Stop Stoning

“We Are Not Ashamed of ‎Stoning!”

soheila — 2008-05-23T01:37:04Z

‎

30 September 2007

ISNA - The secretary general of Iran's Human Rights Committee, Dr. Mohammad Javad Larijani declared: The West has had an extensive Propaganda campaign against Iran on Human rights issues; most of which are caused by political incentives.

On the writ of stoning, Dr.Larijani added: stoning is neither torture nor an incongruous punishment. He said that practically, stoning is no longer fulfilled in Iran and as for the case in Takistan, he said that it was caused by the personal mistake of the judge.

Dr. Mohammad Javad Larijani stated that the human rights committee of Judiciary is composed of people of the highest political and administrative level with the headship of Ayatollah Shahroodi and membership of foreign, information, home secretary, judiciary, and enlightenment ministers and also with the cooperation of the head of constabulary, penitentiary and judicial organs.

He added: I have the honor of being the secretary-general of this Human Rights committee which is a national authority on Human rights issues with specific obligations. Its constitution was the enactment of the National Security Council with the confirmation of Ayatollah Khameniee.

The instrumental role of a national authority on Human right issues:

He apprised the committee of human rights as a great experience for the country. He Said: during a meeting with the head commissar of Human Rights who has the highest position in the United Nations' Human Right committee, while he appreciated the national authority in human right issues, he believed that this should be an example for other countries since it has an effective impression on Human Rights.

He added: The West has always had a negative view of Iran and other Islamic countries regarding the Human Rights matters and condemns our civil and legal systems. Now, with the constitution of this committee we are able to address the Human Rights issues from the Islamic point of view.

The West has had an Extensive Propaganda Campaign against Iran on Human rights

During these last 30 years Western countries have had a political campaign against Iran on matters such as the breach of Human Rights, terrorism, nuclear energy, and weapons of mass destruction.

West wishes to force its Liberal Democratic interpretations of legal issues on Iran He said: we have signed some international commitments and documents on human rights but we do believe that the west can no longer force its liberal democratic interpretations on Iran while we have our independent and Islamic commentary on them which are in conflict with theirs. The sitting of the Non-Committed which was held in Tehran had great achievements. There it was decided that the documents and treaties would be interpreted according to nations' cultural circumstances and specific conditions.

We have already presented over 2000 pages of response to United Nations

Dr.Larijani added: we have been complained of before by the West about Human Rights but unfortunately they could not present their case specifically and in detail. However, we can now collect and investigate all their claims in respective committees and can respond in a professional and legal manner. We have already presented over 2000 pages of response to United Nations.

West's criticisms largely peruse political goals

Most of westerns' criticisms are because of political reasons. With these criticisms, they want to put us under political pressure. So we should follow our professional procedures and that is exactly what we have done so far.

The limit between torture and punishment is imponderable

Dr. Larigani said: As West thinks of itself as a social and cerebral egocentric, it wants to make its liberal democratic thinking ambient while Islamic republic of Iran does not accept this matter. That is why they criticize some of our Islamic rules such as stoning and they believe it should be stopped.

Their reproofs are based on several considerations: they say stoning is not a punishment but a torture while we think the line between torture and punishment is imponderable. On the other hand they insist that the crime and the punishment are not in proportion with each other, and they do believe the punishment for adultery should not be that severe. In fact they don't consider this atrocity as a crime at all and they wish to force this belief on us.

If we had execution as a punishment for adultery instead of stoning, they would again complain that the crime and the punishment are not in proportion with each other-but as you know in Islamic rules, stoning is in lower level than execution because in stoning the defendant has a chance to survive. Besides, we think that the discrimination of insolence of adultery is not on Westerners but on the social norms within our country. Stoning is neither a torture nor a disproportionate punishment

He added: we accept that according to international treaties we had signed, we have no right to have torture or disproportionate punishment, but we believe stoning is neither of them. This is one ruling our judge will use in the cases of adultery and as long as it exists in our law books, it will be in our judges' capacity to use them. Of course there are some ongoing religious discussions about stoning; for example, some say stoning is not sanctioned in the Holy Quran and some doubt that in the time of the prophet Muhammad stoning was carried out.

Our Islamic essays are not blind and they are discussable

He went on to say: We could see stoning In Jewish creeds too and that was a problem in their religion. Our Islamic essays are open to discussions on this matter.

Ayatollah Shahroodi insists strongly on the meticulous survey of the situations and exactness of the adultery proofs so that there would be no doubts or suspicions because the discrimination of adultery is such a delicate and responsive act.

Another question regarding the stoning is whether or not it would be replaceable with lighter or other punishments?

We practically don't fulfill stoning in Iran any more because of its difficult and delicate orientation

He added: when a writ of stoning is held, Ayatollah Shahahrodi uses his special authority and more investigations and surveys are done to avoid any possible mistakes. This limitation leads this writ to appear as if it has stopped and in practice we don't fulfill stoning in Iran any more because of the great care that should be taken to confirm the occurrence of this crime. But as long as stoning exists in our law, the judges are able to use it.

Dr.Larijani said about Takistan case which saw the stoning of a man, “Ayattolah Shahrodi's orders were to halt the execution until further consideration. Unfortunately the writ of stoning was a mistake but not a violation on the judge's part. Although I can not hide the judge's mistake, he had the writ of the previous judge and upheld it. But in fact, it was the mistake of the judge himself.”

The Takistan case was a mistake on the judge's part if not a violation

Dr. Larigani complained about the arbitrary act of the judge and said: Ayatollah Shahroodi asked for the stop of the writ for further surveys and proofs; so the act of the judge was improper.

In the case of Takistan, as we know the man and the woman were neighbors, they ran away to Takistan and even change their ID and married and had children. So this event shows their case was not one of being lewdness but one of melancholia and mental illness.

