NYT:  U.N. Rights Chief Slams Abuses In Sri Lanka, Iran Pillay, a former U.N. war crimes judge, said she had talked with Iranian officials about the deteriorating human rights situation in Iran, which is seeking a seat on the council, and suggested her office should visit the country.

Demonstrators, rights activists, journalists and prominent politicians had received harsh sentences, including capital punishment, for their role in protests after the disputed election last year following questionable trials, she said.

HRANA:  Tehran Chief Prosecutor Goes to Evin Mr. Abbas Jafari Dolatabadi, Tehran’s Chief Prosecutor, visited the low security sections of the Evin prison today.  He said that many prisoners could be released before the Iranian New Year on March 21.  He visited two political prisoners by names of Mr. Hamed Rouhinejad and Mr. Kaveh Sanjabi  in the high security section and inquired about their conditions.  These two prisoners spoke to Mr. Jafari Dolatabadi about their difficulties with keeping good hygiene, family visits, poor quality of food, their chronic health problems and overcrowding in the security section of the prison.

Mr. Jafari Dolatabadi did not visit other high security sections of the prison.  In conversations with prisoners he said that 350 people, who were recently arrested, could be pardoned soon.  He also said that he wanted to expedite the legal proceedings and release before the New Year for other people who were detained in the aftermath of the recent street protests.

ICHR Iran:  Evin Prison: Visiting political prisoners After the Iranian Presidential elections of 12 June 2009 which was accompanied by widespread political arrests, the visitation pattern of political prisoners’ families changed drastically from previous years. The number of political prisoners increased and therefore the number of families who were in search of their arrested loved ones also increased. International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran has conducted several interviews with the families of political prisoners regarding the details of their visits to Evin Prison. What follows is the observations of several of these people. The interview content has been summarized and presented here in the form of a report, taking out the duplicate questions:

These days the Evin Prison’s visiting hall has no room for a needle to drop. The hall has about 80 cabins specifically designated for visits. This number of cabins is sufficient for the families of political prisoners to quickly undergo their visits; however, unfortunately, the policy of the prison authorities is to send the visitors in groups of ten-people at a time. The process for obtaining the blue colored visitation cards is that the visitors must provide the name of the prisoner, name of the father of the prisoner, and name of the visitors, who must be immediate family members of the prisoner, meaning the father, mother, sister, brother, spouse, and children.

Families of political prisoners start to appear in the visiting hall at 8:00 a.m. daily. But, the authorities in charge of visitation only show up to work at around 9:00 a.m.. The allotted time for visitation is till 2:00 p.m.. But, those who have obtained their cards and have received permission to visit are allowed to stay in the visitation hall after 14:00 till they are done with their visits. However, the card must be obtained first and then whether the prisoner is allowed to have visits or not is reviewed, and after the delivery of a visit permit to the family of the prisoner, finally the names of prisoners are called and their families will find out that they must go upstairs in order to have their visit, a very slow process. Particularly as many of the visitors are parents in advanced ages and the long wait could become difficult for them. The important point is that only two personnel and a soldier are responsible for dealing with the large number of visitors. The two personnel take turns to process the women’s line, and then the men’s line, while they answer questions.

Sometimes very brief scuffles take place between families of prisoners over observance of turns, which seems to please the Evin Prison’s officials, although some people from the crowd immediately end the issue with the exchange that “we should not be arguing when our loved ones are imprisoned,” to others’ approval; and the end of this topic that sometimes, like this past Thursday, inflicts extra stress and anxiety on the families, especially those who are older, causing them to have heart pains, leg cramps, or similar problems. Last Thursday, the father of a political prisoner suddenly fell on the ground, and even after they informed him that he could go to visit his son he could not move from where he had fallen. A female doctor, who was also there to visit a relative, worked on him for about 30 minutes, trying to revive him, but, with much difficulty, he was eventually moved out of the prison hall. The scene was so bad that one of the two visit hall staff came outside of confined glass area and said he could come there and piggyback carry him for his visit. However, these visits have a lot of stress because it is not clear even after several hours whether they can see their prisoners or not.

Take the family of Hamzeh Karami, who has been in Evin Prison for nine months and his family have not yet found a regular visitation pattern. Even if they deliver their card early in the morning and get a permit to visit, the Karami family still would be the last ones to make a successful visit. But, why do they send groups of ten people in at a time? It has been said that all conversations are recorded, and for the sake of better quality, smaller groups are arranged. The families of the imprisoned have 20 minutes to visit their loved ones. However, this allotted time for many families may be reduced to 3 to 5 minutes, especially the ones that have been permitted for visitation after 1:00 p.m., because when there is a large number of visitors, they may be forced to finish their visits faster towards the end. Maybe it has another reason, too–the behavior of the prisoner and how satisfied the prison authorities are with it, as is written on the walls of the visitation hall.

