International
Commission of Jurists
The International Commission of Jurists is
dedicated to the primacy, coherence and implementation of international law and
principles that advance human rights.
What distinguishes the International
Commission of Jurists (ICJ) is its impartial, objective and authoritative legal
approach to the protection and promotion of human rights through the rule of
law. The ICJ provides legal expertise at both the international and national
levels to ensure that developments in international law adhere to human rights
principles and that international standards are implemented at the national
level.
The Commission was founded in Berlin in
1952 and its membership is composed of sixty eminent jurists who are
representatives of the different legal systems of the world. Based in Geneva,
the International Secretariat is responsible for the realization of the aims
and objectives of the Commission. In carrying out its work, the International
Secretariat benefits from a network of autonomous national sections and
affiliated organisations located in all continents.
The Review, No 25,
December 1980
P: 202-23
Islamic Revolutionary Tribunals' Rules
of Procedure
All those concerned
to uphold the principles of the Rule of Law were deeply shocked by the
procedures of the Islamic Revolutionary Tribunals set up after the overthrow of
the regime of the Shah.
This concern was
voiced by the International Commission of Jurists in a press release dated 12
March 1979 in the following terms:
"It appears
that these are specially created ecclesiastical tribunals having no basis in
law. The defendants are tried not according to any pre-existing legal
provisions, but according to general principles of Islamic justice derived from
the Koran. Consequently they may be held guilty of offences for acts which did
not constitute penal offences under national or international law at the time
they were committed, contrary to the article 11 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.
In violation of the
same article the defendant is denied "the guarantees necessary for this
defence". There is no formal charge or indictment, no time is allowed for
the preparation of the defence, and the defendant is not entitled to the
services or even advice of a lawyer.
There is no form of
appeal from the decision of the tribunal, and a sentence of death is carried
out within an hour or so without any opportunity for an appeal for clemency to
be made or considered.
A summary trial and
execution of this kind is contrary to all recognised principles of justice.
Even in time of internal armed conflict, article 3 of the Geneva Conventions,
to which Iran is a party, prohibits "the passing of sentences and carrying
out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted
court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognised as
indispensable by civilised peoples". It may be added that the procedures
of these tribunals also depart from the strict requirements of proof and
safeguards for the defence which are a marked feature of Islamic systems of
law.
It is deplorable
that those who have overthrown a regime which they rightly criticised, as did
the International Commission of Jurists, for denying a fair trial to their
prisoners, should now try their suspects under such wholly arbitrary
procedures."
Three months later,
on 17 June 1979, the Council of the Revolutionary approved regulations
governing these tribunals and their prosecuting authorities ('parquet'). These
go some way to meet the world-wide criticisms, but there are still features
which give rise to concern, and which appear to conflict with Iran's
obligations under the International on Civil and Political Rights, to which it
is a party.
Jurisdiction of the Tribunals
Article 2 of the
regulations states that the Tribunals have competence to try cases of:
(i) Murder and
massacre under orders of aiding and abetting the same with the purpose of
consolidating the Pahlavi regime and repressing the struggle of the Iranian
people;
(ii) Torture and
imprisonment under orders or aiding and abetting the same against persons who
had fought (the Pahlavi regime);
(iii) Gross
economic crimes, that is to say pillage of the public treasury or the 'lapidation'
of the national wealth for the profit of foreigners;
(iv) Conspiracy
against the Islamic Republic of Iran by armed action, assassination and
destruction of institutions for the profit of foreigners;
(v) Armed attack,
assault and battery, and manufacture and distribution of drugs.
Other crimes are to
be tried by military court or the ordinary civilian courts. In this connection
it may be noted that the new Iranian Constitution makes no mention of the
Islamic Revolutionary Tribunals, and confers jurisdiction on the ordinary
courts to try cases of a political nature (principle 168). The constitution
also contains the principle of non-retroactivity of crimes (principle 169).