Some think we are embarrassed to execute stoning, but this is not the case

He said: I don't really want to defend these two people's atrocious act but their case was totally different from those who elope for their impulses for they had some mental disorders and were on suspicion of being mad so the judiciary system ordered the case to be put on a hold for further considerations. Some think that because the west urged us to stop stoning we were ashamed of fulfilling the writ but in fact it is not so because we act according to Quaran's and our Islamic essays .and in this matter it was absolutely the arbitrary mistake of the judge and it was not the policy of our system because our system cares about these kinds of cases with specific consideration and carefulness.

And he said that the judge is now under investigation.

Source: http://www.isna.ir/Main/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-1004107&Lang=P

Translated by: Niloofar Shahmohammadi Edited by Navid Vafaee

Stoning Sentence for Female “Evil Doer”

soheila — 2008-05-23T01:14:15Z

‎ 27 September 2007

Ghods Newspaper - A woman who committed adultery, having a husband and three children was sentenced to death in an Iranian court in Mashhad.

According to our source from the area, following a complaint filed by a woman alleging blackmail and intimidation, a court in Mashhad opened a file to investigate her complaint and the accused was arrested soon after. The case was then referred to the 5th circuit criminal court of Khorasan province. The defendant provided pictures and pornographic video tapes claiming that the plaintiff has engaged in sexual acts with him willingly and without any coercion. After several hearings, judges of the fifth circuit condemned the female plaintiff to death by stoning on charges of adultery and the man to 100 lashes.

Source: http://www.qudsdaily.com/archive/1386/html/7/1386-07-05/page58.html#11

Translated by: Navid Vafaee

Iran ... back to the Stone Age

soheila — 2008-05-23T01:11:16Z

August 7, 2007

The crime: Adultery

Victims: Two consenting adults of the opposite sex.

Verdict: Death by stoning

This is the sad ending to a love story that germinates deep in the heart of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Mr. Jafar Kiani and Ms. Mokarrameh Ebrahimi of Aghchekand in the northwest Qazvin province of Iran were lovers.

They were married, but not to each other at the time of their arrest.

They have an 11-year- old boy out of that adulterous relationship.

According to reports obtained by Amnesty International, Kiani and Ebrahimi were convicted of adultery more than a decade ago.

The child has known no other home but the gloomy cells of Choubin prison where he lives with his mother.

On July 5, 2007, Kiani was buried up to his waist with his hands tied behind his back.

Those responsible for carrying out the verdict threw stones and rocks of a particular size at the convict until he died a slow, painful and humiliating death.

Under Iran's Islamic law, adultery is punishable by stoning.

Stoning was widely imposed in the early years after the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Rarely did authorities publicly confirm such a punishment, it was always hushed up.

However, the brazenness with which the authorities have confirmed this latest act is chilling.

It is a clear violation of international law to which Iran is a signatory. In December 2002, Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi, the head of Iran's judiciary ordered a ban on the practice of stoning.

"The execution has apparently gone ahead despite Iran's moratorium on execution by stoning, a moratorium that had been in effect since 2002," said Jose Diaz in a statement issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva.

Iran is known to dish out death sentences quite liberally. Capital punishment by public hanging is common for offences that include rape, murder, armed robbery, apostasy, blasphemy, drug trafficking, adultery, prostitution, treason and espionage.

With Kiani dead, his partner Ebrahimi is being held on death row in Choubin prison in the province of Qazvin.

Canada has strongly condemned this act and is lobbying the government of Iran to prevent Ebrahimi suffering the same fate.

Niaz Salimi, an Iranian-Canadian social activist and a member of the Canadian Muslim Union, says the execution has left people believing this practice is part of Islamic law.

"Stoning has nothing to do with the Koran and Islamic Shariah," she said. "It is just mixed up and messed up."

Salimi says she is actively campaigning against this barbaric practice.

"Each individual can make a very valuable contribution. This campaign should be supported by every Iranian and non-Iranian who is concerned about human rights. It is very important that we make it an international campaign."

In the past few years, some of Iran's reformist legislators have demanded an end to death by stoning as a punishment from adultery.

They failed in the face of stiff opposition from hard-line clerics.

Several women's rights activists, headed by feminist lawyer Shadi Sadr, have also been campaigning to have stoning removed from Iran's statute books.

One such activist is Nasrin Sotouden, who is also an Iranian lawyer.

"All the women in the campaign against stoning have faced heavy penalties such as whip lashes and jail," she said in a telephone interview from Tehran.

"The hardliners are trying to stop this activism. We really need a reform in our law."

Sotouden said more than 50,000 people have signed petitions for the Stop Stoning Forever Campaign, and 72 feminist organizations have united their efforts "to stop this disgraceful act condoned by the government of Iran."

"We are still hopeful. We are going to submit this petition to the Iranian parliament. We have not lost our hope yet."

Meanwhile, on death row in the bleak confines of Choubin prison, 43-year-old Mokarrameh Ebrahimi awaits her fate.

She is probably unaware of the international campaign that has been launched to save her and others in her situation, as she hopes that she does not meet the same fate as her lover, and the father of her son, Kiani.

Fariba Sahraei is an Iranian Canadian journalist enrolled with the Sheridan College's Canadian Journalism program.As a freelancer she works for BBC Persian Now.

Teenaz Javat is an Indian-Canadian journalist enrolled with Sheridan College's Canadian Journalism for Internationally Trained Writers program.

Source: http://www.thespec.com/article/230458

Stoning Judge Under Investigation

soheila — 2008-05-23T01:08:27Z

July 31, 2007

Judiciary spokesman asked members of Iranian parliament to help amend the country's penal code. He urged the legislative to use this time to submit their recommendation to the Judiciary for consideration in the upcoming bill.

Asked about stoning and the legal burden of proof, he replied, “We do recognize the legal and theocratic hurdles in issuing a stoning sentence. Even theologians have different opinions about it. We will be clarifying the guidelines for stoning in the upcoming penal code”.

Asked specifically about the recent stoning sentence in Takistan, Mr. jamshidi said, “I'm not familiar with prosecution's arguments in that case. So, we are looking into it for now. However, the judge in that case has been under investigation for other alleged irregularities even before this stoning case.”

