What Remains in History is the Trial of Hamid Nouri

The news of the exchange of Hamid Nouri with two Swedish prisoners in Iran received widespread attention on social media and in Iranian media. For many, this political deal between the Swedish government and the Iranian government is seen as a form of bribery to the Islamic Republic and a blatant disregard for the ethical and legal principles of a democratic society. Such political exchanges have been conducted in the past by many European or North American governments with the Iranian government. However, in many of these cases, the exchanged prisoners were associated with the Islamic Republic for crimes such as espionage, sabotage, or collaboration. In comparison to all previous cases, however, Nouri's case is very different. The trial of Hamid Nouri was unprecedented and historic for Iranian society in both symbolic and judicial terms, and the very negative reaction and anger from activists and families of the victims of the mass executions of 1988 is more understandable in this context. Why was Hamid Nouri's trial historic? This was the first time since 1988 that one of the accused in this horrific event faced justice. In recent years, the gradual death of the main actors of this massacre had reduced hopes for a fair trial regarding this incident. The fact that one of the direct perpetrators of this great crime was able to reach the highest judicial or political authorities indicated that the Islamic Republic not only lacks the will to confront this dark page of its past but also, by humiliating and ignoring the legitimate demands of the victims' families and public opinion, normalizes such treatment of opponents. This same policy was later reproduced in the face of the massacres of 2017, 2019, and 2022, where military personnel and plainclothes agents who had given orders for fire and repression were not brought before any court. Why can the holding of Hamid Nouri's trial be a historic event? In Iran, there is no judicial justice for the victims of political repression, and these historical wounds remain fresh and torment the conscience of society. The trial of Hamid Nouri is, in this regard, a historic judicial, ethical, and political event for a country like Iran, which has little experience in holding legal, fair, and enlightening trials for those accused of crimes and mass killings. The Islamic judicial system in Iran lacks the culture, legal capacity, and legal frameworks compatible with human rights to address such crimes. Thirty-six years after the mass executions in the prisons of the Islamic Republic, many officials responsible for this massacre, such as Hamid Nouri, Ebrahim Raisi, and Mostafa Pourmohammadi, not only have not been prosecuted but have also gained positions of power and have tried to bury the truth by imposing a policy of silence or distorting this great crime into forgetfulness. How should we deal with the horrific past? The trial of Hamid Nouri in Sweden is an important experience in confronting crimes and painful past in a country. The execution of several thousand prisoners in a short time and their burial in mass graves is an unprecedented event in the post-World War II era. First and foremost, the survivors of the victims of this inhumane massacre have the right to be transparently informed about what happened, and those who were the main perpetrators of this humanitarian catastrophe should be identified. Public trials and punishment of those involved in this great crime is also the legitimate right of the survivors of the executed. However, shedding light on the dark corners of contemporary history or prosecuting this or that individual who was somehow involved in the mass killing of prisoners is not only the concern of the survivors of the victims. Iranian society and current and future generations must also know why, how, and by whom this horrific massacre occurred and how it can be prevented from happening again. Hamid Nouri; from the moment he 'fell into the trap' to the station of life imprisonment. Hamid Nouri and the Iranian judiciary have practically seen that in a neutral and fair judicial system, even for someone accused of participating in a horrific mass killing, there is neither execution nor retaliation, nor harassment, whipping, and torture, nor repentance and televised confessions. The public and transparent trial listened to testimonies for days and days without bias. The accused also enjoyed full freedom of expression and the right to choose a lawyer and defended himself in any way he wished, and even when insulted by some angry families, he received support from the court. It is enough to compare Hamid Nouri's trial in Sweden with the trials of the Iranian judicial system against political opponents to realize the vast difference between the two judicial worlds. In the revolutionary trials of the 1979 revolution and throughout the 1980s, political opponents were tried in an inhumane manner without the right to a lawyer and a desirable legal process, and a large number of them were executed. The judiciary and the vicious cycle of violence. In Iran, the judiciary is more of an agent of the power structures than an institution of justice and law for society and citizens. The dream of a justice house that was raised during the Constitutional Revolution perhaps never became a judicial reality in Iran. The lack of independence and the marginalization of judicial