Prosecutors
A special body of
prosecutors, known as the prosecutors ('parquet') of the Islamic Revolution,
have been created, with a prosecutor and investigating magistrate for each
province (Ostan), under the general supervision of a prosecutor-general in
Teheran. They are appointed by the council of the Revolution, Subject to the
approval of the Imam, and are chosen from among the 'jurists and judges of the
Islamic Revolution'.
Preliminary Proceedings
The investigating
magistrate has the normal powers to summon and examine witnesses, to grant bail
in appropriate cases, to order sequestration of the property and monies of the
accused ('taking into account the needs of his family').
As a general rule
no arrest can be made, nor any entry into a home for purposes of sequestration,
without the prior written authorisation of the prosecutor.
Where an arrest
without warrant is authorised (e.g. danger of absconding) the prosecutor must
be informed without delay.
There are special
provisions for accused persons who are member of the armed forces or law
enforcement bodies, or persons holding important political or administrative
positions.
In such cases, the
summons and arrest must be approved by a commission created by the
Revolutionary Council, and the accused's superior officer must be informed in
advance.
At the end of his
investigations, the magistrate gives his opinion o the guilt of innocence of
the accused to the prosecutor. Any difference of opinion between them on this
issue is resolved by the tribunal. The prosecutor draws up the indictment.
The Tribunals
There is a
Revolutionary Tribunal in each province, which may sit in several 'chambers'.
Each tribunal is composed of three judges, a president, who is a judge of
Islamic law ('qadi shara'), a judge with administrative responsibilities
appointed by the President, and judge 'who has the confidence of the people and
who knows the needs to the Islamic Revolution', chosen by the Revolutionary
Council or its delegate.
Procedure
The indictment must
be communicated in writing to the accused or his lawyer at least three days
before the trial. The accused can appoint his lawyer. The trial is not to last
more than a week, and at least 15 hours must be allowed to the accused and his
lawyer to present his defence.
Witnesses and
experts and the accused can be summoned by the tribunal and compelled to
attend. Where the accused fails to appear, he can be tried in this absence.
After the reading of the indictment and the hearing of the defence, the
tribunal proceeds to 'any inquiry it considers necessary to establish the legal
guilt of the accused'. Any gap in the evidence will be referred back to the
prosecutor. When the evidence is complete the tribunal, 'after deliberation in
conformity with principles of Islam', gives its verdict. This may be a majority
verdict if the President forms part of the majority. Otherwise, two Islamic
judges must be added to the tribunal, and then the judgment of the tribunal is
final.
It is expressly
stated that the verdicts are not subject to appeal or review.
Penalties
The penalties are
those fixed by Islamic Law ('shara') and comprise execution, imprisonment,
banishment and confiscation or illegally obtained property, after liquidation
of the accused's debts. If the offender has no lawful property, the state must
maintain those persons who are recognised by the tribunal as being dependents.
Sentences of
execution must be reported to the prosecutor ten days before they are carried
out, and during this period the condemned person must be allowed to meet his
family. Where possible the execution is to be carried out at the place of the
crime.
The 'special places
of detention' of the prosecuting authorities are to be under the supervision of
the local prosecutor of the revolution.
Comment
As will be seen
these rules cover a number of important safeguards. There are, however, several
glaring omissions. There is no provision for the accused to be represented by a
lawyer during the preliminary investigations, nor for his right to see and
confer with his lawyer in private before the trial (though it may be that this
is accorded in practice). The minimum time allowed for the preparation of the
defence appears inadequate, and it is not clear whether there are any
procedures for applying for and extension of time. The limitation of the
maximum period of the trials to one week must be inadequate in some cases.
Perhaps the most grave omission is the denial of any right of appeal or
revision. This assumes that the tribunals are incapable of error, which
experience in all countries shows to be unwarranted assumption. Moreover,
courts which are not subject to appeal or review tend to become lax in the
strict application of the law. This provision is a clear violation of Iran's
obligation under article 14(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights.
It is to be hoped
that the work of the Revolutionary Tribunals will soon be terminated and all
cases referred to the ordinary courts, which already have the necessary
jurisdiction to try them under the new Iranian Constitution.
*****