Lawyers Criticize New Restrictions on Appointing Counsel

The newspaper Shargh reports on the controversy surrounding Hassan Rouhani's iftar with political party representatives, noting that after Gholamhossein Karbaschi's request for the "removal of house arrest" from Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, several conservative figures left the ceremony. The Iran newspaper also published Hassan Rouhani's remarks at this iftar, quoting the Iranian president as saying, "We must hold competitive elections." This newspaper pointed out that on Wednesday night, during a series of iftar gatherings in Ramadan, "conservative and reformist political activists were guests of the president in the Summit Hall." Rouhani's comments included that "good elections come from political vitality, healthy competition, and maximum public participation" and that "in the matter of nuclear negotiations, we will establish the rights of the nation through dialogue and interaction." The Etemad newspaper, in its Thursday front page titled "Reform Proposals for the Criminal Amendment," published a survey of lawyers regarding the new criminal procedure law and the new restrictions on appointing counsel within this law. The Arman newspaper dedicated its front page photo to the Minister of Education, stating, "The impeachment of Fani failed." This newspaper reported that on Wednesday, at the end of the impeachment session of the Minister of Education, only 76 representatives agreed to impeach Ali Asghar Fani, while 167 members of parliament opposed the proposal, resulting in the failure of the impeachment and Fani's retention as Minister of Education. The Hamshahri newspaper dedicated its Thursday front page to a report on "mismanagement of subsidies" and emphasized, quoting two members of parliament, the necessity of removing high-income individuals from the list of cash subsidy recipients. Hamshahri also reported the arrest of a suspect in the transit of 100 tons of drugs and weapons to regional countries, along with a check of 200 billion tomans. This newspaper did not disclose the identity of the suspect but quoted Ali Moidi, head of the anti-narcotics police, stating that he was arrested last week in Karaj. The Resalat newspaper, in its front page, quoted the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson as saying, "If the [nuclear] bill becomes law, we will comply," while simultaneously, the Javan newspaper referred to a list of 21 sanctions that, according to this newspaper, "must be lifted on the day of the agreement." The conservative reaction to Karbaschi's request for "removal of house arrest" at Rouhani's iftar was also reported by Shargh, which noted that after Karbaschi's request, several conservative figures left the ceremony. According to this newspaper, one of the speakers at the president's iftar with party representatives was Gholamhossein Karbaschi, but his remarks about the necessity of lifting house arrest "did not sit well with some conservative guests, and some of them left the gathering." The newspaper cited interviews with some conservatives via Fars News Agency, reporting that Mohsen Kouhken, vice president of the Front of Followers, commented on the conservatives leaving the meeting: "Mr. Karbaschi also, in this meeting, while purifying the leaders of the sedition, said that this oppressed Seyyed [Mir Hossein Mousavi] accepts the system and had no bad intentions." Shargh also quoted Mohammad Pehlavan, stating that some conservative activists at Rouhani's iftar "left the iftar gathering after Karbaschi's remarks in support of the leaders of the sedition and his request for lifting house arrest." According to this newspaper, Gholamreza Mesbahy-Moqaddam, spokesperson for the Society of Combatant Clergy, also mentioned the departure of some conservatives from the president's iftar, saying: "I left the president's iftar due to the support expressed for the leaders of the sedition in this meeting," because "Mr. Karbaschi, the secretary-general of the Kargozaran party, referred to Mir Hossein Mousavi as the oppressed Seyyed, while if he is to be the oppressed Seyyed, then the system must be the oppressor." The spokesperson for the Society of Combatant Clergy in Tehran also stated: "He [Mir Hossein Mousavi] has committed a great injustice against the system, and therefore, in my opinion, sitting in this meeting lacks legitimacy." According to Shargh, at Hassan Rouhani's iftar with political party representatives, Gholamali Haddad-Adel, head of the conservative faction, Ghodratollah Ali Khani, advisor to the Expediency Discernment Council, Gholamhossein Karbaschi, secretary-general of the Kargozaran party, Kazem Jalali, head of the Parliament Research Center, Asadollah Badamchian, member of the Motalefeh party, and Elaheh Koulaei, member of the Reformist Women's Assembly, spoke. This newspaper also reported that "reformist figures such as Mohsen Aminzadeh and Mohsen Armin were also present at this gathering." According to Shargh, Gholamali Haddad-Adel, head of the conservative faction in the ninth parliament, stated at this event that "by basing on the Constitution, leadership, and the essence of the system, differences will be resolved," adding, "We should not have a tribal view that the country must be in the hands of our tribe and others should step aside," and "if we base our differences on the Constitution, leadership, and the essence of the system, we can certainly create a better future for the country through unity and harmony within the framework of the Constitution." Lawyers have criticized new restrictions on appointing counsel, as reported by Etemad newspaper in its Thursday front page titled "Reform Proposals for the Criminal Amendment." The newspaper published a survey of lawyers regarding the new criminal procedure law and the new restrictions on appointing counsel within this law. Abdolsamad Khormshahi, Nemat Ahmadi, Hooshang Pourbabayi, Saleh Nikbakht, Bahman Keshavarz, Mehran Mohammadloo, Shima Qosheh, and Ahmad Niyaaz are among the lawyers who participated in the survey conducted by Etemad regarding the new criminal procedure law. Farzaneh Ghobadi, a reporter for Etemad, noted that "lawyers and legal experts generally evaluate the overall atmosphere of the new criminal procedure law positively," but mentioned that some articles and clauses of this law have become points of contention and discussion among them. Legal experts and lawyers have raised criticisms regarding various articles and clauses, including Clause 48, which in the recent amendment approved by the Guardian Council states that "in crimes against internal or external security and also in organized crimes punishable under Article (302) of this law, during the preliminary investigation stage, the parties to the dispute shall select their lawyer or lawyers from among the official lawyers of the judiciary approved by the head of the judiciary. The names of these lawyers shall be announced by the head of the judiciary." Most lawyers interviewed by Etemad criticized