During each visit, families can make a payment to the hall’s official with their application for visit, which is between 10,000 to 50,000 Toman. The fortunate ones, who have permission to visit, in addition to clothing can bring food for prisoners and embrace their loved ones. Off course, this can only happen in the presence of an officer, requested by the family, the prisoner’s permission from the interrogator, and persistence from the prisoner’s family, and of course it is more for those who have been in prison for a few months.

Most of the meetings are through a cabin. Those who have been in prison for a few months are allowed one visit in person per month at the most. However, currently there is no specific law. Of course having a kind interrogator can be instrumental.

Conversations are recorded, but many visitors and prisoners convey their messages by pointing or lip-reading, or some things are asked with gestures. But, there are instances where the prisoner might be denied visitations in the future if they says certain things. Especially when the prisoner is making a telephone call to his family, and interrogators stand above his head and the telephone conversations are broadcasted. While all prisoners know that if certain things are spoken it might bring them hardship, during cabin meetings there are officers present and sometimes during these visits, it has happened that in the middle of the visit or 10 minutes into the visit the curtain in the middle of the glass partition suddenly drops and sound is cut off.

When a permission for visit is given there are many tears, embracesr, and happiness with tears. They usually cry in the downstairs hall and in front of the door, so they won’t cry in front of the prisoners upstairs, to keep the spirit of the prisoner high. The people who are not given permission also cry, which of course this is a different kind of crying from the cry of those who get permission to visit. They plead and beg, and might say that they have come from far way. In some cases, begging has produced results, although only in a small number of cases.

ICHR Iran:  Disqualification of lawyers and Iranian Bar Association’s demise, an interview With Abdolsamad Khorramshahi Distinguished Iranian attorney Abdolsamad Khorramshahi is one of 36 attorneys who were recently disqualified by Judges Court for membership in the Board of Directors of Iranian Bar Association. In an interview with International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, he expresses concern over the disqualifications, stating that this action will seriously weaken the power and position of this old civil organization.

According to Abdolsamad Khorramshahi, the law does not stipulate an appeal process for decisions made by the Judges Court where questions or complaints may be taken, therefore this decision is final. Even so, Mohammad Jandaghi Kermanipour, Chairman of the Tehran Bar Association who himself is among those disqualified, wrote a letter to Judges Court, objecting to the widespread disqualifications.

Among those who were disqualified are names such as Mohammad Jandaghi Kermanipour, the Bar Association’s current chairman, Goudarz Eftekhar Jahromi, the former Chairman, Mohammad Ali Dadkhah, member of Center for Defense of Human Rights, Nemat Ahmadi, Ramezan Haji Mashadi, Nasser Zarafshan, Abdolfattah Soltani, Farideh Gheirat, Mohammad Hossein Aghassi, and Abdolsamad Khorramshahi.

Out of a list of 79 people who had enrolled to run for the Bar Association Board of Directors, only 43 were qualified by Judge’s Court. Following is the text of this interview in which questions have been taken out. You can also listen to the audio file.

From a legal point of view, if an attorney does not have a reputation of corruption and has not committed a felony, he/she can run for Board membership at the Bar Association. This is the standard. The Judges Court has not provided any reasons to some people they have disqualified as to why they were not deemed qualified to run for Board membership, at least they haven’t told me [as one of those disqualified] their reasons. You will note that among those disqualified there are some well-known figures in the Iranian legal field, such as Mr. Eftekhar Jahromi and Mr. Jandaghi who have headed the Association for years. This has been a hard thing for me and some of my colleagues to understand. Why weren’t those people, and I’m not even asking about myself, qualified to run? The law expresses that Head of the Bar Association is an important position, similar to that of the General Prosecutor in the caliber and qualifications of the individual who fills the position, and there are heavy requirements for the positions of Chairman and members of the Board of Directors. For example, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Bar Association must have at least 20 years’ working experience and the membership of the Association can render candidates who have the qualifications of necessary experience, sufficient education, and excellent management skills in order to become members of the Board.

My colleagues and I still have questions. We are concerned that with these disqualifications, this 100-year old organization’s position and strength will become paler and paler, rendering this civil organization whose mission is to defend the people’s rights, to become problem-ridden itself. This civil organization has a very important mission and the widespread disqualification of candidates will affect many different factors.

None of these people have a record anywhere. The law stipulates that those who have criminal records or who have a reputation of corruption or specific cases, [do not qualify]. Therefore I think such issues should have no bearing in the qualification or disqualification of attorneys and colleagues many of whom are my friends, university professors, and reputable lawyers. This, unfortunately, strengthens the suspicion that other issues are involved in the qualification/disqualification decisions.

Anyhow, it is very important to reflect this point. From a legal point of view, there is no point of appeal for the Judge’s Court’s decision and the Court’s decision is final. Therefore, so far as I know, there is no appeals point. However, some of my colleagues believe that they can publicize the injustice, but as far as I can tell the decision is final and not open to objections. The letter I wrote to the Judges Court was just to reflect on the situation that has arisen.