Source: http://www.isna.ir/Main/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-970343&Lang=P//

Translated by: Manesh

A Brief History of Grassroots Struggles to End Stoning

soheila — 2008-05-23T01:06:44Z

August 6, 2007

The mechanism by which legislation is passed in Iran has a particular characteristic: laws cannot be incongruent with religious doctrine. Therefore in Iran the legislative entities do not have the freedom to easily change or remove laws that are in harmony with religious principles. The Gaurdian Council in Iran acts to prevent the passage of laws that it finds incompatible with Islamic law.

After the Islamic revolution of 1979, cruel and unusual punishment such as stoning made its way into the Iranian legal system. Since that time, there has been an on and off discussion about whether it is possible to find a solution to the problematic and politically sensitive position this punishment creates for Iran on the world stage. In other words, can the legislative branch find a solution that would facilitate the removal of laws that permit stoning as a form of punishment?

For a very long time the legal discussion surrounding stoning would only occur in the private sphere. It was not possible to have an open discussion because of the politically taboo nature of the topic. Many had paid an exorbitant personal price for voicing their opinions and over time very few voices in opposition to this form of punishment could be heard. However, even during this repressive period, there were a few individuals that used the space for dialogue that had developed as a result of the ending of the Iran-Iraq war to condemn this form of punishment. These individual used the multiple international treaties on political, civil, economic, social and cultural rights that Iran had become a signatory to and its open agreement with over thirty articles of the Declaration of Human Rights as leverage to criticize this form of punishment. In this period, Shirin Ebadi and I started using international treaties as a basis to write many articles and books on the subject.

During this period, many religious scholars also began to write opinions on the basis of “Ejtehad” (a practice of religious jurisprudence) to attempt to convince the power centers against reform, that it is possible to reform Islamic law without inflicting any harm to religious doctrine. These religious scholars did not have (and still do not have) the needed authority and power to implement their opinions and reform the law. It is hard to say that their numbers have increased over time. These scholars have issued opinions on a wide variety of topics. They have stated, for example, that “Dieh” (compensation that is paid to a victim's family) should be equal for men and women or that the age that one could stand trial can be raised without compromising religious doctrine. These scholars attempted to use their scholarship to influence and reform laws; however I do not recall their participation in discussions around stoning. They did enter discussions surrounding legal age and puberty, the right for women to testify in legal proceedings, child custody and the right of divorce. One scholar (Sanei) went as far as to suggest that women can become “Valieh Faghih” (a supreme religious leader). In the mean time, stoning remained a taboo subject and no religious scholar entered this discussion willingly.

In our activism, we would initiate the discussion on stoning by using the many international treaties that Iran had signed as leverage to point out how incongruent these practices were with these treaties. We would use specific articles to argue that these punishments were cruel, inhumane, indefensible and incompatible with international human rights law and should be erased from domestic law. As Iran was a signatory to many international human rights treaties, we were able to enter the discussion and to an extent we were successful in advancing the cause against these forms of punishment.

This situation continued until stoning became a powerful weapon in the hands of the international opposition to the Iranian regime. Films were made that claimed to document actual stoning that took place in Iran. These films were shown in Europe and especially Scandinavian countries. This footage had a powerful effect on public opinion. The strong competition amongst political parties in Europe led to pressure being placed on the ruling coalition for its economic ties to the Iranian regime. The public began to seriously question the leadership on its dealings with Iran. The political opposition in many European countries used this powerful footage as a tool to weaken the party in power. The ruling party's political and economic relationship with Iran came under strong question and criticism.

In my opinion, inflamed public opinion compelled the EU (for its own political and economic benefit) to pursue a human rights dialogue with Iran. In response, Iran developed an international committee on human rights within the judicial branch which was run (and still is run) by Mr. Javad Larijani. At that time, the “nuclear issue” had not yet emerged and both the government of Iran and the EU attempted to dissipate the human rights issues to maintain their mutually beneficial economic relationship. The Europeans were very interested in developing relationships with Iranian non-governmental organizations (NGOs), but the Iranian regime created very few opportunities for such relationships to develop and in some cases actively prevented some NGOs from participating in talks.

During the reform movement in Iran, and as part of the official visits between Iran and the EU, two important developments took place. The power centers in the judicial branch in Iran agreed to no longer implement stoning as a form of punishment. The Iranian officials also agreed to no longer execute minors. The attempts made by the EU to actually change Iranian law were unsuccessful. It appears the EU accepted the tacit agreement made by Iranian officials to no longer allow stoning. Using mass media, EU officials were able to appease public opinion and emphasize the progress made in negotiating on human rights with the Iranian regime. To some extent, public anger in the EU about human rights abuses in Iran dissipated.

However from then on, whenever a European country had a disagreement with Iran, the footage on stoning would reappear on TV and a public outcry would ensue. I would guess that the presentation of these movies always coincided with a difference of opinion or a diplomatic scuffle between Iran and a particular EU country. At any rate, it had become politically expedient for both the EU and Iran to compromise over the issue of human rights abuses. Neither Iran nor Europe wanted to lose the economic benefits related to trade that came with good relations. Therefore the EU and Iran reached a compromise that the laws would not change but Iran would not engage in the practice of stoning. In my opinion, this unwritten compromise was in play until the “nuclear issue” became the focal point of discussions between Iran and the EU and the EU followed the US lead on this issue.

After this period, where the EU and Iran had seemingly reached a compromise, the implementation of stoning as a form of punishment was always accompanied by opposition from Iranian women's rights group. The taboo surrounding an open discussion of stoning was obliterated due to the discussions between the EU and Iran on the subject. These discussions became the basis for Iranian women's rights activist to enter the debate over stoning.

After this new space for dialogue was created, Iranian women's rights activists could speak proactively against a scheduled stoning or stoning that had already occurred in women's magazines and reformist publications. As a result of this active debate, the movement “Campaign Against Stoning” was launched with the hard work of activists in Iran (Shadi Sadr, Asieh Amini, Mahboubeh Abbasgholizadeh) and your own work as an international coordinator. The campaign has developed a structure in which activists work with local attorneys to identify cases of stoning and through an information campaign are able to create a public debate over the issue. In my opinion the most important achievement of this campaign is that it created solidarity and information exchange between activists inside and outside Iran to use both the language of human rights law and the language of shariah law to combat stoning as a form of punishment.

