Iran: end
executions by stoning
2. How stonings are im=
posed
4
Disproportionate impac=
t on
women 9
5. Campaigning wins re=
prieves
14
6. Recommendations 17<=
/span>
APPENDIX 1: Campaign A=
gainst
Stoning by Asieh Amini 19
APPENDIX 2: Code of
Punishment for Adultery in Iran 23
“I am ready to be hanged, b=
ut
they should not stone me. They could strangle you and you would die, but it=
is
very difficult to have stones hitting you in the head.”
Khayrieh, one of several women in ja=
il
in Iran awaiting execution by stoningi
Ja’far Kiani was stoned to dea=
th
on 5 July 2007 in the village of Aghche-kand, near Takestan in Qazvin provi=
nce.ii He
had been convicted of committing adultery with Mokarrameh Ebrahimi, with wh=
om
he had two children and who was also sentenced to death by stoning.
The stoning was carried out despite a
stay of execution ordered in his case and in defiance of a moratorium on
stonings reportedly issued in 2002 by the Head of the Judiciary. It was the
first officially confirmed stoning since the moratorium,iii
although a woman and a man are known to have been stoned to death in Mashha=
d in
May 2006.iv
There are fears that Mokarrameh Ebrahimi may yet suffer the same fate.vShe
is in Choubin prison, Qazvin province, apparently with one of her two child=
ren.vi
Execution by stoning, a punishment
prescribed in Iran’s Penal Code, is a particularly grotesque and horr=
ific
practice. Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all circumstan=
ces
and believes that stoning is specifically designed to increase the sufferin=
g of
victims. Iranian law prescribes that the stones are deliberately chosen to =
be
large enough to cause pain, but not so large as to kill the victim immediat=
ely.
It is a punishment meted out specifically for adultery by married men and
women, an act that is not even a crime in most countries of the world, and =
the
majority of those sentenced to death by stoning are women.
While Amnesty International recogniz=
es
the right of governments to bring to justice those who commit crimes, it
opposes the death penalty in all cases as a violation of the right to
life and the ultimate form of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It t=
akes
no position on the cultural, religious or political values that underlie a
particular system of law, but it does insist that laws and judicial procedu=
res
conform to internationally recognized human rights standards and that
governments abide by their international human rights obligations.
As Iran is a state party to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the governmen=
t is
legally bound to observe the provisions of this treaty and to ensure that t=
hey
are fully reflected in the country’s laws and practices relating to h=
uman
rights. Death by stoning violates Articles 6 (right to life) and 7 (prohibi=
tion
of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the
ICCPR.
The UN Safeguards guaranteeing
protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty call for a reduc=
tion
of offences punishable by death to only the most serious crimes.vii
These have been clarified in several UN resolutions, including Resolution
2005/59 of the Commission on Human Rights, which calls on states to ensure =
that
the notion of “most serious crimes” does not go beyond intentio=
nal
crimes with lethal or extremely grave consequences. It also says that the d=
eath
penalty should not be imposed for non-violent acts such as sexual relations
between consenting adults, nor should it be a mandatory sentence. The UN Hu=
man
Rights Committee has emphasized that “the death penalty should be a q=
uite
exceptional measure”.viii
Even when the death penalty is
restricted to exceptionally serious crimes, international human rights bodi=
es
have clearly stated that execution should not be by stoning.ix
Despite this, women and men in Iran =
are
still being put to death for consensual sexual acts, and the country still =
has
one of the highest rates of executions in the world. By the end of October,
Amnesty International had recorded more than 250 executions since the begin=
ning
of 2007, far exceeding the 177 executions recorded in 2006.
On 1 October 2006, a group of Iranian
human rights defenders, lawyers and journalists, led by lawyer Shadi Sadr a=
nd
journalist Asieh Amini, whose reporting of stonings inspired the idea, laun=
ched
the Stop Stoning Forever campaign to abolish stoning in law and practice. O=
ther
organizers in Iran include Mahboubeh Abbasgholizadeh. They were spurred into
action by the reported stonings in Mashhad in May that year and by a letter
sent in June 2006 to a woman prisoner, Ashraf Kalhori, giving her 15 days
notice of her execution by stoning (see Chapter 4). On 10 October 2006,
the fourth World Day against the Death Penalty, Amnesty International’=
;s
Secretary General, Irene Khan, expressed Amnesty International’s supp=
ort
for the campaign and its organizers, and publicly called on the Iranian
authorities to abolish stoning immediately.
Since the campaign began, five peopl=
e have
been saved from stoning (see Chapter 5). Others have been granted stays of
execution, and some cases are being reviewed or retried. Nine women and two=
men
are known to be under sentence of execution by stoning (see Chapter 4).
However, the campaign has faced repression and its supporters have been
intimidated and harassed.
Amnesty International is calling on =
the
Iranian government to abolish immediately and totally executions by stoning=
and
to impose a moratorium on the death penalty pending the repeal or amendment=
of
the Penal Code. All existing sentences of execution by stoning should be
commuted.
Amnesty International also opposes the criminalization of consensual ad=
ult
sexual relations conducted in private, and urges the Iranian authorities to
review all relevant legislation with the aim of decriminalizing consensual
adult sexual relations conducted in private.
Iran’s Penal Code distinguishes
five types of crime. These include hodoud (crimes against divine wil=
l,
for which the penalty is prescribed by Islamic law and cannot be altered) a=
nd ta’zir
(crimes that incur discretionary punishments applied by the state that are =
not
derived from Islamic law), both of which provide for the death penalty for
certain crimes.x
Article 83 prescribes execution by stoning for the hodoud offences of
adultery committed by a married man or a married woman. Under Iranian law,
adultery can only be proved by the testimony of eyewitnesses (the number
required varying for different types of adultery), a confession by the
defendant (repeated four times), or the judge’s “knowledge̶=
1;
that the adultery has taken place.xi
The Penal Code is specific about the
manner of execution and types of stones that should be used. Article 102 st=
ates
that men will be buried up to their waists and women up to their breasts for
the purpose of execution by stoning. Article 104 states, with reference to =
the
penalty for adultery, that the stones used should “not be large enoug=
h to
kill the person by one or two strikes; nor should they be so small that they
could not be defined as stones”. This makes it clear that the purpose=
of
stoning is to inflict terrible pain in a process leading to slow death.&nbs=
p;
In December 2002, the Head of the
Judiciary, Ayatollah Shahroudi, reportedly
sent a directive to judges ordering a moratorium on execution by stoning an=
d
for alternative punishments to be used instead. However, legal provision fo=
r
execution by stoning remains in place and in September 2003 a law was passed
listing
regulations for the implementation of particular sentences, including stoni=
ng.
On 21 November 2006, the then Minist=
er
of Justice, Jamal Karimi-Rad, denied that stonings were being carried out in
Iran, a claim repeated on 8 December 2006 by the Head of the Prisons
Organization in Tehran. There is strong evidence to suggest that this is not
true.
There are, however, some indications
that discussions are taking place inside the Iranian clerical and judicial
establishment about the removal of the penalty of stoning from the Penal Co=
de.
Senior members of the Shi’a clergy have made statements that stoning
should not be implemented in modern Iran. Grand Ayatollah Montazeri,xii
for example, has stated that adultery is very difficult to prove according =
to
Islamic law, on the grounds that it must be witnessed in person by four peo=
ple,
a condition that is almost impossible to fulfil. He has also stated that in
cases where an individual has confessed to adultery, the penalty should be =
commuted
if they withdraw their confession, and that if implementing a stoning sente=
nce
would damage the reputation of Islam, then it should not be carried out.xiii
Grand Ayatollah Sane’i gave a fatwa (religious ruling) in 2007=
in
which he stated that stonings and amputations should not be carried out dur=
ing
the continuing absence (occultation – ghaybat) of the 12t=
h
Imam.xiv
However, the debate still has a long=
way
to run. In September 2007, the Secretary General of Iran’s Human Righ=
ts
Headquarters (Setad-e Hoquq-e Bashar) and Deputy Head of the Judiciary,
Mohammad Javad Larijani, stated that “stoning is neither torture nor =
an
incongruous punishment” and that it is less severe than other types of
execution “because in stoning the defendant has a chance to
survive”. However, he added that in practice stoning no longer happen=
s in
Iran and that the case in Takestan (see above) was a mistake by the judge.xv In
an earlier interview in July 2007 following the stoning of Ja’far Kia=
ni,
he had stated: “With regards to human rights, we have signed about fo=
ur
important documents and not one is against stoning. The westerners oppose
stoning sentences based on the interpretations that they have of these laws=
and
their contents.”
