Legal Aspects of Issuing Absentee Sentences Against Googoosh and Several Iranians Abroad

Several advertisements published in the February 9 issue of the "Hemayat" newspaper, affiliated with Iran's judiciary, indicate that absentee sentences have been issued for several Iranians living abroad, including the famous Iranian singer, Googoosh. According to this advertisement, Faegheh Atashin, known by her stage name Googoosh, has been sentenced to 16 years in prison, journalist Nikahang Kowsar to four years, blogger Marzieh Armin to four years, photographer Tara Inanlou to one year, Saeed Karimian, director of "Gem TV," to six years, and Amin Anvari Rostami, a social media activist, to seven years in prison. These sentences were issued by Branch 28 of the Tehran Revolutionary Court, with the charges including propaganda against the regime, crimes against national security, and insulting certain Iranian officials. Mohammad Seifzadeh, a lawyer in Iran, responds to Radio Farda's questions regarding "absentee sentences," their judicial process, and the history of such sentences in Iran: Mohammad Seifzadeh: One of the conditions for a trial is the existence of a competent court according to the Constitution, which guarantees the right to seek justice in competent judicial authorities as a fundamental principle of the rights of the people of Iran. Therefore, first, there must be a competent authority, and second, there must be a fair trial. This is also one of the important principles of due process. However, when someone's residence is not specified, that competent judicial authority summons the person through widely circulated newspapers, and if they do not appear within that time frame, the court is formed, and a ruling is issued, which is published, and the person has the right to appeal that ruling wherever they are. Well, Mr. Seifzadeh, considering that these individuals live outside Iran, does the legal process leading to the issuance of this ruling have any legal issues or not? No, if there is a competent judicial authority, which is the principle. The right to self-defense is also a personal right. The person can either attend the court themselves or send their lawyer. In any case, if that advertisement has been published for the court summons, it will be formed, and it will handle the case and issue a ruling. And that ruling, if it is outside the country, has a longer period for appeal. If the appeal is not made and the ruling becomes final, if these individuals return to Iran at any time, they will be arrested for the execution of the ruling, and this ruling will be enforced? The period for appealing the issued ruling begins after the deadline for appeal has passed. Once the appeal period has passed, that ruling becomes final, and whenever the person is found, they will indeed be prosecuted. Mr. Seifzadeh, the issue that stands out in these advertisements is that five different individuals: a prominent artist and singer, Faegheh Atashin, Saeed Karimian, the director of Gem TV, Marzieh Armin, a blogger, Tara Inanlou, a photographer, and Nikahang Kowsar, a cartoonist and journalist, have all had these rulings issued against them. All of them are from Branch 28 of the Tehran Revolutionary Court. What could this mean? Does the inclusion of these individuals in these advertisements and all being processed by Branch 28 of the Revolutionary Court have a specific meaning? Legally, there is no problem. Politically, I do not have political information and do not know. Mr. Seifzadeh, you have handled many cases for years. I want to ask about the charges against these individuals. Because the charge announced against all five is propaganda against the regime and crimes against national security. For example, in the case of Faegheh Atashin, the famous Iranian singer, what examples could lead to this charge and a 16-year prison sentence for an artist? Actions against national security are different from actions against the regime. If we pay attention to the opinion of the founder of the Islamic Republic, he considered regime change permissible. Therefore, actions against national security are still not defined by law in Iran. Propaganda against the regime, according to that opinion of the founder of the Islamic Republic and Article 4 of the Constitution, which prioritizes religious opinions over customary opinions, has legal issues regarding their prosecution. Regarding the two individuals who are a blogger and a journalist, Marzieh Armin and Nikahang Kowsar, what could these accusations mean? In relation to those who are journalists, according to Article 168 of the Constitution and of course political defendants, trials must be held in public courts with the presence of a real jury, allowing them to defend against their charges. If journalism is conducted in courts other than the judiciary and publicly, it violates Article 168 of the Constitution. I want to know how much history there is of issuing absentee sentences for political and civil activists and journalists who have been living outside Iran for years? When I was first a judge, I did not prosecute any political or press defendants. In my time as a lawyer, I do not recall having an absentee case.