The language of sharieh law has come to be used in the form of legal case studies. The use of case studies in stoning is very important. I believed that if we could document a particular case and publicize it, we can capitalize on both educating the public and creating public sensitivity to the subject. Unfortunately, during the time I was active in Iran, such an activity was impossible and these cases were filed away from view. At the present time, the current climate ensures that these cases see the light of day and are investigated by both lawyers and the judiciary. In addition, these case studies create a certain kind of relationship between lawyers and the judiciary where those in charge gain an understanding of how this law is executed and the lawyers understand the sequence of events that lead to this punishment.

Legislative changes that come about due to societal needs are only effective when the political and legislative bodies are based on common or secular law. In theocratic societies where legislation is restricted by religious doctrine, it is difficult to change and reform laws in accordance with the social and cultural evolution of society. Presently, human rights activists in Iran face seemingly insurmountable obstacles because religious restrictions prevent legislative changes. In many instances, these activists are forced to speak and argue on religious grounds to reform laws. Using religious arguments can prevent the political consequences of arguing in secular terms. However, in the past 28 years religious scholars have been unable to advance changes in the Iranian legal system using religious arguments on the issues of divorce, “dieh” or the age of puberty.

Due to the steadfast work of the campaign, a few clerics within the government have also reiterated the work of religious scholars that have found that eliminating stoning as a form of punishment is not incompatible with shariah law. Even though this movement on the part of establishment clerics is reactionary in nature, and seeks to diminish the influence of the campaign, it must be seen as a positive development that speaks to the effectiveness of the campaign's work. It is probably true that the government is trying to use this new tactic to diminish the campaign's influence; however if religious figures in the government actually reform the law, then we can conclude that the movement has been successful.

The case by case study of stoning has had another positive feature: in many cases the law of stoning is not properly implemented by the authorities. The publicization of cases serves as a signal to the judiciary that the stoning is implemented in a manner that is incompatible with current law. The publicity causes even religious scholars to object to the manner in which stoning is carried out because it is frequently incompatible with shariah law.

The most important achievement of the campaign has been that individuals committed to human rights in Iran and in the world have become familiar with this cruel and inhumane form of punishment. Through their work with lawyers and activists, they can react to stoning in their respective countries. The campaign, in effect, is a chalice that collects these worldwide reactions and brings the discussion out of the shadows and into the light. Over time the campaign has gained momentum. In addition, activists from other Islamic countries who hear about an upcoming stoning in Iran contact the campaign and donate their resources to prevent the stoning from taking place. Stopping any and all stoning in Iran is one benefit of the campaign, but it is not the final goal. The primary aim of the campaign which is clear from its name is to eliminate stoning from the laws of Iran. It is this primary aim that makes the campaign, in my view, an important historical movement, not only for women's rights but also for human rights. As we recently heard, stoning continues in Iran and a man in Ghazvin recently lost his life underneath a cascade of stones.

As I described before, the legislative process in Iran is full of obstacles and difficulties. Reform of the law in a manner in which stoning is eliminated as a form of punishment will undoubtedly face resistance from hardliners. These hardliners believe that it is unlikely for stoning to be eliminated from the pages of Iranian law.

On the other hand, there is a particular view among religious scholars that any activity that may jeopardize the welfare of the regime can be reformed. If the campaign can demonstrate that maintaining the punishment of stoning within the law harms the image of Iran in the international arena, then the “Expediency Discernment Council “ can determine that maintaining this form of punishment is not in the best interest of the regime. In effect, this Council can eliminate this form of punishment from Iranian law.

For the Council to be able to take action, first a law regarding the legality of stoning must be introduced into parliament and passed into law. Then the Council of Guardians may strike down the law because it does not conform to Islam. The parliament must pass the law again by passing it with 2/3 of the votes of its members. After a second vote, the matter will be referred to the Expediency Council at which time the Council has the authority to find stoning incompatible with the best interest of the regime and effectively eliminate the law. Therefore, the cooperation of the judiciary with parliament in developing legislation and the work of parliament in approving the legislation is necessary before stoning can be removed from Iranian criminal law.

While the work of the campaign is beneficial in the information and publicity it provides domestically and internationally and because of the stoning it prevents, it is not a final solution. The work of the campaign creates the foundation and political climate that is necessary for a legislative and legal movement to ban stoning as a form of punishment in Iran. At the present time a few religious scholars are also publicizing their own opinions and providing the campaign with an intellectual foundation.

However, in my opinion the sentinel event that we are waiting for to change the law has not yet occurred. It requires that the judicial branch and the legislative branch work together in the same direction. On women's day many spoke about the importance of reassessing the laws—unfortunately there is a distance between speeches and action.

In my view, Iran is undergoing a period of political transition. Even though the campaign is continuing its work in this politically sensitive time, we cannot pick a date and suggest for example, that the campaign will succeed in changing the law within a certain period. Particularly, because the judicial branch is using its own tactics to influence public opinion. For example, as soon as a case of stoning is brought up for consideration, the judiciary insists that there is no plans to implement stoning. At any rate there is a “game” in progress and both sides have their own strategy and tools.

Occasionally it seems that officials in Tehran have no authority over the actions taking place in the provinces. It seems that in particularly sensitive times, when the world is watching, someone is stoned. It is unclear if Ayatollah Shahroudi (the head of the judiciary) is aware of a case of stoning and falsely denies knowledge or the fissures in the judiciary have reached a point that he has lost control. In either case, current events are a cause for concern.

Without a doubt, the present state of affairs are not permanent and things will change. Perhaps even the hardliners who currently wield all the power may decide to take action on the basis of the campaign's work to eliminate this form of punishment. At any rate, we must remember that the “nuclear issue” has captured the attention of the world and delays progress on human rights. The people who benefit from the current nuclear standoff are the same people who reject human rights and who also ignore the national interests of the Iranian people.

