Letter from Seven Members of Participation Party to Parliament Representatives Ahead of Court Proceedings

Seven senior members of the Participation Front Party criticized issues such as the involvement of the Revolutionary Guards in "security matters," the interrogation of political activists "in unofficial and illegal centers," the "securitization of cases," and the "non-publicization of trials without necessity" in a letter to parliament representatives. According to the website Kalemeh, Mohammad Reza Khatami, Hossein Kashafi, Azar Mansouri, Ali Shakouri Rad, Mohsen Safaie Farahani, Mohammad Naeimi Pour, and Hamid Reza Jalai Pour wrote this letter on November 6, while they are set to be tried on November 8 on charges including "gathering and colluding and propaganda against the regime and membership in illegal groups" in the Revolutionary Court. The letter highlights the role of the parliament in overseeing the enforcement of laws, mentioning instances of "legal ambiguities" and "failure to adhere to legal standards" within the security and judicial systems, particularly regarding what has been termed "security-related charges." According to the authors of the letter, the manner in which political activists are summoned by judicial agents for preliminary investigations is "problematic" and may result in these individuals being "lost for extended periods without any formal charge being communicated by the legal investigator and during the specified legal procedures in these various security agencies." The letter emphasizes that the law is "almost not observed in the majority of the courts handling so-called security charges." The authors criticized the "conducting of interrogations or so-called investigations in unofficial and illegal locations." The Human Rights Defenders Center, chaired by Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian Nobel Peace Prize laureate, also mentioned in a report on November 28 that "illegal interrogation and investigation centers" are one of the problems of the judiciary that "question the neutrality and independence of the judicial system." This center reported that some political activists had been summoned for interrogation in recent months and noted that "those present at the interrogation sessions were not only not judicial officials but were also anonymous to the summoned individuals." According to this human rights organization, issuing an indictment under such conditions "can be biased and supportive; because a case has been formed where both the complainant, the investigator, and the interrogation are conducted by a non-judicial entity whose executors are anonymous to the summoned individuals." The political crime law is "a step forward but incomplete and ineffective." The seven reformist figures emphasized in their letter that their charges are "based on interviews, participation in gatherings (even mourning ceremonies), and political statements," yet their cases are classified under "security". According to the authors of the letter, the lack of a definition for "security crime" has left judicial agents with such broad discretion that almost all legal activities of political activists are prosecuted under this charge. From the perspective of these seven members of the Participation Front Party, the political crime law, "although a step forward, is so incomplete and ineffective that its existence or absence will not make a significant difference." They stated in their letter that they are being tried on charges of membership in the Participation Front Party, while "any reasonable mind accepts" that their charges are not security-related, but since their accusations do not fit within the definitions mentioned in the political crime law, they are not considered political crimes. The political crime bill was approved in the parliament on May 9, 2016, and the Guardian Council also confirmed this bill on May 18. Previously, reports had been published regarding the handling of one of the cases of Eisa Saharkhiz, a jailed journalist, as the "first political crime case," but the head of the criminal courts of Tehran province stated on Sunday, October 10, that this court has a disagreement with the government employees' court regarding the classification of the journalist's accusations as political crimes. Criticism of the Revolutionary Guards' involvement in security matters. The seven senior members of the Participation Front also stated in another part of their letter that their criticisms of the prevailing political process in the country have been interpreted by the judiciary as "an action against national security," while in contrast, "numerous insults, accusations, and defamation against real and legal personalities" and the government of Hassan Rouhani have not only not been considered crimes but have sometimes been praised from various platforms for promoting virtue and preventing vice. According to the authors of this letter, "allowing a military institution to enter security matters has led not only to duplication and redundancy and the emergence of informational and security contradictions but also to significant corruption associated with this military institution." In recent years, the Revolutionary Guards have arrested many political and civil activists and journalists, and previously, some political figures and officials of the Islamic Republic have criticized the Revolutionary Guards' interference in the duties of the Ministry of Intelligence. For instance, Ali Motahari stated in 2014 that "the Revolutionary Guards should not interfere in the work of the Ministry of Intelligence." In August 2010, Mohsen Mir Damadi, Mohsen Aminzadeh, Mostafa Tajzadeh, Abdollah Ramadanzadeh, Feyzollah Arabserkhi, Mohsen Safaie Farahani, and Behzad Nabavi filed a complaint against some commanders of the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards based on statements made by a military official referred to as "General Moshfeq" regarding illegal interference in the electoral process. These seven reformist figures described in their letter the "securitization of cases," "non-publicization of trials without necessity," "preventing the defendant from reading the case," and "not allowing the defendant to choose a specific lawyer" as "violations of fundamental citizen rights." According to the authors of this letter, there are "no criteria for these actions" and "only the will of the court president or investigator is sufficient to impose these restrictions." The members of the Participation Front Party have called for "clarification, reform, timely interpretation of laws, the enactment of new laws, and the repeal of laws that grant such unlimited and uncontrollable authority to an individual." In this letter, it has been proposed that parliament representatives hold meetings with political activists, lawyers, judiciary officials, and security institutions to successfully reform and oversee the implementation of the law. The authors of this letter also stated that the oversight of trusted representatives of the people in institutions such as the parliament, city council, or other civil institutions can compensate for some of the existing "deficiencies" in the courts. The head of the judiciary in Iran is appointed by the Supreme Leader, and some officials of this institution have previously stated that this body is only accountable to the Supreme Leader. The seventh parliament, with the permission of the Supreme Leader, conducted an investigation into the judiciary, and this report referred to numerous violations within this institution, including the violations of Saeed Mortazavi, the then Tehran prosecutor. No court has addressed the results of this investigation, and several principlist representatives who were main members of the investigation committee, including Fatemeh Ajrlou, the representative of Karaj, were prosecuted under the order of Saeed Mortazavi, and their homes were searched.