An Investigator in Arak Rejected the IRGC's Report Against a Defendant Emphasizing 'Defense of Freedom of Expression'

The 4th branch of the Public and Revolutionary Prosecutor's Office in Arak issued a 'no prosecution order' in the case of a defendant accused of 'propaganda against the regime,' highlighting the necessity of defending freedom of expression. The legal website 'Ekhtibar,' registered in Mashhad, published the text of the ruling issued by 'Reza Ehsani,' the investigator of the 4th branch of the Public and Revolutionary Prosecutor's Office in Arak, where the defendant's name is not specified, but the judicial authority's reasoning in rejecting the report from the IRGC's intelligence department in the province is noteworthy. According to the published text, this 'no prosecution order' was issued on March 5 of last year following a report from the intelligence department of the 'IRGC Rouhollah' in Markazi province against a political activist who had criticized the regime's performance during the nationwide protests of 2022 at a funeral ceremony. The report indicates that the defendant spoke at the funeral of Asadollah Amini, identified as one of the 'activists of the so-called reformist faction in Markazi province,' and during this speech, expressed views regarding the events of 2022, including criticism of the regime's performance in dealing with those issues and outlining the general strategy of the reformist front. The IRGC's intelligence department considered the statements made to be 'propaganda against the regime' and requested the judiciary to pursue the defendant. In response to this request, the investigator of the 4th branch of the Arak Prosecutor's Office issued a 'no prosecution order' and explained that 'criticism of governance methods is a legitimate right of every Iranian citizen and is considered a requirement of freedom of expression.' This judicial authority from Markazi province emphasized that 'the venue for expressing analytical and challenging political statements is in political meetings, parties, specialized gatherings, and free-thinking forums, not at mourning ceremonies.' The investigator also stressed that 'the foundation of the reformist faction is generally within the framework of the Islamic Republic, and the essence of this movement is based on implementing political, cultural, and economic reforms within the framework of the system and the constitution of the country.' The issued ruling stated that 'in the absence of party governance, and consequently oversight and party discipline, the judiciary should not become a tool for settling scores between political factions.' In a section of this ruling, which does not align with the approach of the Islamic Republic's judiciary in similar cases, especially regarding political and civil activists critical of the government, it was emphasized that 'political actions require political responses' and based on the 'principle of proportionality,' a statement should be met with a statement; a speech with a speech; a tweet with a tweet; and a crime with punishment. This ruling was issued in a county where the judiciary system of the Islamic Republic has systematically punished individuals for expressing opinions on their social media accounts or for supporting individuals and groups with heavy prison sentences and exile over the past decades. Thousands of cases have been documented by human rights organizations over the years, where political and civil activists have been arrested, imprisoned, and convicted for expressing opinions and criticizing the government. In one instance in December 2023, Branch 26 of the Revolutionary Court sentenced journalist Sara Masoumi to 6 months in prison and a 2-year ban from journalism for 'publishing false information.' According to the case's lawyer, the basis for her charge was 'reporting by agents' and 'publishing a tweet about Armita Garavand.' Armita Garavand was a schoolgirl who reportedly fell into a coma after an altercation with a defender of mandatory hijab in the Tehran metro and later died in the hospital. Rulings like the one issued in Arak have previously occurred in limited cases but have never become the prevailing practice in the Islamic Republic's judicial system. In most cases, such rulings have been violated by the intervention of influential institutions, including security agencies, or the issuers of such rulings have been quickly replaced or, in some cases, removed from decision-making roles.