Jamaica, communication no. 283/1988, Views of the Human Rights Committee of 19 November 1991, para. 10). Relevant to the cases at issue, these guarantees include the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law, as well as the assistance of a lawyer.

Please be assured that I fully understand the gravity of the charges reportedly raised against the 22 men and women. The right to life and the restrictions on the use of the death penalty enshrined in Article 6(2) ICCPR, however, do not permit any derogation, even “in times of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation” (Article 4 ICCPR).

According to the information received, in addition to charges of “destabilizing the country”, “sabotage of oil installations” and “attempt to overthrow the Government”, the 22 men and women are charged with the offense of “mohareb”, which carries the death penalty. It is my understanding that “mohareb” can be translated as “being at war with God”. I am concerned that this charge, which according to my information in Iran is waged against political dissidents, critics of the Government and persons accused of espionage, might not be sufficiently well-defined to satisfy the very strict standards of legality set by Article 6(2) ICCPR for the imposition and execution of the death penalty. Indeed, in order for sentence of death to be imposed “in accordance with the law”, the law in question must be sufficiently precise to clearly allow distinction between conduct punishable with the capital sentence and conduct not so punishable. The concept of a “fair trial” similarly requires that the elements of the crime charged be known in sufficient detail to the defendant for him to be able to effectively address them.

I urge your Excellency’s Government to take all necessary measures to guarantee that the rights under international law of the above-named 22 persons are respected. Should their trial still be in course, I would ask you to ensure that their right to a fair trial, to an appeal and to seek pardon are fully guaranteed. In the event that they already have been sentenced to death, considering the irremediable nature of capital punishment, this could only mean suspension of the death sentence until the complaints regarding their right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law have been thoroughly investigated and all doubts in this respect dispelled.

In view of the urgency of the matter, I would appreciate a response on the initial steps taken by your Excellency’s Government, including confirmation that the 22 persons are still alive.

2. Please provide details regarding the information made publicly available in relation to the trial of the 22 persons and the sentences imposed on them.

3. Please provide details of any avenues of appeal already exercised by the defendants and those still open to them to challenge their conviction and sentence.

4. Please provide details concerning the legal definition of “mohareb” in Iranian law.

Urgent appeal dated 13 November 2006 with the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and Special Rapporteur on the question of torture

On 31 August 2006, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions wrote a letter to your Excellency’s Government, drawing attention to information he had received regarding the reported trial on charges carrying capital punishment of 22 Ahwazi Arab activists arrested by the Government in June 2006: Ali Motirijejad (m), Abdullh Solymani (m), Mlik Banitamimt (m), Abolamir Farjaolh Chaabi (m), Mohammad Chaabpour (m), Khalaf Khozairi (m), Alireza Asakereh (m), Majed Albog Hbaish (m), Ghasem Salamat (m), Abdolreza Sanawati (m), Said Hamydan (m), Fahimeh Esmaili Badawi (f), Toameh Chaab (m), Nasser Farajolah Kia (m), Majid Mazaal (m), Jalil Moghadam (m), Mehdi Saad Nasab (m), Hoda Hedayati Rezaie (Hawashemi) (f), Sharif Asei Nawaseri (m), Jalil Boraihi (m), Mohammad Sawari (m), and Abdolreza Salman Delfi (m).

At the time, we expressed our concern about reports indicating that they were being tried in secret and that the competent prosecutor-general had announced that he was seeking the death penalty for all the accused. That communication unfortunately remains unanswered by your Excellency’s Government.

Today, we have received additional information according to which on 9 November 2006 the Head of the Judiciary in Khuzestan Province, Mr. Abbas Jaafari Dowlatabadi, announced that the Supreme Court has confirmed the death sentence of ten of the defendants mentioned above, namely Ali Motirijejad (m), Abdullh Solymani (m), Mlik Banitamimt (m), Abolamir Farjaolh Chaabi (m), Mohammad Chaabpour (m), Khalaf Khozairi (m), Alireza Asakereh (m), Majed Albog Hbaish (m), Ghasem Salamat (m), and Abdolreza Sanawati (m). Iranian media have reportedly announced that the confessions of the 10 men will be broadcasted on Khuzestan TV tonight, 13 November 2006, and that their executions will be held in public, probably on 14 or 15 November 2006.

We have further received information which corroborates the concerns expressed in the letter of 31 August 2006. Allegedly, all ten men were tortured into making false confessions. Their lawyers were not allowed to see them prior to their trial and they were given access to the prosecution case only hours before the start of the trial. The trial was held in secret. The lawyers for the defendants, Khalil Saeedi, Mansur Atashneh, Dr Abdulhasan Haidari, Jawad Tariri, Faisal Saeedi and Taheri Nasab), were arrested for having complained about violations of the relevant laws in the course of the trials and charged with threatening national security.

Without prejudging the accuracy of the allegations reported above, we would like to recall the principles set forth in the letter of 31 August 2006: in capital punishment cases, the obligation of States parties to observe rigorously all the guarantees for a fair trial set out in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) admits of no exception. The right of every criminal defendant to a “public hearing” requires that “any judgment rendered in a criminal case […] be made public”. While the courts may exclude the public “from all or part of a trial” where publicity would imperil national security under the specific circumstances of the case at hand, a trial implicating a national security interest does not automatically justify a wholly secret trial. Moreover, secrecy may never extend beyond the hearing itself. The requirement that the judgment be made public allows only the narrowest of exceptions which clearly find no application in the case at issue.

Relevant to the cases at issue, the right to a fair trial further includes the guarantee of “adequate time and facilities for the preparation of [one’s] defence and to communicate with counsel” (Article 14(3)(b)). This guarantee would be seriously violated if, as alleged, the lawyers were not allowed to see the defendants prior to their trial and the defendants and their lawyers were given access to the prosecution case only hours before the start of the trial. Moreover, while we are not in a position to express any opinion about the charges of “threatening national security” reportedly brought against the lawyers and their arrest, we note that the pressure and intimidation created by such charges is difficult to reconcile with the right to effective legal assistance and to a fair hearing.

Of equal concern are the allegations that the defendants were forced under torture into signing a confession. The alleged denial of access to their lawyers during the pre-trial phase and the circumstance that the broadcasting of their confessions on TV on the eve of their execution would appear to be the only element of their case not shrouded in secrecy do not contribute to dispelling this concern.

