|
 About
Age — Nationality Iran Religion Baha'i Civil status Married Education college education Occupation teaching professional Rank/Position — Affiliation educational establishment Affiliation civil society, ethnic or religious minority
Case Date of execution March 12, 1983 Location Adelabad Prison, Shiraz, Iran Mode of execution hanging Charges Espionage; Religious offense
The Baha’is in the Islamic Republic of Iran: Background
"Baha'i is not a religion, it is a political party. It is a party that was initially supported by the British and is now supported by America. They [the Baha'is] are spies...”
Ayatollah Khomeini, Founder of the Islamic Republic.*
“The Qur’an recognized only the People of the Book as religious communities. Others are pagans. Pagans must be eliminated.” Iranian Attorney General, Seyed Moussavi-Tabrizi.**
“the punishment for a Mortad-e Fetri [apostate who was born in a Muslim family] is death and his repentance is not accepted.” Head of the Islamic Republic Revolutionary Courts, Ayatollah Gilani.***
The authorities of the Islamic Republic have subjected the members of the Baha'i religious community of Iran (the largest minority, with approximately 300 thousand members in 1979****) to systematic harassment and persecution, depriving them of their most fundamental human rights. The Baha'i religion is not recognized under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic, and Iranian authorities refer to it as a heresy. As a result, the Baha'is have been denied the rights associated with the status of a religious minority; they cannot profess and practice their faith and are banned from public functions. Discrimination under the law and in practice has subjected them to abuse and violence.
The Islamic Republic Penal Code grants no rights to Baha'is, and the courts have denied them the right to redress or to protection against assault, murder, and other forms of persecution and abuse. In so doing, the courts have treated Baha'is as unprotected citizens or "apostates," citing eminent religious authorities whose edicts are considered to be a source of law equal to acts of Parliament. The Founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini, made execution a punishment for the crime of apostasy and decreed that a Muslim would not be punished for killing an apostate.
Banishment from public functions has seriously damaged the Baha’is’ professional, economic, and social lives. Soon after the revolution, a Ministry of Labor directive called for the dismissal from public office and all governmental organizations and associations those "who belong to any of the misguided sects recognized by all Muslims as heretical deviations from Islam, or to organizations whose doctrine and constitution are based on rejection of the divinely-revealed religions." Finally the mandatory requirement of specifying religion in application forms and official documents (lifted recently in some areas under international pressure) has seriously limited Baha'is' freedoms and opportunities in all areas of their lives including divorce, inheritance, access to universities, and travel.
In practice, since 1980, thousands of Baha'is have lost their jobs, pensions, businesses, properties, and educational opportunities. By banning the Baha'i administration including Spiritual Assemblies, the elected bodies that lead and administer the affairs of Baha'i communities at both local and national levels, the Islamic Republic has denied Baha'is the right the right to meet, elect, and operate their religious institutions. Further, the Iranian government has executed at least 200 Baha'is and has imprisoned, tortured, and pressured to convert to Islam scores more.
Because of the unanimous international condemnation of the persecution of this quietist (apolitical) religious community, Iranian authorities do not always admit that the Baha'is are being punished for their religious beliefs. Therefore, judicial authorities have often charged Baha'is with offenses such as "being involved in counter-revolutionary activities," "having supported the former regime," "being agents of Zionism," or "being involved with prostitution, adultery, and immorality."
_______________________
* Speech May 28, 1983, Sahife-ye Nur, Volume 17
** The Baha'i Question: Iran's Secret Blueprint for the Destruction of a Religious community: An Examination of the Persecution of the Baha'is of Iran, Baha'i International Community, 1999, p. 27. The quote was published in English in Sunday Times, 20 September 1981and cited in The Persecution of the Baha'is of Iran, 1844-1984, by Douglas Martin, Baha'i Studies, volume 12/13, 1984
*** Kayhan, October 19, 1981
****'Slow Death for Iran's Baha'is' by Richard N. Ostling, Time Magazine, 20 February 1984. Also see 'The Persecution of the Baha'is of Iran, 1844-1984, by Douglas Martin, Baha'i Studies, volume 12/13, 1984, p. 3. There is no information about the current number of Baha'is in Iran.