Srouce: http://zanan.iran-emrooz.net/index.php?/zanan/more/13459

Translated by: A. Roya

“Stoning Not in Contrast with Human Rights!”

soheila — 2008-05-23T01:00:39Z

July 2007

The chair of the Iranian State Human Rights Committee called the stoning sentence a practice in compliance with the Islamic sharia which is not in contrast with any of the Islamic Republic of Iran's international obligations. Mohammad Javad Larijani said in the Channel One's program, A Perspective, that the stoning sentence is very harsh and that “The holy law maker made this law for deterrence, not revenge. Recognizing, passing, and executing such sentence have special condition.”

In answer to a question regarding the fact that the last stoning sentence executed was contrary to the wishes of the head of judiciary, Larijani said “Mr Shahroudi (head of the judiciary) is not in principle against this law as it is based on Islamic sharia and it is also not the case that we [Iranian government] are being extremely careful for the westerners' sake. As it is the case for all harsh punishment, we take special care when we deal with a stoning case.”

The head of the Iranian State Human Rights Committee added that this sentence is not in contrast with our international obligations: “With regards to human rights, we have signed about 4 important documents and neither is against stoning. The westerners oppose stoning sentence based on the interpretations that they have of these laws and their contents. For example they say that this is torture, not punishment, or they say this punishment is not proportional to the committed action or they say there is humiliation in this punishment; these are all opinions…”

Source: http://www.roozna.com/Negaresh_site/FullStory/?Id=42235

Translated by: Navid Vafaee

Campaign Against Stoning

soheila — 2008-05-23T00:55:10Z

July 16, 2007

One year and three months a go, a man and a woman were stoned to death in Behesht-Reza near Mashad. When we followed up and reported it, the authorities, including the late Karimi-Rad, Justice Department spokesman, denied it. Even our own friends and colleagues repeatedly reminded us that following a directive issued by the head of the judiciary in 1381 (2002), there has not been any stonings in Iran.

While this indifference was going on, another convict in Ahwaz was told to get ready to be stoned to death.

We had gone to Ahwaz to meet with the woman's lawyer and family to see if there was any way we could save her. That's when we heard there was another woman in Jolfa in a similar predicament whose case is truly shocking. It would amaze anyone.

The woman in Jolfa had already been taken to be stoned once before. She was a smart woman who had read books on related laws while in prison, and who had reminded the judge, on the day of her execution, that her execution would have been illegal since she had not yet received a reply to her latest appeal. The judge was swayed to postpone the execution until the appeal is heard. The woman's elderly mother and her pro bono lawyers, publicized her case as they pursued legal remedies. Eventually, the sentence was overturned, she was re-tried and acquitted of adultery.

These events, which can be amply documented- and what document could be better than living witnesses, were happening at a time when the authorities were denying them, and ordinary citizens doubted they could happen.

[Translator's note: Apparently, while stoning is a permissible punishment in Islamic Republic's penal code, it is not practiced in with any fanfare or even overtly. Most cases involve poor, uneducated defendants, usually women, in rural areas which seldom receive national attention. The sentence is usually handed down by a local judge who then oversees its execution.]

WHY THIS CAMPAIGN?

It was during these times that Stop Stoning Forever Campaign came to being. Our goals were to find cases, research them, help find attorneys who would vigorously represent the defense, activism & publicity, and, ultimately, freeing the convicts with an eye towards abolishing stoning altogether. Stoning is a cruel and backward punishment. We knew that raising awareness about an issue like stoning in the 21st century is not just about saving one life or changing one law. It will inevitably lead to examining other draconian or discriminatory laws in the court of public opinion. We expected other social, cultural, or even political institutions to rise up against it.

Founders of this campaign had previously been active in other human rights and women's causes. Their focus on stoning was initially seen as a struggle over something “that's not all that important”.

The reason this campaign was not initially taken seriously had several reasons: One was that the number of cases involved was small. Two, it seemed as if this was a single injustice against women and not legally very broad. Third, some people felt why challenge a law that is not supposed to be enforced anyway?

Fourth, there were some who felt stoning was not a cause for legal activism but a matter of prevailing social customs that consider sexual indiscretions unforgivable. Needless to say, these “customs” typically leave a thousand loopholes for men to escape the charge of adultery. In other word, the fourth group believed that as long as there are people in society who are willing to throw stones at an adulterer, or even are willing to witness it as a public ritual, then that lends some legitimacy to stoning as a punishment.

There were more than a few objections but we were aware of the issues. For example, we've known all along that when you fight against something like stonings, just as the law needs to be changed, so do certain underlying social power bases that go with it. Case in point: Why is that in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iraq, it is not the law or law enforcement who carries out stonings, but these stonings, like all other honor killings, are the wish and will of the local men? Furthermore, the more tradition and custom enters the equation, the more anti-woman the formula gets. Why is it then, in Pakistan, for instance, the punishment for a man who rapes a woman is to let the victim's male relatives rape one of the rapist's female relatives? These are matters of masculine honor which punish any sexual indiscretion by women according to a traditional patriarchal order.

In any case, the Stop Stoning Forever Campaign was formed and carried on for several reasons:

First, the severity of the act embodies “cruel and unusual punishment” prior to a preordained death. Even if someone escapes this fate, you can't expect them to escape the psychological trauma that follows them for the rest of their lives [not to mention the social stigma]. Stoning convicts are typically some of the neediest, most destitute people in society. It's hard to ignore them and still call yourself a woman's rights, or human rights, activist.

Second, despite popular belief, even though number of stonings in Iran is small, and even though among them there are men to be found, the path to their end almost always involves gender discrimination against women.

The nightmare that is the life of a stoning defendant is a tunnel of horrors through which a woman has lived, all her life, unable to choose her spouse, unable to get a divorce, precluded from equal inheritance, subjected to her husband's polygamy, deprived from sexual freedoms, financially dependant, unworthy of her children's custody, etc. She stands at the end of this tunnel. Are there not people, especially women, who know this tunnel well, and who walk the halls of the legal system, that can help these victims?