In July 2007, the temporary approval=
by
the Majles (parliament) of the Penal Code expired. At first, the Majles ref=
used
to renew it further on the grounds that a large number of deputies believed
that a definitive version should be submitted for their consideration. After
some discussion with the Judiciary it is believed that the Penal Code was
renewed for a further year, and the Judiciary was instructed to present a n=
ew
bill within three months. In a letter dated 5 October 2007, Amnesty
International urged the Head of the Judiciary to seize this opportunity to
revise the Penal Code and to remove the penalty of stoning from the statute
book once and for all as a first step towards total abolition of the death
penalty. Amnesty International also urged that the punishment of execution =
by
stoning for adultery by married people not be replaced by another lethal
punishment, or by one that amounts to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment. In November 2007, Alireza Jamshidi, the spokespers=
on
for the Judiciary, said that it was anticipated that the new Penal Code wou=
ld
contain a reform of the law on stoning, so that in the event of it being
expedient, the penalty of stoning in individual cases would be suspended on=
the
proposal of the Public Prosecutor, and with the agreement of the Head of the
Judiciary.xviGholam
Hossein Elham, the spokesman for the government, also said that the new Pen=
al
Code had been approved by the cabinet and had been sent to the Majles for
approval. At the time of writing, however, it had not yet been approved.xvii
Amnesty International welcomes these
moves towards reform and urges the Iranian authorities to ensure that the n=
ew
Penal Code neither permits stoning to death nor provides for execution by o=
ther
means for adultery.
Under international human rights law,
those suspected of or charged with crimes punishable by death are entitled =
to
the strictest observance of all fair trial guarantees at all stages of the
legal proceedings, including during the investigation stage, as well as to
certain additional safeguards. The UN Human Rights Committee has stated that
the death penalty should only be handed down after a trial that observes al=
l of
the procedural guarantees for a fair hearing.xviii
Any death sentence imposed after a trial that does not conform to all fair
trial guarantees would amount to arbitrary deprivation of the right to life=
.
In Iran, serious failings in the jus=
tice
system commonly result in unfair trials, including in capital cases. These
failings include: lack of access to legal counsel and to a lawyer of
one’s choice; ill-treatment in pre-trial detention; allowing confessi=
ons
extracted under duress to be used in proceedings; the use of detention cent=
res
run by various intelligence organizations;xix
denial of the right to call defence witnesses; failing to give adequate tim=
e to
the defence to present its case; and imprisoning defence lawyers if they
protest against unfair proceedings.xx
For example, a defendant’s rig= ht to legal counsel is one of the key safeguards for a fair trial, enshrined in international law,xxi and applies to all stages of the judicial process. In Iran, however, owing = to an extremely restrictive interpretation of the law, defendants in practice = only have the right to a lawyer after investigations are complete and they have been formally charged. This results in prolonged periods of incommunic= ado detention as well as interrogation without the presence of lawyers, both of which facilitate the use of torture or other ill-treatment to obtain confessions.xxii In addition, judges are permitted to exclude lawyers from trial sessions in ca= ses that relate to national security or “corruption”. Therefore, it= is possible in some cases, such as those in which defendants are accused of prostitution, that people sentenced to execution by stoning could be denied access to a lawyer at all stages of their detention, trial and sentencing.<= o:p>
In cases of alleged adultery, the
Islamic Penal Code gives judges the right to sentence the accused to death =
by
stoning even when the crime has not been proved according to the same Penal
Code’s standards and requirements. Article 105 gives the judges
– who in Iran are all men – the absolute right to condemn the
accused to death by stoning solely on the judge’s documented
“knowledge”, which could be his subjective interpretation of the
case.xxiii
This clearly violates fair trial provisions of the ICCPR that Iran has rati=
fied,
including the right to equality before courts, the right to be presumed
innocent, and the right to be tried by a competent, independent and imparti=
al
tribunal.xxiv
Under the Law on Appealsxxv
and the Code of Criminal Proceduresxxvi
all death sentences are subject to appeal, which must be lodged within 20 d=
ays
of the verdict. For stoning sentences, the appeal is heard by the Supreme
Court. If a fault is found with the conviction or sentence by the the Supre=
me
Court, the case is usually sent back to a lower court for retrial.
If the Supreme Court confirms the de=
ath
sentence, the defendant can lodge an objection, and another branch of the
Supreme Court, sitting as the discernment or review body,xxvii
will review the case. Otherwise, the verdict is sent to the Head of the
Judiciary, who reviews the case before sending it to the judge responsible =
for
implementing verdicts. The Head of the Judiciary has the power to issue a s=
tay
of execution.
Under Article 24 of the Penal Code, =
the
Supreme Leader has the power to grant pardons or to reduce or commute
sentences, on the recommendation of the Head of the Judiciary, “in
accordance with Islamic principles”. This phrase appears to exclude <=
i>hodoud
cases,xxviii
where the right to pardon is not viewed as lying within the realm of the st=
ate.
However, in the case of adultery, “sodomy,” same-sex sexual con=
duct
without penetration, and lesbianism, if the person has confessed to the cri=
me
and repented (publicly sought forgiveness from God), then the judge in the =
case
has the power to seek a pardon from the Supreme Leader or to insist on the
implementation of the verdict.xxix
This appears to mean that for many t=
ypes
of crimes punishable by death in Iran, there is no, or only very limited,
possibility of pardon or commutation by the state, particularly for those w=
ho
have not confessed to their alleged crime. This contravenes Article 6(4) of=
the
ICCPR which states:
“Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon=
or
commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence=
of
death may be granted in all cases.”xxx
The Amnesty and Clemency Commission,=
xxxi
which is part of the Judiciary, is empowered to recommend a pardon or reduc=
tion
of a sentence for a range of crimes, including some carrying the death pena=
lty.
If accepted by the Head of the Judiciary, the pardon or reduction of a sent=
ence
takes effect on one of 11 days of national significance in Iran, such as the
anniversary of the revolution or Islamic holy days.
[BOX]
Unfair trial=
of
Hajieh Esmailvand
Hajieh
Esmailvand,xxxiia
35-year-old Iranian Azerbaijani woman from Jolfa in north-west Iran, was
convicted in April 2004 after an unfair trial on charges of adultery and be=
ing an
accomplice to the murder of her husband. She was sentenced by Branch 3 of t=
he
Jolfa Public Court to five years’ imprisonment for involvement in the
murder, and to execution by stoning for adultery.<=
/a>xxxiiiShe
later wrote to judicial authorities that she had only confessed under dures=
s,
that she had not confessed to adultery and that she denied complicity in the
murder. She also stated that she was an [Azerbaijani Turkic] speaker and not
adequately literate, and did not know the meaning of “penetrationR=
21;.
According to Asieh Amini, the journalist whose reports on stoning inspired =
the
Stop Stoning Forever Campaign and who investigated the case, Hajieh Esmailv=
and
told the court that the murderer had tried to rape her, but had not been ab=
le
to carry out the act of rape. However, later in the court proceedings she h=
ad
signed a piece of paper that constituted her confession to adultery. She sp=
ent
the next few years in jail not knowing her sentence as she did not know the
meaning of the word “rajm” (stoning). After spending five
years in prison, the stoning was scheduled for 1 Septe=
mber
2004 at the prison in Jolfa. Leaflets were reportedly published and distrib=
uted
in Jolfa by the local judiciary, inviting the public to participate. Howeve=
r,
the judge responsible for implementing the sentence found flaws in the case=
and
her execution was temporarily suspended. Following international pressure, including by Amn=
esty
International, the sentence was eventually commuted and her case sent back =
to
Branch 1 of Jolfa criminal court for retrial. She was released on bail in
September 2006 and finally acquitted of adultery after a retrial on 9 Decem=
ber
2006. After her release her lawyers planned to seek to overturn her convict=
ion
of the charge of being an accomplice to murder.
[end box]
Disproportionate impact on women
Women suffer a disproportionate impa=
ct of
the punishment of death by stoning in Iran. One reason is that they are not
treated equally before the law and courts, in clear violation of internatio=
nal
fair trial standards. Within Iran’s judicial system, the weight attac=
hed
to the evidence of a man is equivalent to that of two women, and in cases
dealing with some offences, including adultery, testimony by a woman alone =
or
given jointly with just one man cannot be accepted as evidence.xxxiv
Women are also particularly vulnerab=
le
to unfair trials because they are more likely than men to be illiterate and
therefore more likely to sign confessions to crimes they did not commit.xxxv In
addition, women from ethnic minorities are less likely to be able to speak
Persian – the official language of the court – so they often do=
not
understand what is happening to them in the legal process or even that they
face death by stoning. Women, who constitute a much smaller proportion of t=
he
workforce, and who cannot work without their husband’s permission, are
also likely to be poorer than men and thus unable to procure good legal adv=
ice.
Discrimination against women in other
aspects of their lives also leaves them more susceptible to conviction for
adultery. Women are allowed only one sexual partner in life, their husband,
whereas men are allowed four permanent wives and an unlimited number of
temporary (sigheh) wives. Men have an incontestable right to divorce,
whereas women have only a limited right to divorce their husbands, leaving =
them
free to marry another man. Many women have no choice over the man they marry
and many are married at a young age.xxxvi
Women face strict controls on their
behaviour that are imposed and policed by the state, controls that are
discriminatory and restrict their right to freedom of expression and moveme=
nt.
Despite such controls and some gender segregation, when women come into
conflict with the law they are usually arrested, interrogated and judged by=
menxxxvii
irrespective of the intimidation, harassment and fear that this may involve=
.
Poverty, drug
addiction and domestic violence also play a part in making women more
vulnerable to stoning than men. As shown by some of the cases below, married
women are sometimes forced into prostitution by their husband to feed their
drug habits or as a result of an abusive relationship. If arrested, they ri=
sk
being charged with adultery and, if convicted, execution by stoning.
