The Confession Extraction Project, Ata Moradi - 2003-09-20

The Confession Extraction Project, Ata Moradi - 2003-09-20. A brief and cursory look at the confessions that some political activists usually make in prison, and the subsequent televised displays, indicates the type of pressure exerted on intellectuals in prison, which they are not willing to express outside of prison and often seek to deny after their release, attributing it to psychological and physical pressure from the prison environment. It should be noted that imprisoning political activists, especially students who constitute the youth of society, in solitary confinement is not only against domestic regulations and laws and international conventions but can also be termed as white torture, through which the judicial system aims to assassinate the political character of students, intellectuals, and dissenters. In recent years, particularly after the events of July 1999, this project has become a priority for the judicial system, forcing students to express remorse and confess due to baseless accusations. It is noteworthy that confessions made under specific conditions and coercion in prison are not legally or judicially valid, and courts cannot rely on such confessions, which are usually obtained from political activists under solitary confinement, to issue rulings. Article 5 of human rights states: 'No one should be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.' Therefore, any form of torture to obtain a confession or information is prohibited, and compelling a person to testify, confess, or swear is not permissible, and such testimony and confessions lack value and credibility. Furthermore, in none of the ordinary and fundamental laws is a judge permitted to keep defendants, especially political defendants, in solitary confinement and under prison conditions. Only in Article 181 of the prison regulations concerning the violations of prisoners does a council composed of the prison chief or his deputy, assistants, or responsible security and cultural officials consider punishments, which in paragraph 4 of Article 182 of the prison regulations defines one of the disciplinary punishments as solitary confinement for up to one month. Thus, keeping a defendant in solitary confinement is only permissible if the prisoner commits acts contrary to prison regulations (which itself requires extensive discussion), not that a judge arbitrarily keeps a defendant in solitary confinement based on personal feelings and circumstances before the defendant is convicted, and later obtains confessions and statements that suit his desires from the imprisoned individual and uses them as the basis for issuing a ruling. Therefore, confessions obtained during solitary confinement lack legal validity and are devoid of legal documentation. Ata Moradi, law student.