Special Features

IHRDC: Witness Statement of Saeed Pourheydar

c.gif

March 5, 2013 — In this witness statement and short video testimony, Saeed Pourheydar—an Iranian journalist now living in exile—discusses his arrest following the disputed June 2009 presidential elections in Iran and his subsequent detention at Evin prison.

In recent weeks, journalists affiliated with reformist news outlets have been arrested by Iranian authorities in what appears to be a broad crackdown aimed at targeting and intimidating the press in advance of Iran’s presidential elections this June.  Following the disputed June 2009 presidential elections in Iran, scores of journalists were arrested on allegations of “endangering national security” and “giving interviews to foreign media”.  Iran currently ranks as one of the top jailers of journalists in the world.

In his statement, Pourheydar notes the pressures on himself and other Iranian journalists to not send news to the outside world and describes how his cell phone communications were monitored and under surveillance by Iranian authorities. Pourheydar also describes his trial before Judge Pirabbasi of Branch 26 of the Revolutionary Court in Tehran and how he received news of the death sentences of Gholamreza Khosravi and Saeed Malekpour.

INTERVIEW
Name: Saeed Pourheydar
Place of Birth:  Orumiyeh, Iran  
Date of Birth:  1981 
Occupation:  Journalist      
Interviewing Organization: Iran Human Rights Documentation Center (IHRDC)
Date of Interview:  14 October 2012
Interviewer: IHRDC Staff

This statement was prepared pursuant to an interview with Saeed Pourheydar. It was approved by Saeed Pourheydar on March 3, 2013. There are 60 paragraphs in the statement.

The views and opinions of the witness expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center.

Background

1.  I am Saeed Pourheydar, I was born in Orumiyeh in 1981 and I was a resident of Tehran. I was a journalist in Iran for about 12 years. I was first arrested in 2000 when I was 19. Since [that first arrest] and up until the present day I have been detained five times. I worked at a couple of publications in West Azerbaijan Province from 1999-2000, when I became more active in political and social fields, up until I left Orumiyeh in 2006.

2.  After the elections in Iran, I was arrested twice. [In the first of the incidents] I was arrested on February 5, 2010, and held in solitary confinement for a month in Section 240. When interrogations ended I was temporarily released. I was arrested again about seven or eight months later, in October 2010 and held in Section 350 of Evin prison for precisely 52 days.

3.  I began working as a journalist in 2000. At the time I lived in Orumiyeh and worked for a number of weekly publications in West Azerbaijan, such as Farday-e Ma, Navid-e Azerbaijan, and others. I also worked as a journalist at the provincial branches of some national newspapers such as Hambastegi, Mardomsalari, Sobh-e Emrooz and others. Meanwhile I was also involved in journalism, politics and active with different organizations.  For instance I cooperated with parties which had representative offices in the province such as the Mosharekat Party [The Islamic Iran Participation Front] and the Hambastegi Party [Islamic Iran Solidarity Party].[1] I was also active in social causes as a secretary and/or member of the board of directors of certain NGOs.

4.  I came to Tehran in 2006 and I started working at newspapers. And I continued my cooperation with the political parties that I was connected with in Orumiyeh.

5.  After the 2009 election, I, like many other people, participated in all the street protests. At the same time, I was also blogging and published all the news about the demonstrations. This had a good impact and media outside Iran welcomed my blog as a news source inside Iran. I also gave interviews with Voice of America television, BBC Persian Service, Radio Farda and a number of other media outlets to provide information about what was happening in the streets.

First detention after the presidential election in 2009

6.  On February 5, 2010, there was a gathering in Behest-e Zahra cemetery to mark the 40th day since the killings after the election. It was a Friday and I was supposed to meet a friend to go there together. I used to go to all the events with this friend. I made an appointment to pick my friend up in my car at 8 a.m. in the morning to go to Behesht-e Zahra.

7.  Agents followed me from my house with the intention to arrest both of us. I arrived at my friend’s home and when we drove to the next street, a car stopped in front of and another behind my car. It was as if they wanted to catch a fugitive killer. Eight armed plain-clothed agents of the Intelligence Ministry detained us with utmost violence. I was handcuffed immediately. My foot was injured as I was dragged on the ground.

8.  My friend was put in one car and I was put in another.  My car was left in the middle of the street. They took us to a parking lot at the Argentina Terminal before taking me to my house and conducting a search. Usually a couple of hundred cars are parked at the terminal but it was a Friday and not very busy. They parked in between the cars. I could see my friend in the other car from a distance. Right there in the Argentina parking lot, they started to beat us and curse at us.

9.  One of the agents held a camera and they demanded a confession. They said I had to make a choice: admit I am working for the Mojahedin-e Khalgh [MEK] or the Monarchist Society. They said I must claim responsibility on behalf of one of these two groups and confess. I refused and I was severely beaten in the car and pistol-whipped. The beatings went on for ten minutes. I could see my friend was being treated the same way. Later on when we were released my friend told me the same things happened to them as well. Then someone got out of the other car and whispered something in the ear of the driver of the car I was in. I don’t know what was said but they stopped filming and drove toward my house.