Finally, the very procedure specified
for carrying out executions discriminates against women. Article 102 of the
Penal Code states that, during stoning, the man shall be buried in a ditch =
up
to near his waist and the woman up to near her chest. Article 103 states th=
at
if the condemned person manages to escape from the pit, they will not be st=
oned
again if they had been sentenced after confession, but clearly it would be
harder for a woman to escape than a man, since she would have been buried m=
ore
deeply.
“The lorry deposited a large
number of stones and pebbles beside the waste ground, and then two women we=
re
led to the spot wearing white and with sacks over their heads… [they]
were enveloped in a shower of stones and transformed into two red sacksR=
30;
The wounded women fell to the ground and Revolutionary Guards smashed their
heads in with a shovel to make sure they were dead.”
A reported witness account published=
by
Amnesty International in 1987xxxviii
In Iran, executions by stoning have
always been few in comparison to executions by other methods, the vast majo=
rity
of which are by hanging. Relatively few stonings were recorded by Amnesty
International in the first few years immediately after the 1979 revolution.
However, in 1986 at least eight people were stoned to death. Among them was=
a
woman convicted of adultery and murder, who was first given 100 lashes and =
then
stoned to death in April in Qom. Some have linked this to the passing of a =
law
in 1986 which allowed the hiring of judges with minimal experience, bypassi=
ng
the existing law on the qualification of judges, as long as they possessed
either a high school diploma or were approved by the Supreme Judicial Counc=
il.
This led to an increase in the number of judges from a traditional religious
background.
In 1995 Amnesty International receiv=
ed
reports that as many as 10 people may have been stoned to death that year. =
In
May 2001, an unnamed woman was reportedly stoned to death after she was
convicted of adultery and “corruption on earth” for having appe=
ared
in pornographic films. She had been convicted of murdering her husband and
adultery. In July the same year, Maryam Ayoubi, aged 30, was reportedly sto=
ned
to death in Evin Prison in Tehran.xxxix At
least two people were reportedly executed by stoning in 2002.
Over the years, however, Amnesty
International has learned of others who have been sentenced to death by
stoning, but has been unable to clarify whether the sentences were carried =
out.
For example, Ferdows B and Sima were reportedly sentenced to death by stoni=
ng
in 2001.xl
Although a woman named only as Sima reportedly had her stoning sentence qua=
shed
by the Head of the Judiciary in October 2004,xli it
is not clear if this is the same woman and no information has been received
about the fate of Ferdows B nor the charges she faced. On 8 January 2004, <=
i>Iran
newspaper reported that a criminal court in the city of Qazvin had sentence=
d an
unnamed man to 80 lashes and 10 years’ imprisonment to be followed by
execution by stoning.xlii
The first execution by stoning repor= ted following the 2002 moratorium was in May 2006 in Mashhad. Abbas H and Mahboubeh M were said to have been executed in Beheshteh Reza cemetery, part of which was cordoned off before more than 100 members of the Revolutionary Guards and Bassij Forces carried out the stoning.xliii Abbas H and Mahboubeh M were reportedly washed and dressed in shrouds, as if they were already dead, and then put in holes that had been dug in the grou= nd. Following a reading from the Qur’an, those present began to stone Abb= as H and Mahboubeh M, who reportedly took over 20 minutes to die. They were said= to have been convicted of murdering Mahboubeh M’s husband, and of adulte= ry. Mahboubeh M also reportedly received a 15-year prison sentence, which accor= ding to Iranian law should have been served before she was executed by stoning.<= o:p>
The horror of such executions was
described in July 2006 by a former prisoner, a fellow inmate of a woman kno=
wn
as Zahra who was stoned to death in prison in the late 1990s.xliv
She said that she had been befriended by Zahra, a round-faced woman with da=
rk
eyes and short hair, in the run-up to Zahra’s trial. She reported that
after Zahra returned from court, she was exhausted by the flogging she had
received but relieved because she had been told she would be released the n=
ext
day. The prisoners celebrated. The next day, however, Zahra was executed:
“When Zahra was led out of our quarters, with all her hopes and
dreams of being released, she was directed to a solitary confinement where =
her
stoning sentence would be carried out. It was there that she realized what =
was
about to take place. There, she was given an Islamic atonement ritual and a=
fter
reading some words of the Qur’an she was placed in a special ditch wi=
th
only her head and neck sticking out.
“In the corner of the room they had piled up some stones…=
; In
the middle of this act, Zahra had struggled her way out of the ditch but the
observing judge had ordered the guards to return her to the ditch. All this
time, her deaf son Javad had been witnessing the act.
“At the end, a man named Taghi, using a cement block, struck t=
he
last blow. And then it was all over...
“Zahra left us with many untold words but her memory as a woma=
n, a
human being and a mother will remain with all of us. We all make mistakes in
our lives, and although she had committed an immoral act, such punishment i=
n my
opinion, and most others, is barbaric and should be abolished.”
At least nine women – Iran,
Khayrieh, Kobra N, Fatemeh, Ashraf Kalhori, Shamameh Ghorbani, Mokarrameh
Ebrahimi, Leyla Ghomi and Hajar – are at risk of being stoned to deat=
h,
along with two men – Abdollah Farivar and an unnamed Afghan national
– according to information received by Amnesty International.
1) Iran, a Bakhtiari woman, was reportedly talking to the son of a neighbour in=
the
courtyard of her housewhen her husband attacked her with a knife. She was l=
eft
bleeding and unconscious on the floor. While she was unconscious, the young=
man
allegedly killed her husband with the same knife. When police interrogated =
her
about the killing, Iran reportedly confessed to adultery with the son of her
neighbour. She later retracted her confession. A court in the city of
Khuzestan, south-west Iran, sentenced her to five years’ imprisonment=
for
being an accomplice in the murder of her husband, and to execution by stoni=
ng
for adultery. The verdict was upheld by the Supreme Court in April 2006. Her
lawyer petitioned the Discernment Branch of the Supreme Court to revoke the
sentence, citing legal deficiencies. In June 2007 it was announced that Bra=
nch
13 of the Discernment Branch had overturned the stoning sentence and sent h=
er
case back for retrial before a criminal court in Khuzestan. The retrial is =
not
known to have taken place. She is detained in Sepidar prison in Ahvaz city.=
2) Khayrieh was sentenced to death by Branch 3 of Behbahan Court in Khuzestan for
being an accomplice to murder and to execution by stoning for adultery. She
reportedly suffered violence at the hands of her husband and began an affair
with a relative of her husband, who then murdered her husband. Khayrieh
confessed to adultery but denied any involvement in her husband’s mur=
der.
The sentence was upheld, and the case has reportedly been sent to the Head =
of
the Judiciary for permission to carry out the execution.
3) Kobra N, who is in Tabriz prison in north-west Iran, was
sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for being an accomplice to the
murder of her husband, and execution by stoning for adultery. She was alleg=
edly
forced into prostitution by her husband, a heroin addict who was violent
towards her. In 1995, after a severe beating by her husband, she told one o=
f her
regular customers that she wanted to kill her husband. The customer alleged=
ly
murdered her husband after Kobra N took him to an arranged meeting place. He
was sentenced to death, but was pardoned by the victim’s family on
payment of diyeh (“blood money”). Kobra N has reportedly
written to the Amnesty and Clemency Commission to ask for her sentence of
execution by stoning to be commuted, and is awaiting a reply.
4) An unnamed Afghan man is at risk of execution by stoning in Mashh=
ad
for the rape in 2003 of his 16-year-old sister-in-law. [ADD NEW ENDNOTE xlv]
The initial sentence was repealed by Branch 41 of the Supreme Court, but
another court in Mashhad sentenced him to stoning again. This sentence was =
also
repealed and the case was sent for retrial in Mashhad. A third sentence of
stoning was issued and this was upheld on 20 February 2007 by the General B=
oard
of the Supreme Court. The decision accepted the right of the judge to use h=
is
knowledge to determine the case because the man had confessed only three ti=
mes,
not four.
[Soghra case moved to Chapter 5]
5) Fatemeh was sentenced to execution by stoning for having an
“illicit relationship” with a man named Mahmoud and to death for
being an accomplice to his murder. She was sentenced by Branch 71 of the Te=
hran
Province Criminal Court in May 2005. Her husband was sentenced to 16
years’ imprisonment for being an accomplice to the murder of Mahmoud.=
The
case is being examined in the Supreme Court. According to a May 2005 report=
in
the newspaper E’temad, there was an altercation between Mahmoud
and Fatemeh’s husband. Fatemeh confessed to tying a rope around
Mahmoud’s throat, which resulted in his strangulation. She says that =
she
intended merely to tie his hands and feet after he was unconscious and hand=
him
over to the police.
6) Ashraf Kalhori, a mother of four, was sentenced to death by stoning for adultery and =
to
15 years’ imprisonment for taking part in the murder of her husband.
