To preface, I am not an expert on Iranian Law, but having reviewed the Iranian Constitution in light of recent events, I have noticed some discrepancies between the Iranian Constitution and a recent Iranian Supreme Court ruling.
The Islamic Republic of Iran, by its very title, presumes the enforcement of the ideals of Islam, and holds Islam as the supreme law. This aim is presented explicitly in the Iranian Constitution: "The functions of the judiciary are to be performed by courts of justice, which are to be formed in accordance with the criteria of Islam, and are vested with the authority to examine and settle lawsuits, protect the rights of the public, dispense and enact justice, and implement the Divine limits." See Article 61 - Judiciary. Thus, when the Iranian Supreme Court overturned the murder convictions of 6 Basij vigilantes for executing a young couple, Reza Nejadmalayeri and Shohreh Nikpour, the question of human rights in an Islamic world arises. Are there human rights in Iran? There are no human rights if the Iranian Supreme Court is affirmed in acquitting the 6 Basij members that murdered Nejadmalayeri and Nikpour.
On its face, the Iranian Supreme Court's ruling was violation of the Islam Republic of Iran's Constitution. The Iranian Constitution lays out many rights to citizens. These rights were denied by the Basij members and subsequently, the Supreme Court.
The victims here were denied their constitutional right to trial under Article 34. "It is the indisputable right of every citizen to seek justice by recourse to competent courts. All citizens have right of access to such courts, and no one can be barred from courts to which he has a legal right of recourse." See Article 34 - Recourse to the Courts. The 6 Basij members here played the role of judge, jury, and executioner, overlooking the fact that these responsibilities were never theirs to begin with.
The victims were also denied their right to proper sentencing under Article 36. "The passing and execution of a sentence must be only by a competent court and in accordance with law." See Article 36 - Sentencing. The determination of the victims' death sentences and execution of said sentences were improper because they were not achieved by a competent court.
The victims were never presumed innocent by the court, but viewed as criminals without a proper trial. This violates the presumption of innocence granted to all accuse under Article 37. "Innocence is to be presumed, and no one is to be held guilty of a charge unless his or her guilt has been established by a competent court." See Article 37 - Presumption of Innocence. Again, any determination of guilt should have been made by a competent court, not Basij members, and not on the street.
Acquitting the vigilante effectively sacrifices the rights of the victims and delegates, post facto, the duties of the court which include: "supervising the proper enforcement of laws; uncovering crimes; prosecuting, punishing, and chastising criminals; and enacting the penalties and provisions of the Islamic penal code; and taking suitable measures to prevent the occurrence of crime and to reform criminals." See Article 156 - Status and Functions [of the Judiciary].
Under Article 61 of the Iranian Constitution, noted above, the Judiciary is ordered to act in compliance with the laws of Islam. As such, if the Constitution grants rights which Islam will allow to be ignored, then the Constitution and Islam are in conflict. Finding these violated rights in line with Islam, and reversing the decision to acquit murder charges faced by the Basij members, will help prevent the de-legitimizing of the Iranian Constitution and/or the Iranian Judiciary. With the de-legitimization of the law comes an international label - Failed State. This is a label Iran cannot afford right now.
Thursday, 3 May 2007
Thursday, 12 April 2007
Looking Back on Fifteen UK Sailors captured by Iranian Forces
When fifteen (15) British sailors were captured at gunpoint by Iranian forces, the majority of Western news sources spun the event in a manner that might make Iran look more worthy of punishment than never before. The Royal Navy allegedly stopped an Iranian ship believed to be smuggling stolen cars, but while performing the stop, Iranian forces captured the Royal Navy sailors. The headlines in many of the Western papers were mostly "Iran seizes British soldiers in international waters" or "EU upset with Iran's conduct in taking prisoners" ... and of course one Turkish paper (Sabah) with two odd headlines, one of them condemning Iran for seizing the soldiers, the other saying that Iran captured the Soldiers in Iranian water. Once again, the random ass Turkish paper is one of the few sources to give the truth. This happened before, when the only news source which explained who was responsible for Israel's invasion into Lebanon, was some random Turkish newspaper. Those silly Turks, always letting the truth slip out and making the west look bad.
The point is that all the western news sources are quick to ignore who has the territorial sovereignty as they disseminate information to the public, but internally they know full well the laws. Foreign governments have no right to enter and express sovereignty under Iran's jurisdiction, and even if the matter occurred in international waters, article 110 of the Law of the Sea Treaty specifies that military ships are "not justified in boarding [a foreign ship] unless there is reasonable grounds for suspecting that: (a) the ship is engaged in piracy; (b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade; (c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting...; (d) the ship is without nationality or (e) ...the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship." Boarding of ships involved in the illicit drug trade is also permitted. What were the reasonable grounds for suspicion of any of those items? Allegedly the boarding occurred because the British soldiers believed the Iranian ship was transporting stolen cars. I'm not sure if that even falls into one of the exceptions listed under 110, but even if it does, how do they prove reasonable grounds for suspicion?