Finally, in the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions’ communication of 31 August 2006, he had raised some questions with regard to the charge of “mohareb” (“being at war with God”) brought against the defendants. He expressed the concern that this charge, which according to his information in Iran was waged against political dissidents, critics of the Government and persons accused of espionage, might not be sufficiently well-defined to satisfy the very strict standards of legality set by Article 6(2) ICCPR for the imposition and execution of the death penalty. As the other requests for information and questions put in the previous communication, this one as well remains unanswered.

We urge your Excellency’s Government to take all necessary measures to guarantee that the rights under international law of Ali Motirijejad (m), Abdullh Solymani (m), Mlik Banitamimt (m), Abolamir Farjaolh Chaabi (m), Mohammad Chaabpour (m), Khalaf Khozairi (m), Alireza Asakereh (m), Majed Albog Hbaish (m), Ghasem Salamat (m), and Abdolreza Sanawati (m) are respected. Considering the irremediable nature of capital punishment, this can only mean suspension of the execution until the complaints regarding their right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law have been thoroughly investigated and all doubts in this respect dispelled.

We would also like to receive information on the current situation of the other 12 defendants mentioned in the communication of 31 August 2006, i.e. Said Hamydan (m), Fahimeh Esmaili Badawi (f), Toameh Chaab (m), Nasser Farajolah Kia (m), Majid Mazaal (m), Jalil Moghadam (m), Mehdi Saad Nasab (m), Hoda Hedayati Rezaie (Hawashemi) (f), Sharif Asei Nawaseri (m), Jalil Boraihi (m), Mohammad Sawari (m), and Abdolreza Salman Delfi (m).

It is our responsibility under the mandates provided to us by the Commission on Human Rights, reinforced by the appropriate resolutions of the General Assembly and extended by the Human Rights Council, to seek to clarify all cases brought to our attention. Since we are expected to report on these cases to the Human Rights Council, we would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters:

1. Are the facts alleged above accurate? If not so, please share all information and documents proving their inaccuracy.

2. Please provide details regarding the information made publicly available in relation to the trial of the 12 men at imminent risk of execution.

3. Please provide details concerning the legal definition of “mohareb” in Iranian law.

Islamic Republic of Iran: Death Sentences of Shamameh Ghorbani, Kobra Najjar, and Soghra Mola’i

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international standards relating to the imposition of capital punishment

Urgent appeal dated 2 October 2006 sent with the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences

In this connection, we would like to draw the attention of your Government to information we have received regarding six women, namely Shamameh Ghorbani, Kobra Najjar and Soghra Mola’i who have been sentenced to death by stoning for adultery.

Shamameh Ghorbani (also known as Malek), arrested in June 2005, was sentenced to execution by stoning for adultery by a court in Oromieh in June 2006. She is reportedly held in Oromieh prison. Her brothers and husband reportedly murdered a man that they found in her house, and she too was nearly killed after they stabbed her with a knife. Shamameh Ghorbani’s case is reportedly being re-examined.

Kobra Najjar was allegedly forced into prostitution by her husband, a heroin addict who was violent towards her. In 1995, after a severe beating by her husband, she told one of her regular customers that she wanted to kill her husband. The customer allegedly murdered her husband after Kobra Najjar took him to an arranged meeting place. He was sentenced to death, but he was pardoned by the victim’s family, to whom he paid diyeh (blood money). Kobra Najjar was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment for being an accomplice to the murder of her husband, and execution by stoning for adultery. She was scheduled to be executed after serving her prison sentence, which was finished two years ago. She has reportedly written to the Judicial Commission for Amnesty to ask for her sentence of execution by stoning to be commuted, and is awaiting a reply. Kobra Najjar is detained in Tabriz prison and is at imminent risk of execution.

Soghra Mola’i was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment for being an accomplice to the murder in January 2004 of her husband Abdollah, and to execution by stoning for adultery. During interrogation she said that she was subjected to domestic violence by her husband and that she did not kill him. She added that on the night of the incident after Alireza killed her husband, she ran away with him because she was scared to stay at home, thinking that her brothers-in-law would kill her. Alireza was sentenced to death for the murder of Soghra Mola'i’s husband, and to 100 lashes for "illicit relations". The sentences are pending examination by the Supreme Court. It is believed that Soghra Mola’i is detained in Reja'i Shahr prison, Karaj, near Tehran.

Although the death penalty is not prohibited under international law, we would like to remind your Excellency’s Government that it must be regarded as an extreme exception to the fundamental right to life, and must as such be interpreted in the most restrictive manner. Accordingly, it is crucial that all fair trial and other protections provided for in international human rights law are fully respected in proceedings relating to capital offences.

It is our view that the death penalty as applied in these cases does not fall within the category of the “most serious crimes” for which international law countenances its possible application. It is generally understood that this category should not be defined as going beyond intentional crimes with lethal or extremely grave consequences (paragraph 1 of the Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50 of 25 May 1084). In its General Comment No. 6, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has stated that “the expression ‘most serious crimes’ must be read restrictively to mean that the death penalty should be a quite exceptional measure”. Similarly, that Committee has observed that the restriction encapsulated in that phrase cannot be interpreted as permitting the imposition of the death penalty “for crimes of an economic nature, for corruption and for adultery, or for crimes that do not result in loss of life” (CCPR/C/28/Add.15, 3 August 2003, paragraph 8).

We would also like to draw your Government’s attention to Resolution 2005/39 of the Commission on Human Rights, which reminded Governments that corporal punishment, can amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or even to torture. We would also like to draw your attention to the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture to the 60th session of the General Assembly, in which he, with reference to the jurisprudence of UN treaty bodies, concluded that any form of corporal punishment is contrary to the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. He also noted that States cannot invoke provisions of domestic law to justify violations of their human rights obligations under international law, including the prohibition of corporal punishment and called upon States to abolish all forms of judicial and administrative corporal punishment without delay (para.28 A/60/316). Both the Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture have called for the abolition of judicial corporal punishment. In paragraph 5 of General Comment No. 20 (1992), the Human Rights Committee stated that the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment must extend to corporal punishment, including excessive chastisement ordered as punishment for a crime.