About this Case
Mrs. Tuba Za'irpur, a retired teacher and a liaison between the Local Spiritual Assembly and the Baha'i community in Shiraz and member of several committees, is one of the 206 Iranian Baha’is listed in a 1999 report published by the Baha’i International Community. The report, Iran’s Secret Blueprint for the Destruction of a Religious Community, documents the persecutions of the members of the Faith in the Islamic Republic of Iran and lists the Baha’is killed since 1978. Additional information was drawn from the newspaper Khabar-e Jonub, published in Shiraz (22 February 1983), and from various issues of the The Baha’i World.See for example: Vol. XVIII, 1979-1983, Haifa 1986 or description of events as published in A Tribute to the Faithful by Mah Mihr Gulistanih, or Olya's Story by Olya Roohizadegan.
Arrest and detention
On 23 October 1982 a few revolutionary guards arrived at the home of Mrs. Za'irpur and presented an order for the arrest of Qudsiyyih Za'iri (A Tribute to the Faithful, p.138). Even though she clarified that was not her name, the officials searched her home, confiscated various articles and arrested her. During her initial interrogations at the Sepah, she was sentenced to 224 lashes within two days (Olya's Story, pp.118-119). She was placed in solitary confinement for 55 days (A Tribute to the Faithful, p.138) and was tortured regularly based on a misunderstanding over her position with regards to the Local Spiritual Assembly and suffered from many injuries as a result. While she was kept at the Sepah for more than 2 months, she was allowed a 3-minute visit with her family, but the authorities did not permit Tuba to receive her ulcer medication from her family, nor did they provide her with medical care. (A Tribute to the Faithful, p. 138).
Because of her religious beliefs, the prison authorities considered her to be an unbeliever, and thus "unclean", and she was subjected to humiliating treatment similar to that of atheist political prisoners. Prison wardens refused to have any physical contact with the prisoner even when, for example, they were guiding the blindfolded prisoner to the interrogation room. In such case guards would give her the end of a folded newspaper and hold the other end, avoiding contact. She was transferred to Adelabad prison on December 26th (Olya's Story, p. 120), where she remained in custody until her execution.
Trial
There is no detail available about Mrs. Za'irpur's trial. However, accounts by a former prisoner state that she was subjected to three sessions, lasting as long as 8 hours, during which she was asked to recant her faith or face death by hanging. (Olya's Story, p. 120)
Charges
The text of the indictment was not provided to the family. However, the available information indicates that her charges were related to her religious beliefs and activities. The defendant was charged with being a Baha’i and being a member of the Baha’i Administration. It is also reported that she was charged with: "Not being married" (Olya's Story, p. 158), which is not considered a crime in the Islamic Republic's Penal Code. It should also be noted that reports by her cellmates indicate that she was questioned more than the other Baha’i prisoners due to her membership in the Baha’i administration and was pressured to recant her faith. .
Further, in an interview published in the Newspaper Khabar-e Jonub the religious judge, Head of the Islamic Revolutionary Tribunal of Shiraz, in charge of the case, warned the Baha’is “to embrace dear Islam and …recant Baha’ism, which is rationally and logically doomed, before it is too late.”
The judge also discussed at length the charges and the alleged crimes committed by the defendants and argued that they were arrested because they were active members of the Baha’i administration and because of their “direct or indirect” relationship with the House of Justice based in Israel, which follows the Israeli government.
The judge’s statements regarding those arrested also stressed that the religious activities of the defendants were criminal activities based on Article 13 of the constitution, which “deems illegal any activity for Baha’is and considers a crime the organization of committees, councils, or receptions and any such activities…”
Finally, in his interview, the head of the Shiraz Revolutionary Tribunal addressed the Baha’i community as a whole, asking its members to recant their faith or face the consequences:
“Soon a day will come when the Muslim nation will deal with the Baha’is the same way they dealt with the Hypocrites* …who have diabolic religious pretexts and will carry out its religious duty, and Baha’is should know that …the Hezbollah Umma will have no difficulty uprooting them.”
Evidence of guilt
No information is available on the evidence presented against the defendant. However, when the head of the hospital where she worked called the religious judge to inquire about her case, he was told that her crime of membership in the Baha'i Faith had been proven. Furthermore, in his February interview the religious judge elaborated on the Baha’i community’s activities and beliefs as the evidence of their guilt.
The Judge refuted the assertion that Baha’is do not get involved in politics and abide by their government noting that they had not been supportive of the Islamic Republic and had their own administration: “…These people say: ‘We did not participate in any demonstration against the idolatrous [regime]… We did not participate in any of the Islamic Republic’s votes…because all this is politics and, from a religious perspective, we condemn participation in politics. We have our own elections and the Baha’i administration is independent...” While establishing the fact that Baha’is act independently from the state and have an independent administration, the House of Justice, as evidence that they are not loyal to the government, the judge also argued that because the House of Justice is located in Israel, the Baha’is are loyal to the government of Israel.