According to Ashraf Kalhori, the killing was accidental, but police accused=
her
of having an affair with her neighbour and encouraging the attack. She repo=
rtedly
confessed to adultery under police interrogation, but later retracted her
confession. She was scheduled to be stoned before the end of July 2006 but =
her
execution was stayed temporarily by the Head of the Judiciary, Ayatollah
Shahroudi.xlvi
7) Shamameh Ghorbani (also known as Malek), an Iranian Kurd, was sentenced to execution by
stoning for adultery by a court in Oromieh in June 2006. Her brothers and
husband reportedly murdered a man they found in her house, and she too was
nearly killed when they stabbed her. In November 2006, it was reported that=
the
Supreme Court had rejected the sentence of stoning and ordered a retrial,
citing incomplete investigations in the case. It is believed that Shamameh
Ghorbani confessed to adultery in court, believing that this would protect =
her
brothers and husband from prosecution for murder. Under Iranian law, a murd=
er
may not be punished if committed defending one’s honour or that of
relatives. In a letter to Branch 12 of the Criminal Court, Shamameh Ghorban=
i is
reported to have said, “Since I am a rural, illiterate woman and I
didn’t know the law, I thought that if I confessed to a relationship =
with
the dead man, I could clear my brothers and husband of intentional murder. I
said these untrue words in court and then understood I had done myself an
injury.”
8) Abdollah Farivar was reportedly sentenced to death by stoning. He was arrested in Novem=
ber
2004 following a complaint filed by a man who accused him of having an ille=
gal
affair with his daughter. Abdollah Farivar, a musician, had reportedly been
tutoring a young girl and having a sexual affair with her since she was 16
years old. He claims he initially confessed, three times in a three-week
period, because he was scared of the police investigators. According to the
Penal Code, four confessions constitute proof of guilt. However, Abdollah
Farivar wrote to the court stating that he never confessed for the fourth t=
ime.
He also said that because his wife has medical problems that prevents sexual
relations, he had engaged his young pupil in a sigheh (temporary mar=
riage)
and that therefore his affair with her was legal and not adulterous.
9) Mokarrameh Ebrahimi
10) Leyla Ghomi is believed to be held under sentence of stoning in Evin Prison in Teh=
ran.
Amnesty International has no further details about her case.xlviii
11) Hajar was reportedly sentenced to death by
stoning for adultery by Branch 5 of the Mashhad General Court in September
2007. According to the report, a male co-defendant was sentenced to 100 las=
hes
for fornication.xlix
“On behalf of Stop Stoning Forever campaign, especially volunt=
eer
lawyers and women’s movement activists in Iran, I would like to say o=
ur
deep appreciation and many thanks for your great job about the stoning in I=
ran,
during that first half of October [2006]. Please say our greetings to Irene
Khan for her effective message. You know it is just the beginning of a long=
way
in which we could not finish it without supporting all human rights activis=
ts around
the world.” Shadi Sadr, Stop Stoning Forever Campaign e-mail to
Amnesty International, October 2006
Since the Stop Stoning Forever campa=
ign
began, four women and one man have been saved from stoning – Hajieh
Esmailvand, Soghra Mola’i, Zahra Reza’i,l
Parisa A and Parisa A’s husband Najaf. Another woman, Ashraf Kalhori,=
has
had her stoning sentence temporarily stayed.
Hajieh Esmailvand was acquitted on 9 December 2006 of the charge of adultery for which s=
he
had been sentenced to execution by stoning. She had been released on bail in
September 2006 pending a retrial.
Parisa A was arre=
sted
in April 2004 after police in Shiraz raided a brothel
where she was working and arrested those present, including her husband =
Najaf.
He had allegedly forced Parisa into prostitution as the family was poor and=
he
was
unemployed. During initial interrogations, Parisa and her husband confessed=
to
adultery, but said that their family’s poverty had forced them to do =
what
they had done.
During her trial at Branch 5 of Fars
Province Criminal Court, Parisa retracted
her confession of adultery. However, both Parisa and Najaf were convicted of
adultery and sentenced to death by stoning on 21 June 2004. The sentence was
upheld by Branch 32 of the Supreme Court on 15 November 2005.
Parisa’s lawyer, Gholam Hossein
Ra’isi,li a
lawyer and human rights activist who is part of the Volunteer Lawyers’
Network that has taken up many of the cases of stoning sentences, lodged an
objection against the stoning sentences with the Discernment Branch of the
Supreme Court. On 8 November 2006, Branch 15 of the Supreme Court reviewed =
the
cases. During the entire court session, Parisa was holding the hand of her
three-year-old son. On 27 November, the Supreme Court changed the sentence =
to
flogging for both Parisa and her husband. Parisa was released on 5 December
2006 after receiving 99 lashes.lii
Najaf was reportedly sentenced to a period of exile to a different city.
Soghra Mola’i was sentenced to 15 years’
imprisonment for being an accomplice to the murder in January 2004 of her
husband Abdollah, and to execution by stoning for adultery. During
interrogation she said: “My husband usually tormented me. Nevertheles=
s, I
did not intend to kill him. On the night of the incident… after Alire=
za
killed my husband, I ran away with him because I was scared to stay at home,
thinking that my brothers-in-law would kill me.” Alireza was sentence=
d to
death for the murder and to 100 lashes for “illicit relations”.=
In
November 2007 it was announced that following a reinvestigation of her case=
by
a court in Esfahan, she had been cleared of adultery and sentenced to 80 la=
shes
for “illicit relations”. After receiving the flogging, she was
transferred to Varamin Prison near Tehran to serve the remainder of her pri=
son
sentence. [translators – please note new last 2 sentences in bold]
No details are known about the case =
of Zahra
Reza’i. Ayatollah Shahroudi stopped the execution of Ashraf
Kalhori (see above) temporarily after receiving a petition with signatu=
res
from over 100 Iranian women’s rights activists and 4,000 concerned
individuals.liii
However, she remains at risk. In an open letter, her lawyer Shadi Sadr wrot=
e:
“It is a wonderful feeling to see people coming together to sa=
ve
the life of another human being. I should also say that it is a great pleas=
ure
for me, as her lawyer, to share my happiness with all of you who were with =
us
and supported the effort to save her.”
The brave women and men in Iran who =
have
campaigned against stoning have faced varying levels of harassment and
intimidation, particularly those associated with the Stop Stoning Forever
campaign.
For example, Asieh Amini, Shadi Sadr=
and
Mahboubeh Abbasgholizadeh, another leading member of Stop Stoning Forever, =
were
among 33 women arrested while protesting in March 2007 about the trial of f=
ive
women’s rights activists in Tehran.liv
They are likely to face trial, possibly on charges including “disturb=
ing
public order” and “acting against state security”. In a r=
adio
interview with the Dispatches programme for the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation in October 2007, Asieh Amini referred to her arrest and said th=
at
one of her friends arrested at the same time had been interrogated about As=
ieh
Amini’s activities in the Stop Stoning Forever Campaign.lv In
November 2006, the website of Stop Stoning Forever, www.meydaan.com,=
was
blocked by the authorities.
Asieh Amini, whose article about the
covert stoning of Abbas H and Mahboubeh M in Mashhad in 2006 (see Chapter 3)
prompted the launch of the campaign, has paid with her health for the stress
caused by continuing to write about stonings. Her initial investigation
inspired her to form a network of lawyers and others to campaign for abolit=
ion
of the penalty and save the lives of those condemned to die by stoning. Aft=
er
she went in July 2007 to Takestan to report on and photograph the stoning of
Ja’far Kiani (see Introduction), she wrote, “There were bloody
stones on the ground. I touched one and when I came home I could not move f=
or
hours”. She then began suffering severe headaches and pain in her eye=
s,
and subsequently became seriously ill and almost went blind.lvi
She wrote in a blog:
“Who is to teach us what distance to keep from our cases…
When you go along with a mother sitting by her son’s scaffold, you
don’t think about these issues”.
Human rights defenders in Iran belie=
ve
that international publicity and pressure, in support of local efforts, can
help bring about change in the country. Amnesty International knows that
campaigning can save lives and hopes that it will eventually persuade the
Iranian authorities to abolish executions by stoning and bring their legal
practices into line with their obligations under international law.
Towards that end, Amnesty Internatio=
nal
makes the following recommendations:
To the Majles (parliament)
To the Counci=
l of
Guardians
To the Head of
the Judiciary
To the Supreme
Leader
To the
international community
APPENDIX 1: Campaign Again=
st
Stoning by Asieh Amini
[margin]
This article was originally carried on www.roozonline.com. It can be f=
ound
on the Stop Stoning Forever website, www.meydaan.org.
[end margin]
One year and three months ago, a man and a woman were stoned to death in
Behesht-Reza near Mashad. When we followed up and reported it, the authorit=
ies,
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 had 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 h=
ad
reminded the judge, on the day of her execution, that her execution would h=
ave
been illegal since she had not yet received a reply to her latest appeal. T=
he
judge was swayed to postpone the execution until the appeal was 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 w=
as
re-tried and acquitted of adultery.
These events, which can be amply documented – and what document c=
ould
be better than living witnesses were happening at a time when the authoriti=
es
were denying them, and ordinary citizens doubted they could happen.
WHY THIS CAMPAIGN?
It was during these times that Stop Stoning Forever Campaign came to be=
ing.