Furthermore, we would like to draw your Government’s attention to article 4 (b) of the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, which stipulates that States should pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating violence against women and, to this end, should refrain from engaging in violence against women. We would also like to bring to your Government’s attention article 4 (c) and article 4 (d) of the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, which notes the responsibility of states to exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and, in accordance with national legislation, punish acts of violence against women, whether those acts are perpetrated by the State or by private persons. To this end, States should develop penal, civil, labour and administrative sanctions in domestic legislation to punish and redress the wrongs caused to women who are subjected to violence. Women who are subjected to violence should be provided with access to the mechanisms of justice and, as provided for by national legislation, to just and effective remedies for the harm that they have suffered. States should, moreover, also inform women of their rights in seeking redress through such mechanisms. (Adopted by General Assembly resolution 48/104 on 20 December 1993).

It is our responsibility under the mandate provided to us by the Commission on Human Rights to seek to clarify all cases brought to our attention. Without in any way wishing to pre-judge the accuracy of the information received, we would be grateful for a reply to the following questions:

2. If the three above mentioned women have in fact been sentenced to death for the offence of adultery, how does Your Excellency’s Government consider that to be consistent with the applicable international legal standards?

3. Please provide statistics as to the number of persons sentenced to death and the number executed in the past three years for the offence of adultery.

Correspondence from 2006

The record of correspondence for 2006 is excerpted from the official United Nations report, E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.1.

Islamic Republic of Iran: Execution of Juvenile Offender Atefeh Rajabi

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international norms and standards for the imposition of capital punishment.

Subject(s) of appeal: 1 female (minor; juvenile offender)

Character of reply: Largely satisfactory response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the additional information provided by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran in response to his earlier request.� E/CN.4/2005/7/Add.1, para. 342.� However, the SR has not received sufficient information to enable a clear conclusion as to the age of Atefeh Rajabi and regrets that she was executed despite claims of mental illness, indications that she might have been a juvenile at the time of the offence and for an offence (�acts incompatible with chastity�) that cannot be considered to be one of the �most serious crimes� for which the death penalty is permitted.

Allegation letter sent on 17 September 2004 with the Special Rapporteur on Torture, reproduced from E/CN.4/2005/7/Add.1, para. 340

340. Allegation, sent with the Special Rapporteur on torture, 17 September 2004. Atefeh Rajabi, a 16-year-old girl, was reportedly publicly hanged on 15 August 2004 on a street in the city centre of Neka, in the northern Iranian province of Mazandaran. She was sentenced to death, approximately three months before, by a lower court in Neka, for �acts incompatible with chastity�, following an alleged unmarried sexual relationship. The case reportedly attracted the attention of the Head of the Judiciary for the Mazandaran province, who allegedly ensured that the case be promptly heard by the Supreme Court which upheld the death sentence. It is alleged that she was mentally ill both at the time of the crime and during her trial proceedings. It is further reported that she was not represented by a lawyer at any stage of her trial and that she consequently had to defend herself. Although her national ID card stated that she was 16 years old, the Mazandaran Judiciary announced at her execution that she was 22. Her co-defendant, whose name is not known to the Special Rapporteurs, was reportedly sentenced to 100 lashes and released after the sentence was carried out.

Response of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran dated 21 October 2004 at E/CN.4/2005/7/Add. 1, para. 341

Response of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran dated 22 September 2005

Ms. Rajabi had legal counsel throughout the proceedings and introduced herself as being 22 years of age.

Islamic Republic of Iran: Death Sentence of Juvenile Offender Jila Izadi

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international norms and standards for the imposition of capital punishment.

Subject(s) of appeal: 1 female (minor; juvenile offender)

Character of reply: Largely satisfactory response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the information provided by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding the case of Jila Izadi and welcomes the information that she has been acquitted and is not under sentence of death.

Urgent appeal sent on 20 October 2004 with the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief, reproduced from E/CN.4/2005/7/Add.1, para. 351

351. Urgent appeal, sent with the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, the Special Rapporteur on torture, and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, 20 October 2004. Jila Izadi, aged 13, was reportedly sentenced to death by stoning in Marivan for adultery and was at risk of imminent execution. According to the information received, she was raped by her 15 year old brother and gave birth to her baby in early October. It is reported that Jila Izadi will not have the possibility to appeal the sentence which is said to be carried out in the coming days. Her brother was sentenced to 100 lashes in accordance with Islamic laws. He is currently in prison in Tehran awaiting his punishment.

Response of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran dated 22 September 2005

Ms. Izadi was acquitted of her charges and the sentence to death by stoning is categorically denied.

Islamic Republic of Iran: Death Sentence of Fatemeh Haghighat-Pazhouh

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international norms and standards for the imposition of capital punishment

Subject(s) of appeal: 1 female

Character of reply: Cooperative but incomplete response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the additional information provided by the Government of Iran regarding the case of Fatemeh Haghighat-Pajouh and welcomes the review of her case by the local judicial authority and the likelihood of a clemency order from the Head of the Judiciary.� The SR would appreciate information on the outcome of both of these processes.�

Urgent appeal sent on 12 October 2004 reproduced from E/CN.4/2005/7 at par. 348

348. Urgent appeal, 12 October 2004: Ms. Fatemeh Haghighat-Pajouh was sentenced to death for the murder of her husband in 1997, who allegedly tried to rape her then 15 year old daughter. Fatemeh Haghighat-Pajouh reportedly did not have access to adequate legal assistance in the course of her trial. Reports indicate that the lawyer initially appointed to defend her case was replaced at the last minute and that as a result of this change the new lawyer had neither sufficient information nor adequate time to prepare for the trial.

Response of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran dated 21 October 2004

349. Response dated 21 October 2004: The Government informed that �the execution verdict of Ms. Fatemeh Haghighat-Pajouh has been put on hold by direct order of the head of the judiciary of the Islamic Republic of Iran�.

Response of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran dated 27 May 2005

Information received from the Judiciary of the Islamic of Iran. The death sentence of Ms. F. Haghighat-Pazhouh was deferred by direct order of the Head of the Judiciary to allow for further investigations. The case was then reffered to an appellate court of the Tehran local judicial authority to reinvestigate deficiencies of the case and it is under consideration for a final decision, including a probable clemency order by the Head of the Judiciary.

Islamic Republic of Iran: Death Sentences of Hajiej Esmaeelvand and Juvenile Offender Rouhollah Maseouili Gargari

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international norms and standards for the imposition of capital punishment

Subject(s) of appeal: 1 female; 1 male (juvenile offender)

Character of reply: Cooperative but incomplete response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the information provided by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning Hajiej Esmaeelvand�s request for a pardon and would appreciate receiving the outcome of that request.� The SR would also appreciate information on the allegations concerning Rouhollah Maseouili Gargari.