The very fact that Baha’is have a religious administration outside the “administration of Islam”, is, for the judge, a proof of disloyalty and guilt: “So we can see that these…children of Satan and mercenaries of Israel’s House of Justice have created an administration and a government, no matter how ridiculous, in the face of the government and the administration of Islam. Ironically, they say that ‘we are submissive to the government and whatever the government says we abide by it.’ However, this is only a way of covering the fact that they are acting independently from the people.”
Defense
No information is available on Mrs. Za'irpur's defense. However, the representatives of the Baha'i community stress that their members are being persecuted for their religious beliefs. They note that Baha'is' requests to access their files are usually denied, and that even though they are allowed to avail themselves of the services of a defense counsel since the mid-1990s, attorneys are often under pressure not to accept Baha'i clients. They refute the validity of charges such as counter-revolutionary political activities or spying leveled against them in Iranian courts. They point out that the fundamental principles of their religion require them to show loyalty and obedience to their government and refrain from any political involvement. They believe that the accusation of espionage for Israel is unfounded and based solely on the fact that the Baha'i World Centre is in Israel. They point out that this centre was established on Mount Carmel in the late 19th century, long before the establishment of the State of Israel.
Judgment
The authorities did not communicate the text of the sentence to her family. However, the Chief Judge of the Islamic Revolutionary Tribunal justified the sentence against the arrested Baha'is in his February interview with Khabar-e Jonub newspaper where he stated:
“It is clear that there is no room, whatsoever, for Baha’is and Baha’ism in the Islamic Republic of Iran.. ...” He referred to the individuals who were sentenced to death as kofar harbi [refers to those unbelievers who live in areas outside Muslim rule and who have no rights, not even the right to live] and noted that: “the individuals who have been sentenced to death were active members of the Baha’i faith to whose evil, naïve people were exposed. Their association with satans inside and outside [the country] and their enmity with Islam and Muslims are to a large measure obvious.”
The publication of this interview led the families of the prisoners to visit the Emam Jom'eh (Friday Prayer leader) and Governor of the Fars Province as well as officials in the Capital to look into the authenticity of the news. At the same time an international campaign in favor of the imprisoned Baha'is was launched, but it remained unsuccessful. The Revolutionary Court of Shiraz sentenced Mrs. Tuba Za’irpur to death and the Supreme Court approved the sentence. She was hanged along with two other Baha'is on 12 March 1983 and her properties were later confiscated.
The authorities did not inform Mrs. Siyavushi’s family of her execution. Her family learned of the execution accidentally and was not allowed to bury her body. The authorities buried her along with the other executed Baha’is in the Baha’i cemetery of Shiraz, without washing her or observing any other burial custom.
________________________________________
* Or Monafeqin, a term used by the Iranian authorities to identify the members of the Muslim dissident group Mojahedin Khalq Organization which was brutally repressed in 1981 and lost thousands of its members and sympathizers between 1981 and 1989.
|
|
Human rights violations in this caseThe legal context
Read about the courts, the judges, and the procedure. The courts
Special courts, known as the Islamic Revolutionary Tribunals, were set up after the February 1979 revolution. Their jurisdiction encompasses a wide array of offences ranging from association with or support of the former regime, promotion of foreign influence, and enmity with the revolution to possession, use or sales of narcotic drugs, murder, and profiteering. In the 1980s, a penal court, presided over by one judge, was created to handle some of the offenses punishable by death, such as theft or adultery. These tribunals’ decisions must be confirmed by a chamber of the Supreme Judicial Council.
The judges
Prosecutors and judges are not necessarily jurists. By 1981, the judiciary was purged of judges trained in law schools. They were replaced by seminary graduates and students, as well as by political appointees (an estimated 2000 by 1989). Since by law judges are only required to have a high school diploma and must be faithful to the Islamic Republic’s tenets, new recruits often have little formal training in the law and are chosen because of their political affiliation.
The procedure
The procedures of these ecclesiastical tribunals fail to meet the minimum guarantees for fair trial as established by international human rights instruments and by sha’ria (the Islamic system of law). In addition to executions ordered by revolutionary tribunals, extra-judicial executions are carried out, targeting dissidents and opposition leaders. In some cases, both inside and outside of Iran, these executions have been traced back to Iranian officials. It is, however, not known if in these particular cases trials are held in absentia.