this clause and emphasized that Clause 48 of the criminal procedure law creates "limitations on the selection of a lawyer by the individual" and also creates "limitations on the activity of certain lawyers approved by the Bar Association." Shima Qosheh, a lawyer, pointed out that "until now, it was the case that anyone had the right to choose any lawyer they wished, and since the lawyer is obliged to consider the client's interests, the accused themselves decided which lawyer to choose from among the lawyers of the Bar Association or the Center for Advisors," stating that "the right to choose a lawyer is one of the fundamental principles of citizens' rights, as mentioned in Article 35 of the Constitution." However, she added that "Clause 48 in security crimes, which do not have a clear definition, and we only know that the court handling them is the Revolutionary Court, has created a limitation, and this limitation is contrary to Article 35 of the Constitution, as well as contrary to the fundamental principles of fair trial and all recognized international principles." According to Shima Qosheh, Clause 48 of the new criminal procedure law "has restricted the right to choose a lawyer to those lawyers approved by the judiciary," while "a lawyer is one wing of the angel of justice, and the judge is the other wing of this angel; the lawyer must be independent of the judiciary system to be able to perform their duty properly, courageously, and boldly. However, a lawyer who is to be chosen by the judiciary must be under the supervision of the judiciary system and certainly cannot defend the rights of their client as they should." Bahman Keshavarz, a prominent lawyer, told the newspaper that Clause 48 "emerged at a time that probably does not exceed one month and was added to Clause 48, and in the original text, it was completely criticized and unacceptable, stating that defendants in specific crimes are deprived of the right to defense and having a lawyer for a week during the preliminary investigation stage." However, "the esteemed Guardian Council found this clause to be incompatible with Article 35 of the Constitution and did not approve it," and after that, "the law drafters changed the clause to meet the Guardian Council's opinion, stating that the parties in the preliminary investigation stage in those specific crimes must select their lawyers from among those approved by the head of the judiciary." This lawyer stated, "Thus, lawyers who have been selected in various ways upon entering the profession and whose selection control continues throughout their work, apparently must pass through another filter to be present in the preliminary investigation stage of those specific charges," and in this context, "it is unclear where the position of Clause 9 of Article 3 and Articles 19 and 20 of the Constitution and the last part of Article 28 of the same law, which prohibits any discrimination, stands." Bahman Keshavarz also raised the question, "How should the existence of a specific group that has the opportunity to participate in a specific stage of the trial – which is actually the first stage – be interpreted?" He stated, "In fact, this clause, if implemented, will create a limited form of rent in favor of a specific group. The voices and discussions regarding this clause have already risen in the media." Keshavarz suggested, "The solution that seems to not undermine the opinion of the esteemed Guardian Council and also prevent the consequences we mentioned is that the list in this clause should include all lawyers from across Iran." Mehran Mohammadloo, another lawyer, pointed out that "no bad changes occurred in the amendment of Clause 48 compared to the previous law, as in the previous law, in the preliminary investigation stage of security crimes, lawyers could not enter at all." He stated, "Therefore, I think we have taken a step forward; in the new law, a list of lawyers can enter in those crimes." However, this lawyer also mentioned, "The issue that exists is that the principle is that lawyers have the right to intervene, not that the judiciary prepares a list and allows only a specific number of lawyers to enter the cases. This is, in fact, an insult to the legal community. I think it would have been better to announce the names of lawyers who have some restrictions or prohibitions for their activities rather than introducing the names of authorized lawyers." Abdolsamad Khormshahi, another prominent lawyer, emphasized that "no special privileges should be granted to certain lawyers," stating to Etemad, "In the new criminal procedure law, the rights of the accused have been considered, and innovations have been included that have been reviewed several times during this period. However, unfortunately, at the same time as the implementation of this law, the issue of Clause 48 arose, which undermined all the rights that had been considered for the accused." He emphasized that "the Constitution is the mother law, and Article 35 of the Constitution explicitly states that the parties to the dispute have the right to have a lawyer in any court," adding, "On the other hand, lawyers who have licenses have gone through the administrative procedures to obtain a license and have sworn an oath, so the principle is that all of them are qualified and can practice law unless they have committed an offense or have been prohibited from working." Abdolsamad Khormshahi pointed out that "we are facing two major challenges," stating, "One is that this clause is similar to the conditions that exist for the Special Clerical Court, where only a specific number of lawyers have the right to appear in the Special Clerical Court." According to Abdolsamad Khormshahi, Clause 48 of the new criminal procedure law "is exactly contrary to Article 35 of the Constitution because this article states that the parties to the dispute can have a lawyer, without specifying that only certain lawyers can be retained," and that "it is unjustifiable to grant special privileges to some lawyers and say that only a limited number of lawyers can appear in specific crimes in court." Hooshang Pourbabayi, a lawyer, also pointed out the "irreparable effect of Clause 48 on the indictment of the accused," stating, "This raises suspicions about the lack of impartiality in the judiciary. When the head of the court and the prosecutor are appointed by the judiciary, if the lawyer is also appointed by the judiciary in the preliminary investigation stage, then what happens to the principle of fair trial?" He stated, "Some may argue that this issue only occurs in the preliminary investigation stage, but it is better to pay attention to the fact that if the lawyer does not provide the necessary defense at the preliminary stage and the accused cannot establish their full defense conditions, it may have irreparable effects on the indictment," and "this is precisely a violation of the rights of the accused" because "the most fundamental investigations and essential issues occur in the preliminary investigations."