Urgent appeal sent on 3 December 2004 with the Special Rapporteur on religious intolerance, the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, and the Special Rapporteur on torture

Ms. Hajieh Esmaeelvand, aged 35 and mother of two, and Rouhollah Maseouili Gargari, aged 22, from the town of Jolfa are at risk of imminent execution. On 16 January 2000, Hajieh Esmaeelvand was sentenced to death by hanging by the 3rd Branch of the Public Court of Jolfa for adultery, and five years' imprisonment with corporal punishment for assisting in the premeditated killing of her husband. Then aged 17, Rouhollah Maseouli Gargari was sentenced to hanging for his role. The 37th Branch of the Supreme Court of Justice later amended the verdict against Hajieh Esmaeelvand to stoning, and it was scheduled to be carried out on 1 September 2004. Following an appeal, the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the sentence of stoning for Hajieh Esmaeelvand. The sentences are expected to be carried out within the next three weeks.

Response of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran received 24 January 2005

Miss Hajieh Esmaeelvand was charged as an accomplice to her husband�s murder and was sentenced to death. Upon rejection of her appeal by the Supreme Court, she has requested to be pardoned. Her request is under consideration and therefore the sentence has been put on hold.

Islamic Republic of Iran: Death Sentence of Juvenile Offender Leyla M.

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international norms and standards for the imposition of capital punishment

Subject(s) of appeal: 1 female (juvenile offender)

Character of reply: Cooperative but incomplete response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the information provided by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning the death sentence imposed on Leyla M.� The SR would appreciate receiving the outcome of the Supreme Court�s consideration and information on the consideration given to issues raised in the SR� urgent appeal sent on 13 December 2004.

Urgent appeal sent on 13 December 2004 with the Special Rapporteur on religious intolerance, the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, the Special Rapporteur on torture

Leyla M is facing imminent execution for "morality-related" offences. The death sentence is said to have been passed to the Supreme Court for confirmation. She is to be flogged before she is executed. Concern has been expressed that she was sentenced to death for crimes she would allegedly have committed while she was under 18 years old. On 28 November 2004, she was sentenced to death by a court in Arak, while she was 18, on charges of "acts contrary to chastity", including controlling a brothel, having intercourse with blood relatives and giving birth to a child out of wedlock. It is reported that IQ tests have revealed that she has the mental age equivalent to that of an eight year-old. However, she has apparently never been examined by the court-appointed doctors, and was sentenced to death solely on the basis of her explicit confessions, without consideration of her background or mental health. She was reportedly forced into prostitution by her mother at the age of eight, bore several children as a result. She was also repeatedly raped, sold into marriage, and subsequently forced into prostitution by her respective spouses.�

Response of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran dated 4 February 2005

Miss Leila Moafi had been sentenced to death. The verdict was challenged and therefore sent to the Supreme Court for further consideration. On this basis, the sentence is not considered as final. In addition to the reconsideration of the Supreme Court, there are provisions of extraordinary appeal offered to the accused, should the sentence be confirmed.

Islamic Republic of Iran: Death Sentence of Juvenile Offender Ali

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international norms and standards for the imposition of capital punishment

Subject(s) of appeal: 1 male (minor; juvenile offender)

Character of reply: Cooperative but incomplete response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the information provided by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.� The SR welcomes the information that the death sentence of Ali has been put on hold and reiterates that, pursuant to the treaty obligations of the Islamic Republic of Iran, his sentence must be permanently commuted.� The SR will also continue to request a comprehensive review of the cases of individuals who have been sentenced to death for crimes committed when they were less than eighteen years of age, even if such sentences have not yet been confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Urgent appeal sent on 9 February 2005

A 16 year old student named Ali was sentenced to death in June 2004 by the Karaj General Court for the murder of another student � Mazdak Khodadadian- at his high school. According to the information received, Ali (whose surname is unknown), a 16 year old- student and his classmate Milad (surname also unknown) were responsible for keeping discipline among their fellow pupils at their high school. The victim, Mazdak Khodadadian, arrived late at school one day and had an argument with Ali and Milad. During the fight that ensued, Ali stabbed Mazdak who was eventually transferred to hospital where he died from his injuries.� The case was reportedly tried at the Branch 122 of the Karaj General Court where the head of the Special Court for Children sentenced Ali to death. Milad was sentenced to 3 years� imprisonment for his participation to the incident. The Branch 27 of the Supreme Court has reportedly upheld Ali�s sentence. It is believed that Ali remains in detention, awaiting execution.� If this sentence, which I understand has already been confirmed by the Supreme Court, is carried out, it would be difficult to reconcile with the very welcome commitment given on behalf of Your Excellency�s Government in January 2005 at the session on the Committee of Right of the Child in Geneva, to stay all executions of juveniles pending the adoption by the Council of Guardians of the Bill on the Establishment of Juvenile Courts, which abolishes the death penalty on persons who committed a crime before the age of 18.� Your Excellency has previously informed me of the pending nature of this Bill in response to earlier inquiries. The execution of this person would be incompatible with the international obligations of Iran under various instruments which I have been mandated to bring to the attention of Governments (see attached).I have also been informed that at least 30 other individuals under the age of 18 have been sentenced to death and are currently detained in juvenile detention centres (Kanoun-e Eslah va Tarbiyat) in Tehran and Raja�I Shahr, a nearby town. In order to avoid extended correspondence in relation to each case I would respectfully request Your Excellency�s Government to provide me with a comprehensive and detailed indication of the details of individuals who have been sentenced to death for crimes committed when they were less than eighteen years of age, even if such sentences have not yet been confirmed by the Supreme Court.� I would also ask that any such planned execution be stayed pending the adoption of the Bill on the Establishment of Juvenile Courts, in order to ensure that Iran complies with its obligations under international law.

Response of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran dated 8 March 2005

�Ali� has been accused of murder and accordingly sentenced to death, however this verdict has been put on hold, like all other death sentences for those aged under-18. It is worth noting that the moratorium on the death sentence for those aged under-18 has been incorporated into the draft Bill of the Juvenile Court which is before parliament for ratification.