Initially this is what the NY Times showed
The British version
Map without boundary drawn in
Map with maritime boundary defined by equidistance (international maritime norm)
Now, it's my understanding that there are no current treaties over maritime boundaries between Iran and Iraq, much less other hostile nations, considering the Iran-Iraq war, the revolution, and the multitude of border disputes which have occurred since the revolution. As such, it's customary international law for two states to determine a boundary by equidistance. See Article 15 of the UNCLOS This concept of equidistance is customary law going back in time until the dawn of maritime law. Just about every coastal state recognizes it. The only ways around this law are by treaty or "where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith."
Although there was a treaty between Iran and Iraq from 1975 that define the border in Britain's favor here, two revolutions (one by Iran and one by Iraq) and a long war probably terminated most of the treaties from before 1979. Those boundaries can't be relied on more than treaties and maps from 1500 when the Persian empire stretched across to Saudi Arabia.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not going to defend Ahmadinejad or the Islamic Republic of Iran, but established customary law must be respected, regardless of who it protects. These laws can go both ways and if the UK is allowed to bend the law with phoney territorial boundaries, then other countries may find themselves justified to do the same. And I feel completely at ease saying "phoney" because if those were in fact Iraqi waters, then what Iran did by seizing the Brits would have led the US forces to react with lightning speed and thunderous consequence. But the US did not back up their allies, in a situation which if it was Iraqi waters would not only be justified, but beneficial to the US in almost every way. Ask yourself why. The British sailors admitted that they were in Iranian waters, the maps say those waters were Iranian. The facts don't seem in the UK's favor.
So what's so interesting about all this is how people played this into a critical situation for Iran, and how analysts tried to double think the Iranian government. Make no mistake - Iran knew exactly what it was doing, as this even was a replay of the events from 2004.
2004
American and British Soldiers That Were Captured and Later Released by Iran in 2004 Displayed on Iranian TV
2007
Iran TV shows captured sailors
Iran captures soldiers, Iran shows them on tv to the people of Iran, dressed nice, looking good and healthy and well treated, Iran releases the soldiers. In a nutshell, Iran is civil and in control, the UK is confused and sloppy. So what's it all mean? Iran isn't afraid to assert it's territorial sovereignty and if anyone wants to challenge it, Iran will play the media game to the hilt.
Looking Good, Mates!
special thanks to Shooresh in Scotland for his research.
The point is that all the western news sources are quick to ignore who has the territorial sovereignty as they disseminate information to the public, but internally they know full well the laws. Foreign governments have no right to enter and express sovereignty under Iran's jurisdiction, and even if the matter occurred in international waters, article 110 of the Law of the Sea Treaty specifies that military ships are "not justified in boarding [a foreign ship] unless there is reasonable grounds for suspecting that: (a) the ship is engaged in piracy; (b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade; (c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting...; (d) the ship is without nationality or (e) ...the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship." Boarding of ships involved in the illicit drug trade is also permitted. What were the reasonable grounds for suspicion of any of those items? Allegedly the boarding occurred because the British soldiers believed the Iranian ship was transporting stolen cars. I'm not sure if that even falls into one of the exceptions listed under 110, but even if it does, how do they prove reasonable grounds for suspicion?
Initially this is what the NY Times showed
The British version
Map without boundary drawn in
Map with maritime boundary defined by equidistance (international maritime norm)
Now, it's my understanding that there are no current treaties over maritime boundaries between Iran and Iraq, much less other hostile nations, considering the Iran-Iraq war, the revolution, and the multitude of border disputes which have occurred since the revolution. As such, it's customary international law for two states to determine a boundary by equidistance. See Article 15 of the UNCLOS This concept of equidistance is customary law going back in time until the dawn of maritime law. Just about every coastal state recognizes it. The only ways around this law are by treaty or "where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith."
Although there was a treaty between Iran and Iraq from 1975 that define the border in Britain's favor here, two revolutions (one by Iran and one by Iraq) and a long war probably terminated most of the treaties from before 1979. Those boundaries can't be relied on more than treaties and maps from 1500 when the Persian empire stretched across to Saudi Arabia.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not going to defend Ahmadinejad or the Islamic Republic of Iran, but established customary law must be respected, regardless of who it protects. These laws can go both ways and if the UK is allowed to bend the law with phoney territorial boundaries, then other countries may find themselves justified to do the same. And I feel completely at ease saying "phoney" because if those were in fact Iraqi waters, then what Iran did by seizing the Brits would have led the US forces to react with lightning speed and thunderous consequence. But the US did not back up their allies, in a situation which if it was Iraqi waters would not only be justified, but beneficial to the US in almost every way. Ask yourself why. The British sailors admitted that they were in Iranian waters, the maps say those waters were Iranian. The facts don't seem in the UK's favor.
So what's so interesting about all this is how people played this into a critical situation for Iran, and how analysts tried to double think the Iranian government. Make no mistake - Iran knew exactly what it was doing, as this even was a replay of the events from 2004.
2004
American and British Soldiers That Were Captured and Later Released by Iran in 2004 Displayed on Iranian TV
2007
Iran TV shows captured sailors
Iran captures soldiers, Iran shows them on tv to the people of Iran, dressed nice, looking good and healthy and well treated, Iran releases the soldiers. In a nutshell, Iran is civil and in control, the UK is confused and sloppy. So what's it all mean? Iran isn't afraid to assert it's territorial sovereignty and if anyone wants to challenge it, Iran will play the media game to the hilt.
Looking Good, Mates!
special thanks to Shooresh in Scotland for his research.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
