Execution for Intimidation
Execution for Intimidation: The recent Iran Gate report and the holding of some trials of protesters in the Women, Life, Freedom movement have witnessed the issuance of heavy indictments with titles such as ‘waging war against God’ and ‘corruption on earth’.
This kind of judicial approach was so far removed from the existing criminal laws of the country that even religious and jurisprudence scholars like Mohsen Borhani raised their voices. He explicitly stated in a tweet that legally, traditionally, and religiously, a stone is not a weapon, and neither are fists and kicks. Therefore, someone who uses them has not used a weapon and hence is not a ‘warrior against God’, although they might be guilty under another title. Do not play with the law, religion, and human life to show power and create intimidation.
Now the question is, what happens to the slogan and display of will for reform by the newly appointed head of the judiciary, which had instilled great hope in the hearts of some political activists and reformists? Can we overlook the always negative and biased performance of this body, especially when its independence and impartiality are the most important conditions for its acceptance and legitimacy, in its first serious challenge?
Molavi Abdulhamid’s Jurisprudential Protest
Following the heavy death sentences on charges of waging war against God, Molavi Abdulhamid, the Sunni Friday prayer leader of Zahedan, also protested. He announced in his Friday sermon that they should refrain from issuing such sentences for protesters and emphasized that the rights of all people, even Baha’is, should be respected.
Citing historical examples from the time of the Prophet of Islam and the caliphate of Ali, the first Imam of the Shia and the fourth caliph of the Sunnis, he said that violent confrontation with protesters is against their conduct and the holy book of Islam.
Judiciary Seeking Justice or Preserving the System
But the fundamental question is whether the judiciary in a political system is tasked with establishing justice relatively or if preserving the political system is its priority. Naturally, the criticism that has been directed at the judiciary, one of the most important pillars of the system since the establishment of the Islamic Republic after the monarchy, is its lack of independence.
As we moved forward, with the strengthening of the political police and security apparatus, this body has become the main decision-maker and even decision-taker in courts, especially political trials. We have repeatedly witnessed that many political activists who have been arrested and tried for their activities have shared similar accounts of the unconventional approach of interrogators or, as they call them, ‘case managers’. Many of these political defendants have quoted their interrogator saying, ‘I am in charge, and whatever I write, the judge will rule.’
Role of the Political Police
In recent days, following the issuance of immediate death sentences for a number of protesters that fundamentally did not align with any legal principles, we witnessed a statement from the IRGC’s intelligence apparatus, which praised these sentences and deemed them as strengthening the country’s security.
The issuance of such a message of appreciation from security institutions for the harsh and unjust actions of the judiciary is evidence that the judiciary is more concerned with ensuring security through suppression and intimidation than with administering justice.
This intertwining of judge and interrogator yields nothing but an ineffective judicial structure. All such security-judicial models have essentially placed the government and society in a deadlock in the long run.
Global Reaction and Its Consequences
What we recently encountered for the first time was an extraordinary and informal session of the UN Security Council to examine the human rights situation in Iran, resulting in a majority vote to form a fact-finding committee on recent events and protests. Naturally, if the Islamic Republic does not cooperate and information is gathered through independent channels, a costly case against the regime will ultimately be formed and submitted to the UN Security Council for punitive decisions.
As we can see, such behaviors and sentences might, in the short term, reduce the visibility of the crisis and people’s protests, but simultaneously, they create serious and more costly international threats and crises elsewhere.
Justice and Good Governance
Undoubtedly, justice is considered one of the eight important components of good governance, and the implementation and adherence of governments to it not only ensures citizen satisfaction but also significantly guarantees the survival and continuation of rulers. The insistence of some governments on not adhering to this component and the notion that they can create intimidation through executions is a futile thought and a decision against themselves. Certainly, such executions accelerate the downfall of regimes instead of intimidating protesters, as the crisis of illegitimacy stems precisely from this type of behavior by rulers, which is the first step towards the brink of their downfall.
The First Victim of the Last Resort
Mohsen Shekari became the first victim of the intimidation theory. Less than two months passed from his first trial session to the execution of his death sentence. Whatever this judicial process seeks, it is certainly not the administration of justice. It creates such public anger and hatred that it can be clearly found in the words of Mohsen’s fellow inmates during his detention in Evin. Whatever the outcome of this spread of hatred and injustice, it is not something that benefits the government.