Most of these people have defended the rights of political prisoners, but there are also a few who have never been involved with such cases, for example Dr. Tavana, these people have never had a political case or have never defended a political case. There may have been other reasons. It appears that other things, such as political thinking, the attorneys’ viewpoints, and issues like this may have been instrumental in the disqualifications. But a disqualification is not because these colleagues may have had moral or financial problems or criminal records. All these lawyers are among the most reputable and distinguished attorneys of the country and it is not clear what would happen to the Board of Directors without these people’s participation. To be sure, the power and assertiveness of this Board of Directors will not be the same as the previous Boards of Directors of Iranian Bar Association.

ICHR Iran:  Morteza Semyari’s Family Say They Will Never be Able to Raise his $600,000 Bail A source close to Morteza Semyari told International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran that after the Revolutionary Courts announced Semyari’s bail at $800,000, his family tried to talk to court authorities before a public announcement of their decision was made, hoping to see the bail amount reduced. Semyari family say they have no hope of being able to raise an amount even remotely close to the set bail amount in order to release Semyari.

Judge Salavati reduced the bail amount from $800,000 to $600,000, but even so, Semyari family say that they will not be able to raise this amount even in several years. Morteza Semyari is a university student without any income and his father is an Army officer who previously fought in Iran-Iraq War for several years. Over the past few days, the family’s efforts to raise the bail have been unsuccessful. Several times they have taken deeds valued at $300,000 to the Courts, but Judge Salavati has not agreed to a reduction of bail amount.

Semyari was sentenced to six years in prison in his initial court. One of his charges is inviting European Parliament members to a meeting with himself. Semyari had said that he would never have a meeting with members of foreign delegations without proper permissions from and required coordination with Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This meeting never took place but the issue caused his heavy sentence. The European Parliament summoned the Iranian Ambassador to Belgium to convey their objection to Semyari’s arrest and his subsequent six-year prison sentence.

EA:  Death, Confusion, and Clerics in Iran: The Case of Mohammad Amin Valian We still do not have confirmation of the “mohareb” (war against God) death sentence allegedly handed to Mohammad Amin Valian. What we do have, however, are some high-profile politics and religious moves which may point to deeper issues for the Islamic Republic. Mr Verde analyses:

Ayatollah Sane’i, in response to the question: “What are the criteria for identifying mohareb and what are the punishments for it?” has issued a fatwa (decree) on his site.

The Latest from Iran (4 March): A Death Penalty Mystery

The fatwa describes what is mohareb (which, from my reading, clearly does not include the actions of protesters, even on Ashura — 27 December). More significantly, it says that in certain conditions when people are protesting for their rights, their defence of those rights is not only permitted, but is obligatory. [Sane'i uses the word “vajeb”, which is a strong word when it is used in fatwas --- for example, "vajeb" is used in relations to namaz (daily prayers), roozeh (fasting in Ramadan), and Hajj (the once in the lifetime pilgrimage to Mecca).]
In addition to Sane’i’s fatwas, there are rumors that Ayatollah Mostafa Mohaghegh-Damad is lobbying the Qom Grand Ayatollahs to give fatwas to stop the execution of Valian. As EA has reported, Grand Ayatollah Makarem-Shirazi has denied that he ever issued a fatwa calling for the execution of protesters, even those who demonstrated on Ashura.

(A side note: both the Sane’i fatwa and Makarem-Shirazi denial were issued on the eve of the Prophet’s birthday. That may also be an indication of how important they think the issue is.)

We know that the Sane’i fatwa and Marakem-Shirazi’s denial of fatwa are authentic: they are published on their own websites.  We are not sure of the authenticity of the Mohaghegh-Damad move. However, I am thinking that it might be true. The reason: his name has always been mentioned in an alleged protest to Sadegh Larijani, the head of Iran’s judiciary, about the two executions in January.

Usually the clergy do not talk much about their behind-the-scene moves (they don’t like to publicize what they do). But if an untruth is told about what they are saying or doing, they usually issue a very strong denial. as Makarem-Shirazi has now done. Makarem has left no doubt that he not only does not want people executed, but he also wants them released).

If all of the above is true, we may be witnessing a new front (or better put, a new crack) appearing within the regime:

Sane’i supports the reformist camp. His fatwas are usually a slap down for Ayatollah Khamenei, who has — far from incidentally — lesser religious credentials.

Neither Mohaghegh-Damad or Makarem-Shirazi are reformists, however. They are conservative clerics who have good religious credentials. So we might be witnessing the conservative clerics trying to distance themselves from the actions of the regime and also from the Supreme Leader.

If this process continues, either the regime (and more significantly, Khamenei) will have to give in, or the regime will have to rely even more on the military and less on its religious legitimacy. (Its public legimimtacy no longer exists.)
These moves would be the first time that the reformists and conservative clerics have allied publicly.  It may also give more meaning and significance to Hashemi Rafsanjani’s speech last Wednesday.

This cannot be good for Khamenei.