Islamic Republic of Iran: Death Sentences of Five Women

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international norms and standards for the imposition of capital punishment

Subject(s) of appeal: 5 females

Character of reply: No response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur regrets that Iran has failed to cooperate with the mandate he has been given by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

Urgent appeal sent on 11 February 2005 with the Special Rapporteur on independence of lawyers and judges, the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and the Special Rapporteur on torture

Women who are currently sentenced to death and are awaiting execution in Evin Prison, Tehran, have not had a fair hearing. Following their arrest they were not given prompt access to a lawyer; were forced to answer questions and participate in interrogations without their lawyer being present; evidence, such as confessions, is obtained through torture and ill-treatment. We would like to draw your Governments attention to the following individual cases:

Azam Qara Shiran, aged 37. She is scheduled to be executed by hanging this week. She was sentenced to death 5 years ago for being an accomplice to the murder of her husband. Ms. Shiran, who was forced by her father to marry when she was 15 years old, was forced into prostitution by her husband. Ms. Shiran had requested a divorce on three occasions but each time the court denied her request. Following many years of abuse she ran away with her boyfriend. Her husband found her after one year and he was killed during a quarrel with her boyfriend. During the preliminary investigation, Ms. Shiran confessed to being an accomplice to the murder but later retracted it saying that she was not in the room when it happened. Throughout the investigative process and during her confession, she reportedly did not have access to legal counsel. The court found her guilty of being an accomplice to murder and sentenced her to death.

Akram Gharivel, aged 29. In self-defence, she killed a man who forcibly entered her home and attempted to rape her. The police noted in their report that the intruder had damaged the door when entering the house. She was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Her argument of self-defence was ignored by the court.

Tayebeh Hojati, aged 25. She was convicted of the murder of her husband�s daughter. In February 2004, after the child went missing, Ms. Hojati was held in incommunicado detention for 16 days by the Shapoor Agahi police (homicide division), Tehran. During interrogations she was tortured, sexually abused, threatened with rape and forced to watch the torture of her brother. The police also threatened to detain and torture her other relatives unless she agreed to sign a confession that she had killed her husband�s child. Once the confession was signed she was told what to say before the court hearing. Throughout the investigative process and during her confession, she did not have access to legal counsel. It is reported that important elements of the case were not investigated or considered in her trial, including forensic evidence that the girl had been killed at a time when Ms. Hojati was already in police custody. She has been sentenced to death and is currently detained in Evin prison, Tehran awaiting execution.

Shahla Jahed, aged 35. She was convicted of murder of her boyfriend�s wife. For one year she was held in incommunicado detention by the Agahi police (homicide division) and also in Evin Prison, Tehran. During this period she was tortured to make her confess to the murder. She was beaten, tied up in painful positions and verbally insulted. She has scars on her left hand and right arm from the treatment. Throughout the investigative process, including when making the confession, she did not have access to legal counsel. Exculpatory forensic evidence, including that the murder victim was raped prior to death, was not considered.

Ms. Fatimeh Pajouh was sentenced to death for the murder of her husband. It is reported that she killed her second husband because he was raping her daughter. The first time she saw her lawyer was at the trial, when the judge apparently asked legal counsel to sit next to her. It is reported that her argument that she killed her husband whilst defending her daughter was not taken into consideration. She is currently detained in Evin prison, Teheran. An urgent appeal was sent by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions on her behalf on 12/10/2004. The Government replied on 21/10/04 stating that a temporary stay of execution by direct order of the head of the judiciary had been granted whilst this case is reviewed. The Special Rapporteurs welcome the cooperation of the Government in this regard and would like to be kept informed as to the outcome in this case.

Islamic Republic of Iran: Death Sentences of Juvenile Offenders Abbas Hosseini and Rasoul Mohammadi

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international standards relating to the imposition of capital punishment

Subject(s) of appeal: 2 males (2 juvenile offenders; 1 minor; 1 refugee)

Character of reply: No response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has failed to cooperate with the mandate he has been given by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

Urgent appeal sent 21 April 2005

I would like first of all to recall that, in earlier correspondence sent on 9 February 2005, I had brought to your Excellency�s attention information I had received according to which at least 30 individuals under the age of 18 had been sentenced to death and were then being held in juvenile detention centres in Tehran and Raja�I Shahr. I had respectfully requested your Excellency�s Government to provide me with a comprehensive and detailed indication of the details of individuals who have been sentenced to death for crimes committed when they were less than eighteen years of age, even if such sentences have not yet been confirmed by the Supreme Court.� Finally, I had also asked that any such planned execution be stayed pending the adoption of the Bill on the Establishment of Juvenile Courts, in order to ensure that Iran complies with its obligations under international law. As Your Excellency is aware, I have received no response yet to that communication.

The principal purpose of my present note is to raise two additional and related cases. The first concerns a recent report that I have received regarding the situation of Abbas Hosseini, a 19-year-old registered Afghan refugee who is scheduled to be executed on 1 May 2005 for a murder that he committed while he was 17 years old. Reports indicate that, in July 2003, he stabbed a man once with a knife after the man allegedly made sexual advances to him. Abbas Hosseini reportedly confessed to the crime, although claiming that he had acted in a moment of insanity. He was transferred to the central prison in Mashhad six months after his arrest and charged with murder. On 3 June 2004, he was sentenced to death by verdict No.13/277 of Branch 43 of the Mashhad Special Court. The sentence was upheld by Petition No. 41/246 of Branch 41 of the Supreme Court of Marshad on 28 October 2004 and subsequently by his Excellency Ayatollah Shahrudi, Head of the Judiciary of the Islamic Republic or Iran. I have been informed that an appeal for clemency for Abbas Hosseini has been sent to his Excellency Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees which has reportedly been following the legal proceedings in the case closely.

I would also like to bring to your Excellency�s attention a second situation, involving Rasoul Mohammadi, aged 17, who was reportedly scheduled to be executed on 16 April 2005, but who was granted a stay of execution because of uncertainties about his age. It is reported that Rasoul Mohammadi and his father Mousa Ali Mohammadi, aged 46, were both sentenced to death by a court in Esfahan for abducting 40 young girls, stealing their jewellery and raping at least four of them. They reportedly confessed to the charges during their interrogation. Mousa Ali Mohammadi was reportedly hanged in a central square in the city of Esfahan on 16 April 2005.

In this connection, I wish to draw your Excellency�s Government�s attention to the fact that the execution of these above-named persons would be incompatible with the international obligations of Iran under various instruments which I have been mandated to bring to the attention of Governments. The right to life of persons below eighteen years of age and the obligation of States to guarantee the enjoyment of this right to the maximum extent possible are both specifically expressed in article 6 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. More explicitly, article 37(a) provides that capital punishment shall not be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age. In addition, Article 6(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that the death penalty shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age.