justice and citizens' rights have made this power a tool of oppression and repression. Perhaps there is also no understanding in the power structures of the importance of judicial justice in establishing peace in society and promoting an anti-violence culture. The way revolutionary courts operated in the months and years following the 1979 revolution showed that the new power holders were not seeking judicial justice and an intelligent and enlightening re-examination of past history. Their intention was more about blind revenge and destroying and intimidating opponents. It may be boldly stated that the fate of the new regime was also conceived in the same approach toward the perpetrators of the previous government. The last defenses of Hamid Nouri in the Swedish court. Iranian society has so far been unable to reopen the files of the black courts of that time. The youth of that time and subsequent generations learned nothing from those inhumane and blind revenge trials, and the reproduction of violence and repression in new forms continued. Some of those who considered themselves the oppressed and victims of the previous regime became the new oppressors and main actors of the system of repression, abuse, and torture because no one was particularly interested in learning from the past and its lessons to build a different future based on a new legal and ethical system. The heavy silence about all these events has prevented the judiciary and law schools from learning much from those black and horrific experiences. What happened in the trials of young people who were sentenced to death for protesting against executions during the 'Women, Life, Freedom' movement was somewhat a continuation of the previous judicial approach. Judicial justice, political violence, and the exchange of Hamid Nouri and his return to Iran do not diminish the significance and status of the historic Swedish court. A distinction must be made between political action and the exchanges between governments and judicial matters. The story of this exchange will soon be forgotten just as Hamid Nouri, by remaining in prison in Sweden, gradually faded from memory. What remains is the historical experience of this court and the recording of this incident in the international judicial system. The importance of Hamid Nouri's trial lies in the symbolic role and status of such trials for the survivors of the victims, Iranian society, and the historical memory of the people. The meaning of holding such trials is neither revenge nor promoting a culture of hatred and violence. The duty of such courts is to learn from the past and shape a new social contract in which no one is oppressed for their beliefs and opposition to the political order. Three significant events in the case of the 1988 executions in less than a month. The trial of Hamid Nouri can become a foundational experience in Iran if the legal, educational, and cultural aspects of this important political and judicial event are placed at the center of discussions. This court and other similar courts must address the roots and culture of violence, despotism, and lawlessness in the power structures and the judiciary and convey a different message for the present and future of Iran from this bitter and horrific experience. Building a better future and moving away from the dark history of the past is also related to how to deal with humanitarian catastrophes and the painful experiences and history of the past. This phenomenon has emerged as a significant challenge in the contemporary experiences of many countries. Germany after World War II, Spain and Portugal, Japan and France, or England after the colonial era, France after the fall of the Vichy government and participation in the genocide of Jews, Spain after Franco, Chile after Pinochet, Portugal after Salazar's military dictatorship, Argentina and Brazil after military governments, Rwanda after the genocide of Tutsis and part of Hutus in 1994, Turkey after the Armenian genocide... all faced similar questions. Opening these cases and addressing the dark and inhumane moments of the past requires great judicial will and political and moral courage and is a sign of the political maturity of a society and its official institutions. Where are the perpetrators of the 1988 executions? This raises a fundamental question that is more related to the present and future of a country than to the past and history. The transition to democracy and human rights also relates to the justice that must exist in dealing with the past. Confronting bitter events and horrific pasts is part of the construction and shaping of the culture and legal and ethical system that must make the reproduction of these horrific and inhumane experiences impossible. How should we deal with crimes and massacres, bitter events, and dark moments of history and their perpetrators? How should we respond to the legitimate demands of the survivors of the victims for the clarification of the truths? The message of such courts should not be blind revenge and hatred but rather peace and the rejection of political violence, and in this context, the abolition of the death penalty is of great importance. Everyone knows that killing the murderer will not bring any victim back to life. It must be loudly stated that the life of a human being is our highest collective value, and not killing and respecting life and humanity is a universal and fundamental principle.