This aid, this comfort, does not, in any way, condone what is referred to as “infidelity”. This is support for a human being's right to choose his or her fate, regardless of gender. This is support for equality under law. It is also a reflection of the need to reform social institutions to benefit women.

Women's rights activism in our predominantly visual culture needs visual arguments. The image of half-burying someone alive and stoning them to death is a compelling picture.

One can not read Hajieh's story and not feel compassion for her. When you read Makrameh's story, you'll no doubt appreciate the case for allowing young girls to choose their own spouses. This campaign tries to delve into the lives of the men and women who are victims of stonings and reveal the bigger picture to society. We want to follow their stories and study the relationship between their particular lives and the place women have in society.

Today, the result may be the knowledge that a person's life was taken under a barrage of stones. But, these events were happening before away from the scrutiny of public opinion. Once we shine a light on such acts, in a world where international treaties demand respect for human dignity, someone has to answer for such acts. This time, what heretofore was reported as “sharia justice”, and was recorded in death certificates as “execution without resistance”, can come into public view.

And what about those who ask, “Shall we allow spousal infidelity pass in silence?” The answer to them is that the purpose of our campaign is not to argue criminal justice aspects of infidelity. The focus here is on punishment- the punishment itself- not its relationship to the crime. Whether we consider infidelity a crime, in conscious or in law, a torturous punishment is illegal and unacceptable. Further legal arguments are beyond the scope of our concerns at the moment.

One of the strangest arguments is that so long as there are people who are willing to throw the stones, and so long as infidelity is unacceptable in our society, nothing will change. Laws do not reflect the wishes of a few hundred people who throw stones at others. Laws must protect the society as well as the safety of individuals. Laws must be in step with civilized norms of our times. Laws must lead societies away from violence and criminality.

If women like Mahboubeh or Makrameh had had the right to separate from spouses with whom life under the same roof had become unbearable, had they had some legal refuge in their predicaments, there would not have been infidelity, nor spouse killing. There would not have been any stonings.

Another incredible aspect of these legal proceedings is the inconsistency and inequity of judgments. A woman who was pimped by her husband receives the same sentence as the woman who followed her own hearts desire. A woman who was in another town at the time of her husband's murder, and who never confessed to an inappropriate relationship, is given the same sentence as the woman who was found living with her husband's killer in another town.

Human rights protect every individual. When a woman from the lowest rungs of society enjoys the same legal protections as everyone else, then we can say we have are moving towards equal rights.

Source: Rooz Online

Translated by: Manesh

Blood Was Everywhere, the Smell of Death

soheila — 2008-05-23T00:43:39Z

July 13, 2007

Shadi Sadr, a prominent lawyer and activist who has worked to overturn the convictions of several women sentenced to death.

BERKELEY, United States, Jul 13 (IPS) - Criticism of Iran's judiciary is mounting following the brutal execution of a man who was convicted of adultery more than a decade ago and stoned to death on Jul. 5. Although the head of the judiciary branch, Ayatollah Mahmoud Shahroudi, issued a written order stopping the execution almost a month ago, the judge in the case insisted on stoning Jafar Kiani to death.

Stoning is the prescribed punishment for adultery under Islamic law in Iran. However, in recent years, some judiciary officials have been reluctant to enforce it due to intense domestic and international objections to its barbaric nature. In Sharia (Islamic law), a man is usually buried up to his waist, while a woman is buried up to her neck. Those carrying out the verdict throw stones at the condemned person until they die.

Almost a month ago, "Stop Stoning Forever", a social campaign formed by outspoken women activists, warned the public that Kiani and Mokarrameh Ebrahimi, a 43-year-old mother of three, would be stoned to death in Takistan, a city in Ghazvin province. They launched an internet campaign and contacted judiciary officials to stop the execution.

They were successful in reaching the segment of the judiciary branch that opposed the use of stoning in such cases, convincing Ayatollah Mahmoud Shahroudi to order a halt to the execution.

Since the Iranian government controls all major media such as television, radio and newspapers, the internet is the only communication tool that activists can employ to bypass censorship, filtering and suppression of freedom of speech.

Then, on Jul. 10, Dr. Alireza Jamshidi, the spokesman for the judiciary branch, confirmed that in fact, Jafar Kiani had been executed by stoning five days earlier, although his partner, Mokarrameh Ebrahimi, has still not been executed.

Jamshidi expressed surprise at the decision by a local judge to proceed: "There has been a stoning sentence carried out by a judge in Takistan branch recently, but the sentences were not supposed to be executed in such a manner according to the judiciary branch, and the ban order issued by the head of the judiciary is to ensure appropriate caution by the judges in issuing and executing such sentences."

"But in this case, since the sentence had been confirmed [by the Supreme Court] it was carried out, although the woman's sentence has been stopped," he said.

"The extent to which the ban order can deprive a judge from independence is a long discussion, but a judge can act independently — although with the order of the head of judiciary, it is necessary to exercise more caution in issuing and executing these sentences," he added.

Several sources say that the office of Judge Ashabi, who enforced the sentence, is closed and he has not been seen since the execution. The head of the judiciary in Ghazvin Province has also said that the sentence was implemented without his knowledge and the judge enforced the sentence on his accord. There is clear evidence of internal struggles over this issue among radical Islamists and moderates in the judiciary branch.

Asieh Amini, a journalist and women's rights activist who went to Aghche-Kands, a small village near Takistan where the stoning took place, told IPS that none of the local people she spoke to were aware that such an incident had occurred.

"From what I have found, Ayatollah Shahroudi just halted the stoning but he did not cancel it. Therefore, the judge was able to legally carry out the sentence under the current laws in Iran," she said.

"The judge, with help from a few policemen, took the prisoner from detention to a very small village, along with some of his colleagues from the judiciary office in Ghazvin province. Although none of the people in that small village were agreeable to the stoning, the judge and his accomplices stoned him to death," Amini said, based on her observations from her trip to the area.