10. It was 8:30 or 9 a.m. in the morning when I was arrested. All of this took place within an hour or hour and a half. When we got out of the Argentina Terminal parking lot they took me to my house. Four armed agents searched my house for about an hour. They collected and took inventory of a lot of my books, writings, CDs and tapes, even my fax machine and everything else they could get their hands on—and took them away. They filmed all this. Then they put me inside the car again. They told my family not to tell anyone about my arrest. They said if I cooperate, and my family does not speak a word, I could go free sooner.

11. One of the four agents who arrested me was a young boy who wore glasses. He was tall and had a beard. He played the role of the “good guy” in this story.[2] He was also the first person to interrogate me. But after the interrogation I did not see him again. Another younger agent, who was well-built, made a lot of threats. He kept waving his gun. He made more threats when we were inside my house. He stood a certain way to make sure I could see his gun, so as to scare me. There were two other agents who seemed very experienced. They looked like they were 40-45 years old.  One of them had lost most of his hair and had a round face. These two older agents looked very much alike.

12. They were so violent that it was impossible to speak to them before we reached my house. Inside the house they were a bit calmer. I asked if they had a warrant? They showed me a general order from the prosecutor’s office to the Intelligence Ministry giving them permission to detain anyone taking part in protests. There was no name on it and they did not allow me to see the date. He held up the order in his hand.  They had introduced themselves as agents of the Intelligence Ministry. Then they took me from the house to Evin prison.

Evin Prison, Section 240

13. During the entire time [of transfer from my house to Evin] my eyes were open until we reached the Evin prison gate. As soon as we reached Evin two agents blindfolded me and told me to keep my head down. An iron gate opened and we entered the prison. They took me inside a building. From that point on I remained blindfolded until my release, with the exception of the time I spent inside the cell.

14. Inside the prison I entered a building. They sat me on a chair for about two hours. My medication was in my pocket. (At my house I wanted to take my medication because of my heart problem. They said I could bring it but I would not be able to take the medication inside the cell.) Under the blindfold I could only see feet coming and going. I also saw a number of computer cases with the names of their owners who were arrested earlier. I precisely remember Mohammad Reza Moqiseh’s computer because the case was right next to my chair.

15. After two hours someone came and took me inside a room to change my clothes. They gave me prison clothes, a towel, a pair of slippers, a toothbrush, toothpaste, soap and a small bottle of shampoo.  I was blindfolded again and taken to another room where they took my photo. Then they took me back to the same room where the computer cases were. I sat there for another half an hour until an agent came and put me inside a Peugeot and drove away. On the way I asked the agent if I was being taken to Section 209 or 240? He said 240.

16. When I entered Section 240, they walked me up the stairs to the second floor and put me in cell number 24. I was in this cell for a month. The area of the cell was about 16 feet by 7 feet, or about 1.5 meters by 2 meters. There was a corroded metal toilet without a lid and a sink in the corner. The room had recently been painted and the fresh smell [of the paint] gave me a headache. I had three army blankets. I used one as a pillow and another as a bed cover.

17. I was only allowed to contact my family once and that was for just one minute on the first night. But they told me I am not allowed to say where I am. I could only tell my family that I am in prison and not to worry. An agent stood by as I was talking on the phone. After that I was not allowed any visits.

18. On one occasion during my detention, they took me to the Section 4 interrogator’s office at Evin where I was charged and issued a standard arrest warrant which I signed. I was blindfolded there as well. This was on the day of my arrest or the next day. There were three charges against me: participating in gatherings with the intention of overthrowing the state, causing public disorder by participating in gatherings, and publishing lies in my blog and giving interviews to the media.

19. I spent 27 days in the solitary cell. The last three days was in a suite which was a room that measured 3 x 4 meters, or maybe 2 x 3 meters, with five people in it. One of them was Ehsan Abdoh Tabrizi[3] who had been given a ten-year sentence. Later on I also saw him in Section 350. One of the others was a student from Karaj who had been taken hostage. The Intelligence Ministry agents were looking for his cousin but could not find him so they arrested this man instead and told his family to hand over the cousin. He was held hostage for a month and a half. There was also another prisoner whose name was Hossein who had been sentenced to six months in prison. He had also participated in demonstrations. There was another person in this cell. He was not political at all. All he had done was send a text message to the BBC’s sports program.

Phone tapping by the Intelligence Ministry

20. A month before the elections all phone conversations were tapped. I discovered this during interrogations. I had two SIM cards in my name, one was Irancell and the other one was Hamrah-e Avval. Both of my SIM cards had been tapped. I did not work in secret and I used those phones to give interviews. I also used the same phones to set up meetings. In other words I did not pay attention to security considerations. But I did not use email for any kind of communication.

