"The Special Court for Clergy is Illegal"

By Serajedin Mirdamadi

Note: In Iran, violations of human rights have been institutionalized not just through the passage of discriminatory rules and legislation. It has also flourished through discriminatory practices such as issuing unjust verdicts and meting out disproportionate punishments. These are issued by the judiciary, as well as by intelligence and security authorities. As part of its special series, “Human Rights in Iran: Thirty Years,” RADIO ZAMANEH delves deeper into the subject by examining the history, formation and operation of these institutions.

In the following interview, we take a closer look at the Special Court for Clergy (SCC). The SCC, which was established after the formation of the Islamic Republic, has consistently been at the forefront of human rights violations. Mohammad-Javad Akbarin, a reformist and intellectual cleric, was sentenced to a year in jail by the SCC for his critical writings. Here he discusses the Special Court for Clergy from a legal and political perspective:

The SCC was set up in May 1980 by the late Ayatollah Khomeini. The formation of this court and its charter were unconstitutional.

In 1988, in a letter addressed to the Third Majlis [parliament], Ayatollah Khomeini wrote: ‘Many of the rulings and decrees that I have issued in the past few years were because the Islamic Revolution and the Islamic Republic were not yet on a stable footing, and also because of the special emergency conditions created by the [Iran-Iraq] war. However, now that the war is over and we are approaching stability, we must return to the Constitution and everything must be defined within the framework of the Constitution.’

But the SCC, whose very foundation and charter were unconstitutional to begin with, was not shut down and continued to operate. In fact, it has become more powerful and marked by even greater excesses.

The establishment of this court was illegal. According to Article 157 of the Constitution [of the Islamic Republic of Iran], all judicial matters fall under the authority of the Judiciary branch. No judicial body shall exist outside the Judiciary’s control.

Mohammad-Javad Akbarin

But the fact of the matter is that the SCC is completely independent from the Judiciary. Even its chief judge and prosecutor are directly appointed by the [Supreme] Leader and the Judiciary has no authority to monitor, oversee or interfere in the affairs of the SCC.

For example, during my incarceration, a cleric who had been a student of Ayatollah Montazeri was imprisoned on a political charge. He went on a hunger strike after being tortured and denied his basic rights. On the ninth day of his hunger strike, an inspector from the Judiciary came to the jail. I started shouting to get his attention and then directed it to the plight of the cleric who had been on a hunger strike.

The inspector was quite sympathetic; he apologized but said the Judiciary had no authority to interfere in the affairs of the SCC.

Moreover, Article 35 of the Constitution states that all defendants have the right to an attorney. But the SCC strips the accused of that right. Of course, there have been exceptions in extraordinary circumstances, when the case was highly publicized and the defendant was a prominent official (such as in the case of Mr. Mohsen Kadivar and Mr. Abdollah Nouri).

So if the SCC has allowed a lawyer to be present it was because they were under pressure and the case had attracted media attention. In any event, it is the SCC that appoints a defense attorney or ultimately approves the choice. There is no such thing as a defendant choosing his own defense attorney.

Another point is that as Article 32 of the Constitution states, the defendant must be properly arraigned and the charges against him must be conveyed to him clearly and in writing. But in most cases, the SCC does not observe this rule. It didn’t in my case.

On the first day of my detention, they ordered me to participate in interrogation sessions and to answer any questions. They said they were under no obligation to inform me of the charges against me.

Also, the Constitution in no uncertain terms prohibits persecution of people based on political views and opinion. But in 103 of the SCC cases that we have looked into and investigated, the clerics were persecuted for expressing dissenting political views. Not just with respect to political questions such as their views on Velayat-e Faqih (direct rule by the clergy), or 'Why have you said such and such about the Islamic system or the Leader,' but also questions like 'Why do you have such and such a view on Imam Zaman' (the 12th Shia Imam) or other such questions.

They even questioned my interpretation of Islam, even though Islamic jurists and experts are allowed and entitled to hold their own views and interpretations.

In Article 32 of the Constitution, everyone, even the Leader, is equal under the law. No one is above the law and should not be treated differently. But the very existence of the SCC means that clerics are different from other people.

When it was pointed out to the SCC that it has acted unconstitutionally on 90 different occasions, their response was: ‘Considering that this court has been established by the Supreme Leader, is overseen by him, and that he is satisfied with our performance, those 90 instances of transgressions automatically become legal.’

Furthermore, one should look to the personalities inhabiting the SCC, not just its structure and legal apparatus. One should keep in mind the intimate relationship between the chief judge [Hojjatol-Islam Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejeie], the prosecutor of the SCC [Hojjat al-Eslam Mohammad Salimi], the [Supreme] Leader, his office and his chief of staff [Ayatollah Mohammad Mohammadi Golpayegani]. It is notable that after Mohseni-Ejeie became Intelligence Minister, Salimi replaced him as chief judge.

On one occasion, Ayatollah Mohammadi-Golpayegani was actually quoted as saying 'Opposition to the SCC means opposition to the Islamic system.'

This trio's [Mohammadi-Golpayegani, Salimi, Mohseni-Ejeie] special relationships have led to a wave of harassment, imprisonment, etc., of reform-minded and moderate clerics during the reformist era.

All SCC verdicts were issued by Salimi and signed by Mohseni-Ejeie. All complaints and lawsuits filed against Salimi and Mohseni-Ejeie were filtered by Mohammadi-Golpayegani in such a manner that the Leader himself wouldn’t know about it.

In 1999, Salimi actually proposed hanging Ayatollah Montazeri, if Ayatollah Khamenei gave the green light.

The bond between the SCC leadership and the office of the Supreme Leader is so strong that no legal challenge can threaten or undermine it. The unconstitutionality of the SCC is so egregious that it would have brought down and led to the demise of any other institution in the Islamic system and the only reason it hasn’t happened to the SCC is because of the personal ties described above.