Our goals were to find cases, research them, help find attorneys who would
vigorously represent the defence, activism and publicity, and, ultimately,
freeing the convicts with an eye towards abolishing stoning altogether. Sto=
ning
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 dracon=
ian
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 rig= hts and women’s causes. Their focus on stoning was initially seen as a struggle over something “that’s not all that important”.<= o:p>
The reason this campaign was not initially taken seriously had several
reasons. One was that the number of cases involved was small. Two, it seeme=
d as
if this was a single injustice against women and not legally very broad. Th=
ird,
some people felt why challenge a law that is not supposed to be enforced an=
yway?
Fourth, there were some who felt stoning was not a cause for legal acti= vism 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 words, the fourth group believed that as long as there are people in society who a= re 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.<= o:p>
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 soc=
ial
power bases that go with it. A case in point: why is it that in countries l=
ike
Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iraq, it is not the law or law enforcement who car=
ries
out stonings, but these stonings, like all other honour killings, are the w=
ish
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 honour 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 womanR=
17;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, subjecte=
d 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 victi=
ms?
This aid, this comfort, does not, in any way, condone what is referred =
to
as “infidelity”. This is support for a human being’s righ=
t 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 institution=
s 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 cannot read Hajieh’s story and not feel compassion for her. W=
hen
you read Mokarrameh’s story, you’ll no doubt appreciate the cas=
e for
allowing young girls to choose their own spouses. This campaign tries to de=
lve
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 t=
aken
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 wo=
rld
where international treaties demand respect for human dignity, someone has =
to
answer for such acts. This time, what heretofore was reported as “sha=
ria
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 =
to
pass in silence?” The answer to them is that the purpose of our campa=
ign
is not to argue criminal justice aspects of infidelity. The focus here is o=
n punishment
– the punishment itself – not its relationship to the crime.
Whether we consider infidelity a crime, in conscience 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 o=
ur
society, nothing will change. Laws do not reflect the wishes of a few hundr=
ed
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 tim=
es.
Laws must lead societies away from violence and criminality.
If women like Mahboubeh or Mokarrameh 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 infideli=
ty,
nor spouse killing. There would not have been any stonings.
Another incredible aspect of these legal proceedings is the inconsisten=
cy
and inequity of judgments. A woman who was pimped by her husband receives t=
he
same sentence as the woman who followed her own heart’s desire. A wom=
an
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 sentenc=
e as
the woman who was found living with her husband’s killer in another t=
own.
Human rights protect every individual. When a woman from the lowest run=
gs
of society enjoys the same legal protections as everyone else, then we can =
say
we are moving towards equal rights.
APPENDIX 2: Code of Punish=
ment
for Adultery in Iran
Hadd: refers to any punishment defined by the Sharia. Hodoud is the plural.<= o:p>
Zina or adultery:<=
span
style=3D'font-size:9.0pt;line-height:160%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:#111111;mso-fareast-languag=
e:
FR'> defined as intercourse between a man and a woman whose intercourse is
inherently forbidden “haraam”, even if it is from behind, other
than those cases where the person has had a doubt [ie mistaken identity].
(Article 63 of the Islamic Penal Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran, rati=
fied
in 1991.)
Tafkheez: defined as rubbing the genitals against thighs and buttocks of the oth=
er
person and it is punished by 100 lashes if there is no penetration. (Article
112, ibid.)
Qazf: defined as accusing a person of adultery or anal sex. It is punishable=
by
80 lashes. (Article 139, ibid.)
Qavvadi or pimping:
Ta’zir: refers to the punishments that are not defined by Sharia and it is lef=
t to
the Sharia judge to specify it by sentence to imprisonment, cash fine, or
flogging in which case the number of lashes must be less than Hadd.
[end margin]
Code of Punishment for Adultery in I=
ran
Adultery is a capital offence in the
Islamic Republic of Iran and punishable by flogging, hanging, and stoning. =
The
following is a translation of the articles of the Islamic Penal Code of Iran
that pertain to the legal punishments for adultery.
The Islamic Penal Code
Book II – Hodoud
(Shari’a-based Punishments)
Section I – Shari’a-based
Punishment for Adultery
Chapter 1- Definition and Reasons for
Adultery Punishment
Article 63 – Adultery is defined as the intercourse between a man and a wom=
an
whose intercourse is inherently forbidden “haraam”, even if it =
is
from behind, other than those cases where the person has had a doubt [i.e.,
mistaken identity].
Article 64 – Adultery is punished when the adulterer is mature, sane, and
acting by free will and is also aware of the offence and its punishment.
Article 65 – If a man or a woman is aware that the intercourse with the oth=
er
party is forbidden, and the other party is not aware, thinking that the
intercourse is legitimate, then only the party who has been aware that the
intercourse is forbidden shall be sentenced to the punishment.
Article 66 – If a man or a woman who have had intercourse together claim
mistake and unawareness, then in the case that the claimant deems honest, t=
hen
the claim is accepted without oath and witness and the punishment is annull=
ed.
Article 67 – If an adulterer claims that s/he has committed adultery under
duress, her/his claim is accepted if the contrary is not believed to be tru=
e.
Chapter 2- Methods of Proving Adulte=
ry
in Court
Article 68 – If a man or woman confesses to adultery four times before the
judge, s/he will be sentenced to the adultery punishment and if they confess
less than four times, then s/he will be punished by Ta’zir. [Ta=
217;zir
refers to the punishments that are not defined by Sharia and it is left to =
the
Sharia judge to specify it by sentence to imprisonment, cash fine, or flogg=
ing
in which case the number of lashes must be less than hodoud.]
Article 69 – The confession is valid when the confessor has the virtues of
maturity, sanity, willingness, and liberty.
Article 70 – The confession must be explicit or appear to be not inconsiste=
nt
with the case.
Article 71 – If a person confesses to adultery and then denies it, if the
adultery is to be punished by killing or stoning, then the denial annuls the
punishment of killing and stoning. Otherwise, with the denial after the
confession the punishment is not annulled.
Article 72 – If a person confesses to the type of adultery that is punishab=
le
and then repents, the judge can either ask the Head of Judiciary for clemen=
cy
or carry out the punishment.
Article 73 – A woman who does not have a husband, shall not be punished for
becoming pregnant unless her adultery is proven by one of the methods menti=
oned
in this law.
Article 74 – Adultery, when punishable by either flogging or stoning, can be
proven by the testimony of either four just men, or three just men and two =
just
women.
Article 75 – If adultery is punishable by flogging, then it could also be
proven by the testimony of two just men and four just women.
Article 76 – The testimony by women alone or along with the testimony of a =
just
man does not prove adultery but the witnesses will be subject to the punish=
ment
for false accusation (Qazf) as specified by the law [Qazf is defined=
as
accusing a person of adultery or anal sex. It is punishable by 80 lashes
(Article 139)].
Article 77 – The testimony of the witnesses must be clear and without ambig=
uity
and based on observation and testimony based on conjectures is not credible=
.
Article 78 – If the witnesses describe the specifics of the subject of
testimony, there should be no discrepancy in their descriptions in terms of=
the
time, place, and such. In case of discrepancy among witnesses’
testimonies, then not only the adultery is not proven but the witnesses wil=
l be
sentenced to punishment for false accusation (Qazf).
Article 79 – The witnesses must testify one after another without any lapse=
of
time. If some of the witnesses testify and then some other witnesses are not
immediately present to testify or do not testify, then adultery is not prov=
en.
In this case, the witness will be subject to punishment for false accusation
(Qazf).
Article 80 – The adultery punishment shall be executed immediately except f=
or
the cases described in the later articles.
Article 81 – If the adulterer repents prior to the testimony, then the
punishment is annulled and if s/he repents after the testimony, then the
punishment is not annulled.
Chapter 3 – Types of Adultery
Punishment
Article 82 – The punishment for adultery in the following cases is killing =
and
there is no difference between young and not-young and marriage-bound and n=
ot
marriage-bound.
a. Adultery with
“mahaarim” [Mahaarim of a person are the relatives by bl=
ood
or marriage who are within the prohibited degree of marriage such as
one’s siblings, parents, and in-laws.]
b. Adultery with
step-mother which shall constitute the killing of the adulterer.
c. Adultery of a
non-Muslim with a Muslim woman which will constitute the killing of the
adulterer.
d. Adultery by
force and duress that will constitute the killing of the forcing adulterer.=
Article 83 – The punishment for adultery in the following cases is stoning.=
a. Adultery of a
marriage-bound man that is defined as a man who has a permanent wife and has
had intercourse with her while being sane and can have intercourse with her
whenever he so wishes.
b. Adultery of a
marriage-bound woman with an adult man, a marriage-bound woman is a woman w=
ho
has a permanent husband and the husband has had intercourse with the woman =
when
she was sane and has had the opportunity to have intercourse with the husba=
nd,
too.
c. Adultery of a
marriage-bound woman with a minor constitutes flogging.
Article 84 – An old adulterer or an old adulteress who qualifies as
marriage-bound shall be subject to flogging punishment prior to stoning.
Article 85 – Revocable divorce, prior to the end of the possible revoking
period, does not disqualify a man or woman from being marriage-bound, but
irrevocable divorce disqualifies them from being marriage-bound.
Article 86 – Adultery by a man or a woman when each has a permanent spouse =
but
has no access to the spouse due to travel or imprisonment or similar reason=
able
excuses, shall not constitute stoning.