She was able to locate a copy of the judge's report that was written to his superior official. The judge started the execution by throwing the first stone.

"I went there; blood was everywhere, the smell of death. Killing a man by throwing out stones [is] a cold-blooded action. It seems it is a political game and a power struggle among radicals, traditionalists and moderates. I believe Ayatollah Shahroudi is not a fan of execution by stoning but as it is an Islamic law, he cannot oppose the fundamentalists in the judiciary and remains silent against enforcement of such a brutal sentence," she added.

Many other countries and human rights groups have strongly condemned this barbaric punishment. Just a few days ago, Human Rights Watch sent a letter to Ayatollah Shahroudi urging him to eliminate the penalty from Iran's constitution.

"We wrote to Ayatollah Shahroudi for several reasons: First, this cold-blooded killing was carried out by provincial judiciary officials who come under his supervision, at least nominally. Second, he had recently ordered the stay of execution in this case — which the provincial authorities disregarded. Third, he had previously issued the moratorium on executions by stoning," Joe Stork, deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa division at Human Rights Watch, told IPS. "It would be a logical step, following on the moratorium, to remove from the books any regulations recommending or permitting execution by stoning for any offence," he added. "The next step, which we did not spell out in our letter, would be to ban execution by stoning, and affirmatively make it a criminal offence."

Shadi Sadr, a prominent lawyer and leading member of the "Stop Stoning Forever" campaign, says there is clearly a conflict in the differing stances within the judiciary regarding the elimination of stoning laws in the constitution.

"By empowering the radicalism in the state's discourse, some factions of the judiciary branch which support stoning as a part of Islamic laws, and resist its elimination, have become more powerful than the other factions which favour eradicating it from the constitution," Sadr told IPS from Tehran.

"Ayatollah Shahroudi and his supporters in the judiciary do not have legal and political authority to oppose the radical Islamist faction," she added.

Despite international pressure to stop the stoning of Jafar Kiani's partner, Mokarrameh Ebrahimi, Sadr is sceptical that even the nation's top judiciary official can block such sentences anymore, although officials say her case is currently being reviewed.

"Previously, the stoning laws existed, but Ayatollah Shahroudi's political power allowed him to stay an execution order. Unfortunately, now, since the radicals have gained more power in the government, his political will and authority has been greatly undermined."

*Omid Memarian is an Iranian journalist and civil society activist. He has won several awards, including Human Rights Watch's highest honour in 2005, the Human Rights Defender Award.

(END/2007)

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38530

Press Release: Appeal to the Public to Save Mokarrameh from Stoning

soheila — 2008-05-22T23:56:15Z

‎

Stop Stoning Forever Campaign

www.StopStoning.org

Press Release No. 86-4-b July 16, 2007

Appeal to the Public to Save Mokarrameh from Stoning

Jafar Kiani's skull was the target of stones thrown by Judge As'hawbi and local security service men in Aghche-kand village near Takistan, Ghazvin, on Thursday, July 5, 2007. And that was when the public came to believe the reality of stoning: wrapping a human being in a burial shroud and putting him in a pit as he is desperately begging for his life, and then pelting him with stones until his skull is crushed.

This could soon happen to Mokarrameh Ebrahimi, Jafar Kiani's partner, too, unless we act now!

The Stop Stoning Forever (SSF) campaign broke the news of scheduled stoning of Jafar Kiani and Mokarrameh Ebrahimi on June 19th, and the public reaction led to the order of stoning being stayed. After the stoning was carried out, the judiciary spokesman stated during a news briefing that the judge in Takistan had acted independently and according to the law when he carried out the sentence despite the higher authorities order to stay the stoning.

The SSF campaign was launched in 2006 with the goal of abolishing the law of stoning as a legal form of punishment for adultery. The campaign lawyers volunteered to defend more than a dozen prisoners sentenced to stoning whom they had identified in different prisons. The campaign also revealed that Mahboubeh H. and Abbas H. had been stoned secretly and under a heavy security guard in Mashhad in May 2006. The judicial authorities, however, kept denying that stoning was practiced.

After the stoning of Jafar Kiani was carried out in a remote village, the judiciary officials now state that they are bound by the law* to practice stoning. As stoning is becoming less of a covert action and a shame to the judiciary officials, the SSF campaign is concerned that Mokarrameh Ebrahimi might be stoned next in a town square.

We are asking the public to help save Mokarrameh from stoning. She is in imminent danger because as long as stoning is legal, there will always be a judge that will act independently disregarding the order to ban stoning, and a crowd who will throw stones, and a denial statement by the judiciary spokesman regarding either the practice or its atrocity.

The stoning sentence of Mokarrameh could be carried out any day, and so could the sentence of ten other people. And since there is no law to impede stoning, we are reaching out to the public.

We are asking you to help us find a way to save Mokarrameh's life from stoning. Tell us how you think Mokarrameh Ebrahimi can be saved.

Please share your ideas on the SSF campaign website below, Or contact one of the SSF campaign organizers:

Asieh Amini

Mahboubeh Abbasgholizadeh

Sanam Dolatshahi

Shadi Sadr

Soheila Vahdati

*To see the text of the judiciary spokesman interview, please visit:

http://www.meydaan.org/stoning/showarticle.aspx?arid=293&cid=46

To see a report of Asieh Amini's trip to Takistan after the stoning, see:

http://www.meydaan.com/Stoning/showarticle.aspx?arid=284&cid=46

To see the current list of stoning victims, please see:

http://www.meydaan.com/Stoning/summary.aspx

You can read the text of the Islamic Penal Code of Iran and the ritual of stoning here:

http://www.meydaan.com/Stoning/Punishment.aspx

http://www.meydaan.com/Stoning/Ritual_Stoning_Punishment.aspx

Interview: Judiciary Spokesman on Stoning of Jafar Kiani

soheila — 2008-05-22T23:53:45Z

‎ July 11, 2007

Yesterday, in his weekly meeting with media representatives, the spokesperson for the judicial system confirmed that Jafar, the defendant in an adultery case, was stoned to death in Takestan, Ghazvin.