In this connection, I would respectfully urge the Government of your Excellency to take all measures necessary to comply with international law. These measures were, in my view, accurately reflected in the recommendations issued by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, which called on Iran in January 2005 to �immediately suspend the execution of all death penalties imposed on persons for having committed a crime before the age of 18, to take the appropriate legal measures to convert them to penalties in conformity with the provisions of the Convention and to abolish the death penalty as a sentence imposed on persons for having committed crimes before the age of 18, as required by article 37 of the Convention.� (See CRC/C/15/Add. 254, 28 January 2005, at par. 30)

In light of the above review of relevant legal standards and in view of the irreversibility of the punishment, it is imperative that your Excellency�s Government takes all steps necessary to prevent executions which are inconsistent with accepted standards of international human rights law.

In view of the urgency of the matter, I would appreciate a response on the initial steps taken by your Excellency�s Government to safeguard the rights of the above-mentioned persons, in accordance with the State Party�s relevant obligations under international law.

Islamic Republic of Iran: Death Sentence of Kobra Rahmanpour

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international standards relating to the imposition of capital punishment

Subject(s) of appeal: 1 female

Character of reply: Largely satisfactory response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the information provided by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning the death sentence imposed on Kobra Rahmanpour.� The SR would appreciate receiving updated information on her situation.

Urgent appeal sent on 26 April 2005 with the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.

Ms. Kobra Rahmanpour who was the subject of a joint urgent appeal sent by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences on 30 April 2004. According to the information received:

Ms. Kobra Rahmanpour remains on death row. On 21 June 2004 the Head of the Judiciary referred her case to the Arbitration Council, which has reportedly scheduled two meetings between the victim and the victim's heirs. At the first meeting (24 October 2004), the victim's heirs did not appear and at the second meeting (5 March 2005), it is reported that the victim's heirs not only refused to forego Ms. Rahmanpour's punishment, but insisted that she be executed without further delay. Although there have been reports that a third and final meeting will take place, it is not clear whether that meeting will be scheduled.

The information received alleges that the referral to the Arbitration Council has no basis in Iran's existing laws to decide such judicial issues and that any solution arrived at by the Arbitration Council which succeeds in convincing the victim's heirs to forego the execution will not adequately address the harms that Ms. Rahmanpour has suffered during her years of detention. It is emphasized that the Head of the Judiciary is the only person with the legal authority to revoke the conviction based on errors of law and refer the case for a re-trial. However, thus far, the Head of the Judiciary has refused to undertake such action.

According to the information received, Ms. Rahmanpour has been detained for 4 and a half years, having been convicted of intentionally murdering her mother-in-law. Ms. Rahmanpour claims that she acted in self defense. There is concern that the arrest and trial of Ms. Rahmanpour violated internationally recognized standards of due process and fair trial.��

Response of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran dated 9 May 2005

1. Ms. Kobra Rahmanpour was accused of the first degree murder of her mother-in-law. Following the exercise of due process of law in the competent court with full access to the legal counsel of her choice, she was sentenced to execution by verdict No. 756, issued by General Court, Branch 1608. This verdict was upheld by verdict No. 189/7 of Branch 7 of the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, the sentence has not yet been carried out based on the direct order of the Head of the Judiciary to allow for further considerations, including consultations between the accused and victim�s heir. As far as the legal proceedings are concerned, this case does not represent any instances of extra judiciousness or arbitrariness.

2. The system of justice must protect the rights of the perpetrator, and also those of the victim, who, in this case, was deprived of her most essential right of all, that is her right to life. Par. 2 of Resolution 1994/45 of the Comission on Human Rights entitled �Question of integration of the rights of women into the human rights mechanisms of the United Nations and the elimination of violence against women� endorses sub article c, articel4 of the Declaration of Elimination of Violence against women which reads �� to punish acts of violence against women and to take appropriate and effective action concerning acts of violence against women, whether those acts are perpetrated by the State or by private persons��.

3. According to Article 7 of �Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty�, contained in ECOSOC resolution 1984/50, Ms. Rahmanpour has the right to seek pardon or commutation of sentence. She has done so and the Judiciary of Iran, according to Article 8 of the same guidelines, has refrained from carrying out the sentence, �pending appeal or other recourse or other proceeding relating to pardon or commutation of the sentence�.

Islamic Republic of Iran: Death Sentences of Hojjat Zamani and Esmaeil Mohammadi

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international standards relating to the imposition of capital punishment

Subject(s) of appeal: 2 males

Character of reply: Allegations rejected but without adequate substantiation

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the information provided by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning the death sentence imposed on Esmaeil Mohammadi.� However, the assertion that Esmaeil Mohammadi�s conviction and death sentence were arrived at pursuant to �due legal process� fails to address the particular allegations made concerning that process.� The SR later received credible information that Esmail Mohammadi has been executed; however, he will continue to seek clarification regarding the case of Hojjat Zamani.

Urgent appeal sent on 12 May 2005 with the Special Rapporteur on torture

In this connection, we would like to draw the attention of your Government to information we have received regarding two men at imminent risk of execution after having been allegedly tortured in pre-trial detention.

The case of Hojjat Zamani, aged 29, currently detained in Raja�i Shahr prison, Karaj, was the subject of a communication by us to your Excellency�s Government on 24 September 2004 (E/CN.4/2005/62/Add.1, para. 844). In that communication, we expressed the concern that Hojjat Zamani might have been sentenced to death following a trial in which his right to effective counsel was denied, in particular because judicial officials did not cooperate with his appointed lawyer. Hojjat Zamani was put on trial after he was forcibly returned to Iran from Turkey in November 2003, having fled Iran in August 2003. He was reportedly tortured in Evin Prison to confess to the terrorism-related offences he now stands convicted of both before his flight to Turkey and before his 2004 trial. We received no response to our letter. According to information recently received, Hojjat Zamani is now at imminent risk of execution following the recent decision of the Supreme Court to uphold the death sentence passed by Branch Six of Tehran�s Revolutionary Court in July 2004.

The case of Esmaeil Mohammadi, aged 38, from Boukan, currently detained in Urumiya Prison, was the subject of an urgent appeal we sent you on 8 September 2004 (E/CN.4/2005/62/Add.1, para. 843). In that communication, we brought to your Excellency�s attention allegations that his death sentence was based on a confession extorted by torture. We received no response to our letter.