Article 87 – A married man who before penetration [into his wife] commits
adultery shall be sentenced to flogging, having his head shaven, and one ye=
ar
of exile.
Article 88 – The adultery punishment for a man or woman who does not meet t=
he
marriage-bound conditions is one hundred lashes.
Article 89 – Repetition of adultery prior to executing the adultery punishm=
ent
will not constitute repetition of the punishment if the punishments are the
same, but if the punishments are of different types, like some constitute
flogging and other constitute stoning, then flogging punishment shall be
executed prior to stoning.
Article 90 – If a man or woman commits adultery several times and at each
instance is punished, they will be killed upon the fourth instance.
Article 91 – During pregnancy and parturition bleeding the woman shall not =
be
subjected to murder or stoning. Also after the childbirth if the infant has=
no
guardian and there is a concern that the infant might die, the punishment w=
ill
not be carried out, but if a guardian is found for the infant then the
punishment shall be executed.
Article 92 – When a pregnant or breastfeeding woman is to be punished by
flogging and there is concern for possible harm to the pregnancy or the
breastfeeding infant, then the punishment will be delayed until the time th=
at
the punishment causes no such harm.
Article 93 – If a sick person or menstruating woman is sentenced to be murd=
ered
or stoned, the punishment shall be carried out but if sentenced to flogging
then the punishment will be delayed until the sickness and menstruation is
over.
Article 94 – If there is no hope for recovery of a sick person, or the Shar=
ia
judge (hakeme shar’) deems appropriate that the punishment be executed
during the sickness, then a bunch of one hundred lashes or whips will be
inflicted once even if not all of them touch the body of the convict.
Article 95 – If the convict sentenced to punishment becomes insane or conve=
rts,
the punishment shall not be annulled.
Article 96 – The flogging shall not be carried out in too cold or too hot
weather.
Article 97 – The punishment cannot be executed in the land of the enemies of
Islam.
Chapter 4 – How to Execute the
Punishment
Article 98 – When a person is sentenced to multiple punishments, the order =
of
carrying out the sentences must be such that none of them prevents another,
therefore if someone is sentenced to flogging and stoning, first flogging a=
nd
then stoning shall be carried out.
Article 99 – If adultery by a person, who meets the marriage-bound conditio=
ns,
is proven by his/her confession, then at the time of stoning the first stone
will be thrown by the Sharia judge and then by others, and if the adultery =
is
proven by the testimony of witnesses, then first the witnesses will throw
stones, then the Sharia judge, and then others.
Note – Absence or lack of action of the judge and witnesses in
throwing the first stone shall not prevent carrying out the sentence and in=
any
case the punishment must be executed.
Article 100 – The flogging punishment for an adulterer man shall be carried =
out
as he is standing and wearing no clothing except to cover his genitals. Las=
hes
must forcefully inflict his entire body except for his head, face, and
genitals. An adulterer woman shall be flogged in a sitting position with her
clothes bound to her body.
Article 101 – It is appropriate that the judge informs the public of the tim=
e of
the punishment and it is necessary that a group of believers, not less than
three people, be present when the punishment is carried out.
Article 102 – An adulterous man shall be buried in a ditch up to near his wa=
ist
and an adulterous woman up to near her chest and then stoned to death.
Article 103 – In case the person sentenced to stoning escapes the ditch in w=
hich
they are buried, then if the adultery is proven by testimony then they will=
be
returned for the punishment but if it is proven by their own confession then
they will not be returned.
Note – If the person sentenced to flogging escapes they shall =
be
returned in any case.
Article 104 – The size of the stone used in stoning shall not be too large to
kill the convict by one or two throws and at the same time shall not be too
small to be called a stone.
Article 105 – The Sharia Judge can act upon his own knowledge in the cases of
[defending] God’s Rights (Haghollah) and People’s Rights
(Haghonnas) and carry out the punishment constituted by the God and it is
necessary that he documents his knowledge. The execution of the punishment =
in
case of God’s Rights (Haghollah) is not contingent upon anyone’s
request but in case of People’s Rights (Haghonnas) is contingent on t=
he
owner of the right.
Article 106 – Adultery during the holy times such as religious festivities a=
nd
Ramadan and Friday and at holy places such as mosques will constitute flogg=
ing
in addition to the regular punishment.
Article 107 – The presence of the witnesses is necessary when stoning punish=
ment
is carried out but the punishment shall not be annulled due to their absence
but it shall be annulled with their escape.
Appendix 3: Ritual of Ston=
ing
Punishment in Iran
Ritual of Stoning Punishment in Iran=
The Directive on Implementation
Regulations for Sentences of Retribution-in-Kind, Stoning, Murder, Crucifix=
ion,
Death Penalty, and Flogging
As described in Article 293 of the
Ordinance on Procedures of the Revolutionary and Common Courts in Penal Mat=
ters
Chapter One
Implementation of Sentences Leading =
to
Taking of Human Life
First Topic
Implementation Conditions
Article 1 – The preliminary court issuing the sentence, after the sentence=
is
finalized and a copy of it is submitted to the condemned or their attorney =
as
the case may be, is obliged to send a copy of the finalized sentence in a
letter containing the necessary explanations along with the related documen=
ts
for implementation to the judicial authority for sentence implementation.
Note – The judic=
ial
authority for sentence implementation refe=
rs to
the unit for execution of penal sentences which is under the supervision of=
the
public prosecutor or his deputy and in the areas where a court has not yet =
been
established it is under the supervision of the chief of the judiciary or his
assistant.
Article 2 – The retribution of life sentence will be executed after its
confirmation by the primary court issuing the sentence and the granting of
permission by the Muslim Affair Trustee [the Supreme Leader], and its
confirmation by the Head of Judiciary with the permission of the heir(s) to=
the
blood.
Article 3 – If one of the judicial authorities, as permissible by law,
requests an appeal of the final sentence, then the execution of the sentence
will be delayed until the final decision has been made in the case.
Article 4 – Except for the case of life retribution, if the person sentenc=
ed
to the death penalty, killing, stoning, crucifixion, or limb amputation ple=
ads
for mercy after the final confirmation of the sentence but prior to its
execution, then the execution of the punishment will be delayed by order of=
the
court issuing the sentence until the result is announced by the Commission =
of
Amnesty and Clemency. The above mentioned commission is obliged to urgently
process the plea and notify the court of the result.
Article 5 – The advent of insanity, apostasy, sickness, or menstruation of=
the
condemned will not prevent the execution of death penalty or life retributi=
on.
However, in the case of sickness, if the judicial physician or the reliable
physician declares that the sickness is too severe to allow the ritual mand=
ated
by this directive to be carried out, and the judge who issued the prelimina=
ry
sentence or the relevant prosecutor approves, then the execution of the
sentence will be delayed until the impediment is removed.
Article 6 – During pregnancy and lochia (bleeding after childbirth), death
penalty, adultery punishments (Hadd), and life retribution shall not be car=
ried
out. Similarly, after delivery, if execution of the sentence would harm the
health of the child due to weaning from mother’s breast milk, then by=
the
discretion of the judicial physician or the reliable physician and approval=
of
the judge issuing the sentence or the relevant prosecutor, the execution of=
the
sentence will be delayed until the baby reaches the age of two years.
Second Topic
Ritual of Implementation
Article 7 – After receiving the final sentence and its implementation order
from the court, the judicial authority in charge of sentence execution is obliged to notify the following individuals =
and
authorities of the arrangements at least 48 hours prior to the time of sent=
ence
implementation and ask them to be present at the implementation place to
perform their assigned duties:
a. The judge who
issued the preliminary sentence, if his presence is required by the law.
b. The prison
office chief or his deputy for making provisions for execution of the sente=
nce
and keeping order in the prison premises or cooperation with the enforcement
officers for delivery of the prisoner in case the sentence is carried out
outside the prison premises.
c. The local law
enforcement chief or his deputy.
d. The judicial
physician or the reliable physician (in the case where there is no local
judicial physician) to examine the condemned and also provide opinion about
their physical condition before the sentence is executed and to examine the
corpse after it.
e. A member of =
the
clergy or discerning person for carrying out the religious rites, and if the
condemned is a member of an officially recognized religion, the relevant
religious leader’s representative or their representative. In any cas=
e,
absence of these people shall not prevent carrying out the sentence.
f. The court cl=
erk
in order to read the sentence before implementation.
g. The heirs to=
the
blood of the slain or their attorney.
h. The attorney=
of
the condemned, absence of the said attorney shall not prevent the sentence
implementation.
i. The witnesse=
s,
in the case that their presence is required by the law.
Note 1 – If for so=
me
reasons, the presence of audience or special groups at the implementation p=
lace
is not expedient, at the prosecutor’s discretion, the law enforcement
officers shall prevent their entry to the implementation place. In places w=
here
the prosecutor office (daadsara) has not been established, this is at the
discretion of the head of the county (hozeh) judicial chief.
Note 2 – Providing
[security for] the implementation place outside of the prison premises is t=
he
responsibility of the law enforcement forces.
