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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