While we are fully aware of the most serious nature of the crimes these two men have been found guilty of, we respectfully remind your Excellency that �in capital punishment cases, the obligation of States parties to observe rigorously all the guarantees for a fair trial set out in Article 14 of the (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) admits of no exception� (Little v. Jamaica, communication no. 283/1988, Views of the Human Rights Committee of 19 November 1991, para. 10). Relevant to the cases at issue, these guarantees include the right not to be compelled to confess guilt and the right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of one�s defence.

We also recall that Commission on Human Rights resolution 2005/39 urges States to ensure that any statement, which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made. This principle is an essential aspect of the right to physical and mental integrity set forth, inter alia, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

We urge your Excellency�s Government to take all necessary measures to guarantee that the rights under international law of Hojjat Zamani and Esmaeil Mohammadi are respected. This can only mean suspension of the capital punishment against the two men until the allegations of torture have been thoroughly investigated and all doubts in this respect dispelled. Moreover, international law requires that the accountability of any person guilty of subjecting Hojjat Zamani and Esmaeil Mohammadi to torture is ensured.

Response of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran dated 24 May 2005

Upon receipt of an urgent appeal regarding the legal case of Mr. Esmaeil Mohammadi, a thorough investigation has been carried out by the local judiciary authorities in Western Azerbaijan province. The results of the investigation are as follows: Mr. Esmaeil Mohammadi was a member of the banned terrorist group �Komele�, which was stationed in Northern Iraq for terrorist operations against Iran. In 2001, he, along with three other armed members of this group infiltrated Iranian Kurdistan province and gunned down one of their opponents. Following an extensive operation by law enforcement authorities, they were arrested in 2002 with large stocks of arms and ammunitions.�

Mr. Mohammadi was sentenced to death by the Revolutionary Court of the above-named province based on numerous articles of Islamic Penal Code. However, due to an appeal by his defence, the cased was reffered to the Supreme Court, where the sentence was upheld. Nevertheless, the sentence has not been yet carried out for further consideration.

Response of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran dated 8 August 2005

According to information from the Judiciary of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mr. Esmail Mohammadi has been charged with terrorist activities in cooperation with the Komelech armed group resulting in the murder of Mr. Ebrahim Badeh Bedast. After the due legal process he was sentenced to death on one count of his charges. Nevertheless, the sentence has been put on hold after further consideration.

Islamic Republic of Iran: Executions of Three Juvenile Offenders

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international standards of application of capital punishment

Subject(s) of appeal: 3 males (1 minor; 3 juvenile offenders)

Character of reply: Cooperative but incomplete response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the information provided by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning the ages of Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni.� He would appreciate clarification in the case of Ali Safarpour Rajabi as well.� The Special Rapporteur will also continue to request a comprehensive review of the cases of individuals who have been sentenced to death for crimes committed when they were less than eighteen years of age, even if such sentences have not yet been confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Communication sent on 7 August 2005 with the Chairperson of the Committee on the Rights of the Child

While we take note of the efforts made to halt the executions of Mr. Abbas Hosseini and Mr. Rasul, we are concerned about information according to which, on 19 July 2005, two young men, Mahmoud Asgari, 16, and Ayaz Marhoni, 18, were publicly hanged in Edalat Square in the city of Marshhad, in north east Iran after their sentences were confirmed by the Supreme Court. Concerns have been expressed that they were both under 18 years of age at the time of their arrest. They were reportedly convicted of abducting a 13-year-old boy and raping him at knife-point and sentenced to death by Court No. 19. Prior to their execution, they were held in prison for 14 months and were reportedly given 228 lashes each for theft, disturbing public order, and consuming alcohol.

We have further been informed that, on 13 July 2005, Ali Safarpour Rajabi, aged 20, was hanged for killing Hamid Enshadi, a police officer in Poldokhtar. Reports indicate that his death sentence was passed in February 2002, when he was 17 years old. He is believed to have committed the crime when he was 16 years old.

If these allegations are correct, there would be grounds for serious concerns. Therefore, while we do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these allegations, we would like to draw your attention to the fact that the execution of these above-named individuals, and any further executions of juvenile offenders, are incompatible with the international legal obligations of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The right to life of persons below eighteen years of age and the obligation of States to guarantee the enjoyment of this right to the maximum extent possible is specified in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which your Government ratified on 13 July 1994. Article 37(a) expressly provides that capital punishment shall not be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age. In addition, Article 6(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by your Government on 24 June 1975, provides that the death penalty shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age.

In this connection, we would also remind your Excellency of the discussions of this issue that took place between your Government and the Committee on the Rights of the Child in January of this year, in which the delegation stated that all executions of persons who had committed crimes under the age of 18 had been halted. This was reiterated in a note verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran on 8 March 2005 to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in which it was stated:

�In recent years the enactment of the death penalty for individuals aged under18 has been halted and there has been no instance of such punishments for the category of youth. The legal ban on under-aged capital punishment has been incorporated into the draft Bill on Juvenile Courts, which is at present before parliament for ratification.�

We would respectfully urge the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to take all necessary measures to comply with international human rights law. These measures were outlined in the recommendations issued by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, which called on Iran in January 2005 to �immediately suspend the execution of all death penalties imposed on persons for having committed a crime before the age of 18, to take the appropriate legal measures to convert them to penalties in conformity with the provisions of the Convention and to abolish the death penalty as a sentence imposed on persons for having committed crimes before the age of 18, as required by article 37 of the Convention.� (See CRC/C/15/Add. 254, 28 January 2005, at para. 30)

Furthermore, we respectfully request a comprehensive and detailed indication of the details of individuals who have been sentenced to death for crimes committed when they were less than eighteen years of age, even if such sentences have not yet been confirmed by the Supreme Court. These requests were contained in previous communications of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions dated 9 February and 21 April 2005, in relation to the situation of at least 30 individuals under the age of 18 who were reportedly sentenced to death and were held in juvenile detention centres in Tehran and Raja�I Shahr. It is regrettable that no response has yet been received.

Response of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran dated 8 August 2005

According to information received from the Judiciary of the Islamic Republic of Iran neither Mahmoud Asgari nor Ayaz Marhouni were aged under 18 at the time of their crimes. This mission has also been notified by the Judiciary that both cases followed the appropriate legal proceeding and therefore the cases do not represent any arbitrariness.