This man who had spent eight years in Choobindar prison in Ghazvin with his partner, Mokarrame, was stoned to death by order and supervision of judge Asshabi in the small town of Aghchekand, Ghazvin, at 11am on July 6, 2007.

The stoning of both Mokarrame and Jafar was scheduled to be carried out on June 20th, but the execution was halted due to an internal memo from the head of the judiciary. The suspension of these sentences however, lasted only two weeks when the male defendant of the case was stoned (July 6). His stoning sentence which was supposed to be carried out in public was participated, according to spokesperson Jamshidi, by at least three or four locals.

A knowledgeable source told the Shargh, on condition of anonymity, that “because the two resident tribes of Takestan, namely Taherkhani and Rahmani, had very strong feelings about this, the judge thought it was best not to execute the sentence in Takestan and instead they took the defendant to the town of Aghchekand. People there refused to throw any stones and so, judge Asshabi himself and a few accompanying cops carried out the sentence”. According to this source, the judge's office is closed now and he hasn't been seen in the city since the execution.

The head of Ghazvin's judiciary also told the media that the sentence was carried out without his input and the judge decided unilaterally to execute the stoning sentence. Mokarrame is from Islamshahr and according to her, her first husband, who fathered three of her children, used to prostitute her. Mokarrame fled her home after she was acquainted with Jafar and the couple took refuge in the city of Takestan. Having had a child together, they decided to return to Islamshahr after four years. With Mokarrame's first husband's complaint, they got arrested and spent eight years in Choobandar prison waiting for their sentence. Their child is eleven years old now.

According to Alireza Jamshidi, even though Jafar's sentence has been executed, Mokarrame's sentence is still suspended. This should not be interpreted as Mokarrame being acquitted from the sentence, says the spokesman. It only means that the execution time is not set yet.

Ayatollah Shahroudi, the head of judiciary, had issued a clear order to stop the stoning sentences some years ago which lead to a few years with no stoning. Once again however, this sentence is being carried out with the one last week being the latest and another one possibly looming in near future.

Before this last sentencing, in accordance with the head of the Judiciary's order, judges postponed stoning sentences or replaced them with other punishments. It seems now that the judicial system's prestige is falling, especially in light of what Jamshidi's called “unfair criticisms and vicious attacks” against the Judiciary. As Jamshidi says clearly, since proving adultery needs special conditions and acute attention, according to Bill 83 of the Islamic Punishment Law, usually such sentences are not passed. In rare occasions where the judges have passed such sentences using their independent judgement, usually they would have, in accordance with Ayatollah Shahroudi's request, suspended the sentence and postponed the sentence, so that it could be further considered. Jamshidi believes that the sentence was guaranteed before and carrying out a guaranteed sentence is lawful. And to what extent should the head of the judiciary be able to interfere with the judges' independence, needs, according to him, comprehensive discussions. In any case the judges are independent and this independent should be protected both in the process of sentencing and their execution. The spokesperson then spent a short time answering Shargh's questions in this regard:

Q: Looking at the Judiciary's actions in the last few years, we see that the head of the judiciary personally, not only doesn't have the slightest interest in passing or executing stoning sentences, he in many cases has personally acted to prevent the execution of such sentences by an executive order. And the two cases that allegedly happened in Mashhad last year were never confirmed by the judiciary. But today you are confidently talking about execution of this sentence. Has Judiciary's policy changed in this regard?

A: Our policy has not changed and stays the same. This sentence has been gauranteed before.

Q: You mean even with the international pressure, no decision has been made to prevent the stoning sentences from being executed in the future?

A: We are not bound by the pressures of the international human rights [groups]. We are only bound by our Sharia and law.

Q: Ayatollah Shahroudi had asked for the sentences of both defendants to be suspended. How come the sentence for the male defendant was executed and the one for the female defendant suspended?

A: Gender didn't matter much. It just so happened that the way the sentence was executed, the male defendant's sentence was executed first.

Q: From “executed first” do you mean that we will soon witness the execution by stoning of the female defendant as well?

A: No, that's not what I said. I said that the judiciary's memo ordered the suspension of both sentences, but the sentence of the male defendant was executed in accordance with judge's decision.

Q: Iran is now the target of great international propaganda. Don't you think carrying out such sentences fuels this propaganda campaign? Wasn't there a way to stop the stoning sentence and replace it with a substitute punishment?

A: It is only natural for foreign media to campaign on execution of sentences in Iran. But we have a duty to practice our laws. Where this practice is not in the regime's best interest, we should take on reforming these laws. We can also use an executive order and sometimes stop the execution of such sentences. But perhaps it is not in our best interest to change the laws merely because of international pressure.

Q: If you look at the issue from the national interest point of view, do you think execution of this sentence at this time was in the best interest of Iran or regime?

A: If we look at it from this angle, and if there is a need, these issues can be investigated. The large scale cleansing of laws is one of our highest priorities. Right now we are in the process of reforming the Islamic Punishment Laws and when we need a new religious law, such law is created. The Religious Research Center of the judiciary is also does a lot of work and has done a great amount of research to date. Sometimes we also need to ask for a fatwa from religious leaders. Finally, we ask the opinion of the supreme leader and put his opinion first in our decisions.

Q: Could you answer my question please? In this specific case, do you think execution of the stoning sentence was in Iran's best interest?

A: We should not look at this issue this way. Here's how we should look at it: We have a law that gives the judge the authority to pass such sentences. Now we should ask whether the judge has done anything against that law. But if you are asking whether judges consider the regime's best interest when they pass their sentence, then no, this is not the case and we should not expect this much from them. Recognizing national interest happens elsewhere and if there is a need to change a law it should be thoroughly considered in the Expediency Discernment Council.

Q: Considering the fact that stoning someone intensifies the international propaganda against Iran, has this issue ever been discussed in the Expediency Discernment Council?

A: If it is necessary, it will be thoroughly discussed in the council.

Q: It has never been discussed in council?

A: I don't recall that it has.

Source: Shargh Newspaper

Translated by: Navid Vafaee