Article 8 – Prior to the execution of sentence, the judicial physician or =
the
reliable physician accompanied by the judicial authority for sentence
implementation shall go to the condemned’s prison, examine him/her and
state an opinion. If the physical condition [of the condemned] is not an is=
sue
to prevent the sentence implementation, the judicial authority for sentence
implementation will notify the condemned that they can request to meet cert=
ain
people. In case such request is made, the requested people will be invited =
to
the prison, given that granting the request does not delay the implementati=
on
of sentence.
Article 9 – Once the requested person or people are present, the prison ch=
ief
or his deputy shall arrange their meeting with the condemned. The condemned=
has
the right to convey anything in the presence or absence of the judicial
authority for sentence implementation to the visitors verbally or in writin=
g.
Only the prison chief or his deputy shall be present at the meeting and awa=
re
of the communication. An interpreter’s service shall be used, if
necessary.
Article 10 – The invited clergy or the discerning person shall take the
following actions:
- Advise the condemned to repent.
- Advise the condemned to state their will if they have one.
- Advise the condemned about taking his/her own rites of body washing and
shroud wrapping [the ritual for the Muslim corpse prior to burial] in the c=
ases
of life retribution and stoning.
Note 1 – Supervisi=
ng
the above is the responsibility of the judicial authority for sentence
implementation and if necessary, then he, himself, will act to advise the
condemned.
Note 2 – Where
relevant, the law enforcement or prison officers will allow the condemned to
take the washing ritual [of the dead] with lotus [Sidr] water, camphor wate=
r,
and pure water and then, as it is prescribed by the rituals for the dead and
according to the Sharia regulations, cover her/his body with three pieces of
white shroud [in accordance with the Islamic ritual of wrapping a dead body=
, ie
takfeen and hanoot]. In this case, after executing the sentence and death of
the condemned punished by stoning or life retribution will be needless of
washing ritual and new shroud (kafan) and Muslim prayer for the dead will be
done for him/her and they will be buried in the Muslim’s cemetery in =
the
same condition, unless the condemned has not taken the washing ritual [of t=
he
dead] prior to execution of the sentence in which case the washing and other
rituals of the dead will be performed for them.
Note 3 – If the
condemned makes a will, upon the execution of sentence the aforementioned
authorities shall send his/her writings and will, after the inspection and
clearance by the judicial authority for sentence implementation, without de=
lay
to the specified address.
Note 4 – The expen=
ses
of executing the sentence in this article and its note shall be paid by the
judiciary.
Article 11 – In case the condemned is non-Muslim, the required religious ri=
tes
will be performed according to his/her religion prior to the execution of
sentence. Absence of the relevant religious leader or his deputy will not
prevent the sentence implementation.
Article 12 – If the condemned asks for food or drink, the officers are obli=
ged
to provide it except for when the request is made only to delay the executi=
on
of sentence. The discretion is with the judicial authority for sentence
implementation.
Article 13 – In cases where the condemned is in prison and the sentence is
carried out outside the prison, a minute shall be prepared and signed by ju=
dicial
authority for sentence implementation, the prison chief or his deputy, the
physician present, the court clerk and the local law enforcement chief or h=
is
deputy. The prison chief shall certify the identity of the prisoner and its
correspondence with the details specified in the court sentence and sign it=
.
Third Topic
The Implementation Methods
Article 14 – The life retribution, killing, and execution may be carried ou=
t by
hanging on gallows, firing squad, or electrocution or another method determ=
ined
by the judge issuing the verdict.
Note – If there =
is
no specification in the issued sentence about the method of execution, life
retribution, or killing, then the condemned will be hanged.
Article 15 – The time of executing the sentence shall be the beginning of
sunrise, unless the court has specified a certain time. The execution of the
sentence, as the case may be, shall be done by the prison or law enforcement
officers. But in the case of life retribution, the heir to the blood [of the
slain] can personally perform retribution on the condemned or appoint a pro=
xy
[for this purpose].
Article 16 – Officers carrying out the sentence are obliged to carefully examine and inspect the implementation instruments, apparatus, and equipment and make sure that they are robust and ready for use to carry out the sente= nce. The aforementioned items shall not be such that they may inflict torture, torment or mutilation of the condemned in excess to what is required by the sentence. Moreover, the entire implementation process shall be performed by= the expert individuals with ultimate calmness and without exercising violence.<= o:p>
Article 17 – The judicial authority for sentence implementation is charged =
with
supervision of correct implementation and observation of the necessary ritu=
als
and non-delay and non-suspension. After observation of the mentioned rituals
and conditions, the condemned shall be transferred under guard to the place=
of
sentence implementation and then with the permission of the judicial author=
ity
for sentence execution, the court clerk shall read the sentence aloud and t=
hen
with the order of the above mentioned authority, the content of the sentence
shall be immediately carried out.
Note – If the pe=
rson
condemned to killing or stoning denies the charges before the sentence is
carried out, and the case is subject to article 71 of the Islamic Penal Code
[of the Islamic Republic of Iran, ratified in 1991], the sentence execution
judicial authority shall order the execution of the sentence to cease and t=
he
judicial authority who issued the sentence will be notified.
Article 18 – After the sentence is carried out, if the judicial physician or
the reliable physician certifies the death of the condemned, the corpse wil=
l be
taken out of the place of execution and submitted to the coroner. If the
condemned’s relatives ask for the corpse, by discretion and order of =
the
judicial authority for sentence implementation it will be submitted to them=
. Otherwise,
[the condemned’s corpse] shall be buried according to the legal and
religious rites. In the latter case, all the expenses will be paid from the
national treasury.
Article 19 – A minute will be taken of the sentence execution and signed by= the judicial authority for sentence execution, the prison office chief or his deputy, the local law enforcement chief or his deputy if the sentenced is carried out outside the prison, the judicial physician or the reliable physician, the court clerk, the heirs to the blood or their attorney and the condemned’s attorney (if present) and filed in the relevant dossier.<= o:p>
Article 20 – If deemed appropriate by the judicial authority for sentence
implementation, the sentence implementation procedure will be filmed or
photographed, as the case may be, by the prison authorities or law enforcem=
ent
officers, and the films or photographs will be archived in the
condemned’s file, and news of the sentence execution and the type of =
crime
and a summary of the court sentence shall be published in the newspapers. In
exceptional cases where on the decision of the Head of Judiciary or the
authorized officials acting on his behalf, photographs of the condemned dur=
ing
the sentence execution shall be published in the media for public informati=
on.
Fourth Topic
The Ritual Particular to Performing
Stoning Punishment
Article 21 – On the discretion of the judge ordering the sentence, the
implementation authority will in advance notify the public of the time of
sentence execution and at any rate it is necessary that at least three
believers are present at the time of carrying out the punishment.
Article 22 – The law enforcement or prison officers are obliged to, as the =
case
may be, first dig the place of carrying out the punishment as specified in =
the
Article 102 of the Islamic Penal Code [of Iran] and provide some stones at =
the
place, of the size specified in Article 104 of the same code. The judge in
charge of carrying out the punishment shall initially inspect the above
mentioned preparations and then, after approving it, issue the order for
carrying out the sentence.
Article 23 – If the stoning sentence is based on the condemned’s
confession then at the time of execution, the sentencing judge will throw t=
he
first stone and then the other people. But if the condemnation is based on =
the
testimonies of witnesses, then first the witnesses will throw stones, then =
the
mentioned judge and then other people.
Note 1 – The
sentencing judge refers to the judge who issued the preliminary sentence,
unless the Discretion Branch of the High State Court has revoked the
preliminary sentence and issued the stoning sentence in which case the Chai=
r of
the above mentioned branch or one of the members of the branch assigned by =
the
Chair will throw the first stone.
Note 2 – Absence or
inaction of the sentencing judge and witnesses to throw the first stone will
not prevent the execution of the punishment and in any case the punishment =
will
be carried out by the order of the sentence execution judge, unless the
adultery has been proven by the testimony of witnesses and the witnesses es=
cape
during the execution of the sentence, or if the adultery is proven by
confession and the condemned escapes from the pit in which they are put in,=
in
which both cases the punishment is annulled and the sentence execution judge
will order the implementation to be stopped. The case is the same if it is
subject to article 71 of the Islamic Penal Code [of the Islamic Republic of=
Iran]
ratified in 1370 [1991] and it shall proceed according to the note of artic=
le
17 of this directive.
…
Chapter Three
Implementation of Flogging Punishmen=
t
Article 27 – Flogging is implemented using a thread leather strap of the
approximate length of one meter and the approximate width of 0.2cm.
Article 28 – The hands and feet of the condemned shall be bound to the plac=
e of
the sentence execution as far as possible in order to prevent needless
movements of the condemned that may cause infliction of lashes to the
prohibited areas.
Note – The
prohibited areas refer to head, face and genitals.
Article 29 – When flogging punishment is performed in a closed area, the
temperature must be mild and if performed in an open area, the temperature
shall not be too cold or too hot. The flogging should be performed during t=
he
warmer hours of the day in cold regions and in cooler hours of the day in w=
arm
regions.
Article 30 – Implementation of flogging punishment in terms of vigorousness=
and
weakness of lashes is as the following:
Flogging punishment for adultery (zina) and sexual contact without penetrat=
ion
(tafkheez) is more vigorous than that for alcohol consumption (shorbe khamr)
and punishment for alcohol consumption is more vigorous than that of false
accusation (qazf) and pimping (qavvadi).