In relation to Ali Safarpour Rajabi, further investigations are underway and the special mechanism will be informed of the conclusion accordingly.

Islamic Republic of Iran: Killing of Shivan Qaderi

Violation alleged: Death due to attacks or killings by security forces

Subject(s) of appeal: 1 male (member of ethnic minority)

Character of reply: No response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has failed to cooperate with the mandate he has been given by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

Allegation letter sent on 10 August 2005

Communication sent on 10 August 2005 concerning the killing of Mr. Shivan Qaderi, also known as Sayed Kamal Astam, or Astom, a Kurdish opposition activist, by Iranian security forces. According to the information received:

On 9 July 2005, Shivan Qaderi and two other Kurdish men (whose names are not known to me), were shot by officers from the State Security forces in the town of Mahabad. Shivan Qaderi may have tried to escape and was shot again, this time lethally. The security forces then tied Shivan Qaderi�s body to a Toyata jeep and dragged him in the streets. The local authorities have confirmed that a person of this name, �who was on the run and wanted by the judiciary�, was indeed shot and killed by security forces at this time, purportedly while trying to evade arrest. Shivan Qaderi�s body was subsequently returned to his family in a coffin.

In this connection, I would like to refer Your Excellency's Government to the fundamental principles applicable to such an incident under international law. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life. As the Human Rights Committee has clarified, �arbitrarily� means in a manner �disproportionate to the requirements of law enforcement in the circumstances of the case� (Views of the Committee in the case Su�rez de Guerrero v. Colombia, Communication no. 45/1979, � 13.3). In order to assess whether the use of lethal force was proportionate to the requirements of law enforcement, there must be a �thorough, prompt and impartial investigation� (Principle 9 of the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions). This principle was recently reiterated by the 61st Commission on Human Rights in Resolution 2005/34 on �Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions� (OP 4), stating that all States have �the obligation � to conduct exhaustive and impartial investigations into all suspected cases of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions�. The Commission added that this obligation includes the obligation �to identify and bring to justice those responsible, �, to grant adequate compensation within a reasonable time to the victims or their families and to adopt all necessary measures, including legal and judicial measures, in order to � prevent the recurrence of such executions�.

It is my responsibility under the mandate provided to me by the Commission on Human Rights to seek to clarify all cases brought to my attention. Since I am expected to report on this case to the Commission, I would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters:

1.� Are the facts alleged in the above summary accurate? Please state the names of the two men allegedly shot at during the incident that resulted in Shivan Qaderi�s death, their connection to the incident, and whether they were lethally wounded. Please elaborate on the criminal proceedings pending against Shivan Qaderi at the time of the incident, and about the efforts undertaken by the security forces to arrest him. Please also add details as to the reasons that motivated the security forces to tie Shivan Qaderi�s dead body to a car and drag him through the streets of Mahabad (assuming that allegation is well-founded).

2.� Please provide the details, and where available the results, of any police investigation, medical examination (autopsy), and judicial or other inquiries carried out in relation to this case. Please include information regarding the guarantees for independence and impartiality of the investigating and adjudicating authorities. If no inquiries have taken place, or if they have been inconclusive, please explain why.

Islamic Republic of Iran: Killing of Civilians During Protests in Kurdistan Province

Violation alleged: Deaths due to the excessive use of force by law enforcement officials

Subject(s) of appeal: 17 males (members of ethnic minority)

Character of reply: No response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has failed to cooperate with the mandate he has been given by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

Allegation letter sent on 14 September 2005

Allegation letter sent on 14 September 2005, concerning the killing, by Iranian security forces, of 17 civilians during protests in the Iranian province Kurdistan. According to the information received:

Subsequent to the killing of Shivan Qaderi in Mahabad on 9 July 2005, protests erupted in several cities and towns in the province of Kurdistan, Iran. Protestors demanded that the government apprehend Qaderi's killers and put them on trial. Some of the protests involved attacks on government buildings and offices.

On 26 July 2005, Revolutionary Guard units surrounded the protestors and shot at them, killing three: Omar Amini, Jamileh Khezri, and Bayazid Ali Hassan. In Baneh, on 30 July 2005, Revolutionary Guard Units killed two persons, Hakim Soor and Loghman Nasrallahi, under similar circumstances. On 2 August 2005, in Sardesht, the Revolutionary Guards shot at protestors and killed a man named Hussein Balani. In Saqqez, on 3 August 2005, Special Units (Yiganhay-e Vizhe) of the Revolutionary Guards moved towards the protestors while shooting directly at them in an effort to disperse the crowds. The following 11 persons lost their life: Abbas Ramezanzadeh, Behzad Rahimi, Obeid Kamali, Kaveh Vakili, Rahman (no last name, a vegetable vendor), Mohammad Shariati, Farzad Mohammadi, Afshin Morovati, Kaveh Hijazi, Shadian Mohammadi, and Nasser Nilofar.

According to other reports I have received, the following three additional persons were killed by security forces in Kurdistan during the same time period: Heydar Abdullahzadeh, Kamal Esfram, and Hassan Ahmedi.

I am aware that Your Excellency's Government has stated that the unrest was started by �hooligan and criminal elements� and tha

Islamic Republic of Iran: Visits & Communications

Correspondence from 2007

Islamic Republic of Iran: Death Sentence of Rostam Tajik

Correspondence from 2006

Islamic Republic of Iran: Execution of Juvenile Offender Atefeh Rajabi

Islamic Republic of Iran: Death Sentence of Juvenile Offender Jila Izadi

Islamic Republic of Iran: Death Sentence of Fatemeh Haghighat-Pazhouh

Islamic Republic of Iran: Death Sentences of Hajiej Esmaeelvand and Juvenile Offender Rouhollah Maseouili Gargari

Islamic Republic of Iran: Death Sentence of Juvenile Offender Leyla M.

Islamic Republic of Iran: Death Sentence of Juvenile Offender Ali

Islamic Republic of Iran: Death Sentences of Five Women

Islamic Republic of Iran: Death Sentences of Juvenile Offenders Abbas Hosseini and Rasoul Mohammadi

Islamic Republic of Iran: Death Sentence of Kobra Rahmanpour

Islamic Republic of Iran: Death Sentences of Hojjat Zamani and Esmaeil Mohammadi

Islamic Republic of Iran: Executions of Three Juvenile Offenders

Islamic Republic of Iran: Killing of Shivan Qaderi

Islamic Republic of Iran: Killing of Civilians During Protests in Kurdistan Province