Interpretation of Warfare: A Dispute Over Life or Death
Interpretation of Warfare: A Dispute Over Life or Death. According to Iran Gate, heavy sentences for warfare have been issued with minimal evidence for protesters in show trials without the right to choose a lawyer, based on excuses that have even provoked protests from religious legal scholars and some former legal and judicial officials.
The execution of protesters and the broadcasting of forced interviews is a repetitive scenario that has sparked public outrage and reactions from global public opinion and politicians, especially in the West. However, what is clearly visible today is the serious disagreement among non-governmental legal scholars and jurists regarding the issuance of death sentences based on the crime of warfare.
From Debate to Tweet
Mohsen Barhani, a legal scholar and university professor, was among the first to protest the issuance of heavy death and warfare sentences. He wrote on his Twitter page, objecting to the execution of Mohsen Shekari and highlighting serious issues with this ruling.
Regarding the case of the late Mohsen Shekari and the erroneous ruling of warfare, I invite the investigating judge, the judge who issued the verdict, and the judges who confirmed it to a debate in the presence of other judges and professors. After years of working on the Supreme Court’s rulings, I swear that the opinion of most honorable judges of the court is that warfare has not been realized.
Barhani also referred to a hadith to highlight the violation of certain legal codes in Islamic punishment, stating: Imam Ali (peace be upon him) strongly advised against shedding innocent blood, as nothing brings divine retribution and harsher punishment, speeds up the loss of blessings, and ends governments like shedding innocent blood.
The late Mohsen Shekari committed acts under articles 614 and 618, but he was not a warrior, and his execution was against religious law and legal statutes. Barhani also debated the illegality of Mohsen Shekari’s execution with Jalil Mohabi, the former secretary of the Command for Good and Prohibition of Evil, at a debate hosted by Imam Sadegh University.
Jurists Also Object
The open letter from Ayatollah Mohaqiq Damad, a jurist and former head of the General Inspection Organization of the country, to the judges regarding the issuance of warfare rulings became very newsworthy. In part of this letter, Mohaqiq Damad wrote to the judges:
Almost a century has passed since the establishment of the modern judiciary in Iran. During this time, despite many ups and downs, due to the presence of knowledgeable, brave, and incorruptible judges in this institution, rulings have been issued that, due to their precision, substantiation, and compliance with law and religion, shine in the history of Iran’s judiciary. They have been a source of pride and honor and are presented to the world, and currently serve as a rich resource for legal knowledge.
The extremism of the early days after the revolution is a stain on the face of the Islamic government that can never be overlooked. In these times when our country is facing a crisis of unrest and all the problems caused by the government’s incompetence have poured into the judiciary, our country’s judges are faced with a great test. This test is observed by the entire nation of Iran, and the final judge is the Almighty God. Is God not the best of judges?
Honorable colleagues, the expectation from you is profound insight and careful consideration in issuing rulings, especially in matters of life and death, which, by consensus of jurists and indeed all wise people, requires complete caution. Mistakes and leniency in unjust bloodshed and punishment will not be forgotten by the annals of history. Pay attention to this prophetic saying:
It is regrettable that in these times, individuals in positions of power, without any familiarity with the basics of judgment and awareness of the complexity of the matter, dictate terms to the judiciary and give orders. One demands speed, and another demands severity. But I am confident that such unprofessional and irresponsible atmospheres will never influence the honorable, wise, courageous, and pious judges and will not lead to carelessness or, God forbid, leniency in matters of lives and reputations.
The precise observance of criminal procedure, which is one of the most beautiful achievements of civilization and human wisdom, and comprehensive attention to respecting the rights of the accused, alongside all these principles, and attention to the human and Islamic principle of caution in matters of blood, is requested from you, esteemed individuals holding high judicial positions, especially in supervisory roles.
International Reactions
What started the domino effect of accepting political guardianship of the detainees from recent protests was the issuance of death and warfare sentences in the courts held to address the protesters’ cases.
And today, the discussion of accepting political guardianship of detainees is not limited to those sentenced to death. This symbolic act is rapidly spreading among European politicians, who, since most of them are members of the European Parliament, could create significant pressure that may lead to new sanctions and potentially reduce diplomatic relations.
It seems that the Islamic Republic, up to this point, has no serious intention to change the process of addressing the cases of detained protesters, as Mohseni Eje’i, the head of the judiciary, called for the expedited execution of issued sentences without regard to public opinion pressures.