Article 31 – Execution of flogging punishment shall be with respect to Arti=
cle
300 of the Directive of General and Revolutionary Court Hearing Procedures =
in
Penal Matters according to the regulations set by the Islamic Penal Code [of
Iran].
Article 32 – Flogging of condemned females shall be performed as they are
seated and have their clothes bound to their bodies.
Article 33 – Flogging of condemned males shall be carried out as they are
standing, and in the cases of adultery, sexual contact without penetration
(tafkheez) and alcohol consumption, have no clothing but to cover the genit=
als,
and in the cases of pimping (Qavvadi) and false testimony(qazf), flogging is
performed over regular clothing.
Article 34 – Flogging by Ta’zir [rather than Hadd] shall be performed
according to article 288 of the Directive of General and Revolutionary Court
Hearing Procedures in Penal Matters as follows:
a. Flogging is
implemented as the condemned is lied flat on stomach and wears regular clot=
hing
and lashes are inflicted on the back of the body except for the head, face =
and
genitals.
b. The flogging=
is
implemented consistently and with medium severity.
Article 35 – This Directive has been approved by the Head of Judiciary in 35
articles and 7 notes in implementation of article 293 of the Directive of
General and Revolutionary Court Hearing Procedures in Penal Matters ratifie=
d by
the Legal and Judiciary Affairs Commission of the Islamic Parliament on
September 19, 1997.
Head of Judiciary – Seyed Mamo=
ud
Shahroudi
Source of the Original Code in Farsi
(Persian): http://www.hoqouq.com/law/article87.html
i See Chapter 4 for more details of the case.
ii For more details, see Iran: Amnesty International outraged at repor=
ted
stoning to death and fears for victim’s co-accused (AI Index: MDE
13/083/2007), 7 July 2007.
iii=
The stoning was confirmed by Judiciary Spokesperson Alireza Jamshidi o=
n 10
July 2007.
v On 11 July the Islamic Students News Agency reported that a judiciary
official had said that the actions of the judge in the case were to be
investigated by the Judges’ Disciplinary Court.
vi<= /a> On 29 July, E’temad Melli reported that her case had been sent to the Board of Monitoring and Follow Up, in the judiciary in Tehran.<= o:p>
vii=
Safeguard 1 of the UN Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights=
of
those facing the death penalty, approved by UN Economic and Social Council
Resolution 1984/50, states: “In countries which have not abolished the
death penalty, capital punishment may be imposed only for the most serious
crimes, it being understood that their scope should not go beyond intention=
al
crimes with lethal or other extremely grave consequences.”
viii General Comment No.6 on Article 6, para.7.
ix<=
/a> See, for instance, Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committ=
ee:
Yemen (CCPR/CO/84/YEM), 9 August 2005, para.15; and Resolution 2005/59 of t=
he
UN Commission on Human Rights, para.7(i).
x<=
/a> The other three are: qesas (retribution), diyeh
(compensation) and deterrent punishments, such as fines – see Articles
12-20 of the Penal Code.
xi=
This can include forensic or DNA evidence.
xii Grand Ayatollah Montazeri was Ayatollah Khomeini’s designated
successor until removed from this position in 1989, following his criticism=
of
various policies, including the mass executions of 1988. Now in his eightie=
s,
he was under house arrest between 1997 and 2003.
xiii
www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/07/a8dcbe4b-0e23-4822-8d65-e4b6ec23bd9a.=
html.
xiv Shi’a Muslims believe that after the death of the Prophet Mohamm=
ad,
he was succeeded by 12 Imams, beginning with his son-in-law Ali, and then by
his descendants through the Prophet’s daughter Fatima. The 12th<=
/sup>
Imam is believed not to have died but to have gone into hiding (or
occultation), and will one day return to the world to regain his rightful
position.
xv www.meydaan.org/stoning/showarticle.aspx?arid=3D373&cid=3D46.
xvi http://www.isna.ir/Mai=
n/NewsView.aspx?ID=3DNews-1033254&Lang=3DP
and http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/story/2007/11/071113_mf_stoning.shtml=
.
xvii Once legislation has been approved by the Majles, it passes to the Cou=
ncil
of Guardians which checks for its conformity to the Constitution and the Islamic law before
approving it. In the event of a dispute between the Majles and the Council =
of
Guardians, it passes to the Expediency Council, which can introduce legisla=
tion
that is “in the interests of the system”.
xviii Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.6 on the right to life, par=
a.7.
See also Safeguard 5 of the UN Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the ri=
ghts
of those facing the death penalty.
xix In April 2007, a new directive issued by the Head of the Judiciary gra=
nted
four state bodies the right to run detention centres to hold those accused =
of
crimes against national security: the Intelligence Ministry, the Intelligen=
ce
Headquarters of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, the Law Enforcement
agencies and the Counter-Intelligence Organization of the Armed Forces. Und=
er
the directive, the heads of these “security” detention centres =
are
required to submit a monthly list of detainees’ names to the Head of =
the
Organization for Prisons and Security and Corrective Measures.
xx Report of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, 27 June 2003,
E/CN.4/2004/3/Add.2.
xxi For example, Article 14 of the ICCPR, Principle 18(3) of the Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment, Principle 1 of the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers,
and Safeguard 5 of the UN Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights =
of
those facing the death penalty.
xxii The Commission on Human Rights has reminded governments that
“prolonged incommunicado detention may facilitate the perpetration of
torture and can in itself constitute a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or even torture”. The UN Special Rapporteur on torture
recommended that incommunicado detention be declared illegal.
xxiii The judge’s “knowledge” can include forensic or DNA
evidence – for example, from paternity tests.
xxiv See Principles 2 and 6 of the UN Basic Principles on the Independence =
of
the Judiciary, and Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.13, para.7.
xxv Article 19 of the Law on Appeals, 1993.
xxvi Article 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedures, 1999.
xxvii Sho’be-ye tashkhis.
xxviii Except where specified under the Penal Code, where certain kinds of of=
fenders
who have confessed and repented may be pardoned by the Supreme Leader on the
recommendation of the judge in the case.
xxix Articles 81, 126 and 133 of the Islamic Penal Code.
xxx This refers to the right to seek pardon from the state. The state has =
the
duty to guarantee the right to seek pardon, although it can take into accou=
nt
the wishes of the victim or the victim’s family.
xxxi Komisyon-e ‘Afv va Bakhshoudegi.
xxxii See Amnesty International’s Urgent Actions (AI Index: MDE
13/053/2004 and follow-ups).
xxxiii Verdict No.1=
28
dated 25 April 2000.
xxxiv Report of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, 27 June 2003,
E/CN.4/2004/3/Add.2.
xxxv In 2005, according to a report published by IRNA, the literacy rate of
women between 15 and 49 was 75.2 per cent (men’s literacy runs at ove=
r 80
per cent). However, this hides considerable provincial variation: in
Sistan-Baluchistan province, which has the worst literacy rates, only 55.2 =
per
cent of women were literate.
xxxvi In 2002, the legal age of marriage for girls was raised from 9 to 13, =
but
girls younger than this may still be married if their fathers apply to a co=
urt.
The age of marriage for boys is 15.
xxxvii Although there are some women police officers, women are limited in the
roles they can fill in the judicial system.
xxxviii Iran briefing (AI Index: MDE 13/008/1987).
xxxix AI Index: MDE 13/024/2001.
xl AI Index: MDE 13/006/2002.
xli She reportedly still faced 100 lashes for adultery and 15 years’
imprisonment for being an accomplice in the murder of her husband.
xlii AI Index: MDE 13/053/2004.
xliii The Revolutionary Guards are Iran’s armed forces and they run the
paramilitary Bassij Forces.
xliv www.meydaan.org/stoning/showarticle.aspx?arid=3D29&cid=3D46=
.
xlv Report No. h/5657, 22 January 2007, by the Department of Judicial
Procedure Unification and Publication of Deliberations and Rulings of the
Supreme Court, as quoted by Mavi, 11 March 2007.
xlvi Amnesty International, Urgent Action, Iran: Further information on
imminent execution: Ashraf Kolhari (AI Index: MDE 13/095/2006).
xlvii ISNA, 15 October 2007, http://isna.ir/Main/NewsView.aspx?ID=3DNews-101=
4781.
xlviii http://meydaan.com/Stoning/summary.aspx#11.
xlix Qods newspaper, 27 September 200=
7.
li=
For an interview with Gholam Hossein Ra’isi about his work again=
st
stoning and on behalf of Parisa A and her husband Najaf, see
www.meydaan.org/stoning/showarticle.aspx?arid=3D90&cid=3D46.
lii For more details, see Amnesty International’s Urgent Action (AI
Index: MDE 13/141/2006).
liii www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=3D9829.
liv Thirty-one of the detainees were released without charge by 9 March.
Mahboubeh Abbasgholizadeh and Shadi Sadr were released on bail of 200 milli=
on
toumans (over US$215,000) on 19 March. For more details, see Amnesty
International’s Urgent Actions (AI Index: MDE 13/028/2007 and MDE
13/031/2007).
lv See http://www.cbc.ca/disp=
atches/thisseason/october.html
to download the podcast containing the interview.
lvi www.iranian.com/main/2007/asieh-s-eyes.