Another Charge Against Soheil Arabi: 'Widespread Activity on Social Media'

Soheil Arabi's defense attorney denies claims made on some websites about his client, stating that an additional charge (corruption on earth) was added in the Supreme Court to Mr. Soheil Arabi's sentence and his death penalty was confirmed due to what has been described as the widespread nature of his activities on social media. Soheil Arabi, 30 years old, married, and father to a five-year-old daughter, was arrested and imprisoned nearly a year ago for publishing critical content, sometimes with a humorous perspective, on social media. Vahid Mushkani Farahani states that the initial charge presented in the provincial criminal court was 'insulting the Prophet,' which refers to insulting the Prophet of Islam and the infallible Imams. He added, 'The court held a session based on this indictment and decided to sentence our client to death. We appealed this verdict, and after our appeal, the case was sent to the Supreme Court and referred to Branch 41. Branch 41 upheld the ruling, but regardless of confirming the charge of insulting the Prophet, it reasoned that the scope of our client's activity was extensive, thus labeling him as corrupt on earth and adding the charge of 'corruption on earth' to the ruling.' Mr. Farahani, can the Supreme Court add another charge to a ruling issued by the provincial criminal court? Is this within its jurisdiction? See, what is provided for the Supreme Court by law is formal review. Formal review means that the court must either confirm the previous court's ruling exactly or, if it sees the ruling as incomplete or flawed, it must annul the ruling and send it to an equivalent branch. However, if we set aside this interpretation, meaning that the court was in a position to review the appeal against the provincial criminal court and had the right to examine the substance, it was obliged to follow the indictment, and in my client's indictment, only the charge of insulting the Prophet was raised. Therefore, whether the court intends to review this case formally or substantively, adding the charge of corruption on earth to my client is unjustifiable. - Currently, the case is in the retrial stage. Is there a possibility of changing the Supreme Court's ruling at this stage? For two reasons, the legal team has decided to request a retrial. The first issue was the charge of corruption on earth that the Supreme Court added to the charges against my client, which affected his eligibility for pardon. The second point we raised for the retrial is the application of Article 263. Friends should be aware that Article 262, when discussing insulting the Prophet, predicts the death penalty for it. Article 263 provides certain exceptions for the previous article, and we claim that according to my client's statements, he falls under Article 263. For this reason, we decided to request a retrial based on these two arguments. However, on the other hand, the case has been referred for execution to the execution branch, and if the esteemed head of the judiciary approves the pardon, the ruling will certainly go for execution. We hope that the esteemed head of the judiciary will refrain from quick approval and give us the opportunity to follow up on our retrial issues in the Supreme Court, as this ruling may be annulled, and we can prevent the execution of Mr. Soheil Arabi. - Mr. Farahani, in recent days, some websites have published articles about this case. What actions have you taken against such publications? - What is certain is that I have seen in some newspapers and websites that they have written that our client is a rapist, and if this trend continues, meaning baseless accusations stirring public sentiment against my client, I will naturally publish the ruling on the websites. We have one ruling from the provincial criminal court and one ruling from the Supreme Court; we have two rulings regarding our client, both of which fall under insulting the Prophet, and the Supreme Court's ruling includes corruption on earth. Mr. Farahani, what is the basis for the charge of corruption on earth? In the Supreme Court's ruling? The Supreme Court has cited that since the scope of our client's activities, which they have attributed to him, is extensive and includes insulting the Prophet, insulting government officials, spreading falsehoods, and similar acts, it is very broad, and for this reason, he is considered corrupt on earth. However, fundamentally, this charge is not valid against our client.