Sources (Among others): Amnesty International, Law and Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, February 1980; Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights, The Justice System of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 1992; E/CN.4/1989/26 p.14; UNCHR, Resolution 1984/54 , Abolition of Torture - Iran - 1; 28 November 1984; Report on the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran by the Special Representative of the Commission, Mr. Reynaldo Galindo Pohl, 28 January 1987. Amnesty International, A SHOCKED WORLD WATCHES IN DISBELIEF, VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS, 1987-1990. Memoirs of Ayatollah Khalkhali, religious judge and former head of revolutionary tribunals (2001), and Ayatollah Montazeri, dismissed successor to Ayatollah Khomeini (2001). UNCH, E/CN.4/1994/50, Final report on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran prepared by the Special Representative of the Commission on Human Rights, Mr. Reynaldo Galindo Pohl, pursuant to Commission resolution 1993/62 of 10 March 1993 and Economic and Social Council decision 1993/273. E/CN.4/1994/50, 2 February 1994.
 read...
 close... Detentions, interrogations, and trials: 1981-1988
Read about the conditions in which individuals were detained, tried and sentenced. Pre-trial detentions
The accused were held, sometimes without being charged, for months or years in overcrowded prisons. During their detention, prisoners of conscience, and in particular supporters of political opposition groups or members of religious or ethnic minorities, were routinely subject to physical and psychological torture. Interrogators used torture, authorized by the post-revolutionary law of Ta’zir (Discretionary Punishment Law), to obtain confessions of guilt or to induce repentance. The line between trial and interrogation was often blurred by the fact that the same individual would function as prosecutor, interrogator and judge.
Trials
Executed detainees may or may not have been tried formally. Prisoners of conscience were often tried through a summary process that might have lasted only a few minutes. When disclosed, charges facing the defendants were often vague or based on coerced confessions. Defendants had no access to attorneys, and they might not have been allowed to defend themselves.
Appeal processes
Convicts could not appeal their sentence and were often executed shortly after their conviction. Their execution was not necessarily announced.
read...
close... Based on the available information, the following human rights have been violated in this case:
-
The right to liberty and security of the person. The right not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 3; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 9.1.
The right not to be punished for any crime on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time it was committed.
UDHR, Article 11.2; ICCPR, Article 15, Article 6.2. The right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, including the right to change and manifest his or her religion or belief.
UDHR, Article 18; ICCPR, Article 18.1, ICCPR, Article 18.2; Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, Article 1 and Article 6.
In its general comment 22 (48) of 20 July 1993, the United Nation’s Human Rights Committee observed that the freedom to "have or to adopt" a religion or belief necessarily entailed the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views, as well as the right to retain one's religion or belief. Article 18, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights bars coercion that would impair the right to have or adopt a religion or belief, including the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers to adhere to religious beliefs and congregations, to recant their religion or belief or to convert. The right, as a member of a religious or ethnic minority, to enjoy his or her own culture or to profess and practice his or her own religion.
UDHR, Article 18; ICCPR, Article 27. The right to equality before the law and the right to equal protection of the law.
UDHR, Article 7; ICCPR, Article 26.
The right to due process
The right to be presumed innocent until found guilty by a competent and impartial tribunal in accordance with law.
ICCPR, Article 14.1 and Article 14.2.
Pre-trial detention rights
-
The right to know promptly and in detail the nature and cause of the charges against one.
UDHR, Article 9(2); ICCPR, Article 9.2 and Article 14.3.a
The right to counsel of his or her own choosing or the right to legal aid. The right to communicate with his or her attorney in confidence
ICCPR, Article 14.3.b and Article 14.3.d; Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, Article 1, Article 2, Article 5, Article 6, Article 8. The right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defense case.
ICCPR, Article 14.3.b. The right not to be compelled to testify against oneself or to confess to guilt. ICCPR, Article 14.3.g. The right not to be subjected to torture and to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. ICCPR, Article 7; Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment, Article 1 and Article 2.
Trial rights
The right to a fair and public trial without undue delay.
ICCPR, Article 14.1 and Article 14.3.c.
The right to defense through an attorney or legal aid. The right to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against one and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on one’s behalf under the same conditions as prosecution witnesses. ICCPR, Article 14.3.d and Article 14.3.e. The right to have the decision rendered in public.
ICCPR, Article 14.1.
Judgment rights
Capital punishment
The inherent right to life, of which no one shall be arbitrarily deprived. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 3; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 6.1; Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, Article 1.1, Article 1.2. The right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
ICCPR, Article 7; Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment, Article 1 and Article 2.
|