21. My interrogator once brought up a subject and asked what sort of relationship I had with, let’s say, Ms. X.  I had never seen the person mentioned by the interrogator. She lived in another city and we only communicated by phone. They could not trace us except through the phone. The reason is that we did not have any internet communication by email, Facebook messages or anything else online. That’s how I realized my phone conversations had been recorded. That woman had not been arrested so I don’t think she had said anything about our conversations which took place a month or two after the elections.

22. Another example was the conversations I had with two Voice of America and BBC reporters. Those parts of the interviews that were published were available and accessible but my conversations with reporters before and after interviews could not have been known other than by phone surveillance. The reporters had asked to interview me about an Intelligence Ministry directive regarding the cooperation of 60 organizations with foreign countries. I did not agree to an interview but I recommended two others and said they could ask them for an interview and they might agree to talk about this topic. My interrogator mentioned all these conversations to me. The interrogator asked why I had not agreed to give an interview to that reporter and instead introduced this or that person? When he clearly asked me this question I understood that my phone conversations were under surveillance.

23. One specific case I would like to mention is regarding Abdolreza Ghanbari. The only thing they had against him, other than his own confessions which he gave after being tricked and threatened by promises made by his interrogator, was the interview he had given for a couple of minutes to Mojahedin-e Khalgh’s Azadi TV. They didn’t have anything else against him. He called this TV station on the day of Ashoura [a religious day for Shi’a Muslim]. He received the death sentence because of this interview.[4]

24. They had also told me about a number of phone conversations I had with my family. Unfortunately after the elections certain European companies, such as Nokia and Siemens as well as others whose names I cannot remember, had given the Islamic Republic the technology to easily control telephones.

Interrogations

25. My first interrogation session lasted 11 hours. I was interrogated a total of five or six times. The second session began from 4-5 p.m. in the afternoon until 10-12 p.m. at night. Another was from 9 a.m. in the morning until 10-11 p.m. at night. Another session was in the morning. They would come from 7-8 a.m. in the morning until the afternoon.

26. The interrogations had two parts. One concerned my activities before the elections and the other concerned my activities after the elections and the participation in gatherings and contacts with foreign media. They themselves claimed that these are not interrogation sessions. And in fact they were not. It was more like an inquisition, or in their words “clarifying ambiguities”.

27. I had three interrogators. The first was part of the group who arrested me. When he came into the room his first question was, “Wherever you go you say you don’t believe in Velayat-e Faqih.[5] Why is that?” I noticed his voice is very familiar and I told him so. He said I was mistaken and I had never seen him. I lifted the blindfold to write something. I turned around and saw him. He got angry and said I should not have turned around. He didn’t come back for the next session. I don’t know if it was because I recognized him or for some other reason.

28. I had two other interrogators. One of them only appeared for inquisition-like sessions. The other was very experienced. He had a handle on my case. He studied it and was well-informed about my activities. I could neither see him nor did I know his name. I asked him what name I should call him and he said “Anything you like… Haji, Seyed…” He was very professional. He said they had worked for 6-7 months on my case and a few other cases and eventually decided that I should be arrested. In fact I was more comfortable with this interrogator compared to the one in inquisition sessions. The other interrogator got into annoying theoretical discussions. But this interrogator mostly asked questions about my activities. Overall he wasn’t a bad person, although once or twice he got angry and another person came along to help him and broke my teeth, albeit accidentally. Besides this I did not have a particular problem with him.

29. In one of the sessions where the professional interrogator and another one were present the first one asked which “disturbances” I had participated in. I said, “If you mean which gatherings, I was in all of them.” He said “You have to put that in writing.” They brought an interrogation paper and wrote down, “In which disturbances in Tehran were you present?” [The Persian word for “disturbances” had been misspelled with a “kh” instead of “gh.”] They told me to write the answer. I wrote “None.” I gave the piece of paper and he became very angry. He said, “You so and so! Didn’t you just say you took part in all of them? Do you think this is a joke?” I said, “If you mean whether I was in disturbances with a ‘gh’ I was in all of them. But I wasn’t in any disturbances with a ‘kh’.” He got very angry and pulled my hair from the back of my head and banged it against the chair handle two or three times. The chair was the type with a hand-rest used in schools. My lips and teeth struck the side of the chair and I broke four of my teeth. They then took me to my cell in that condition, with a bloody mouth, without taking me to the clinic. For two days I was given a painkiller every five or six hours but I was never taken to the clinic.

30. On the 21st day of my detention I went on a hunger strike and I kept it going for six days. I have a weak body and in any case solitary detention makes you lose weight because the meal portions are small and you are under a lot of psychological pressure. There was nothing left of me after the fifth day of the hunger strike.

31. Eventually on the night of the 27th day of my detention they came and asked if I would like to leave my cell and go to another where I would not be alone? I agreed. They came after an hour and a half and took me to the fourth floor inside a suite where I finally saw a few people after 27 days. That was the best night of my life when I saw a few people after 27 days. I was there for three days and then released.

Freedom

32. My freedom came when a day before my release they came to take me at 8 or 9 p.m. at night. They opened the cell door and told me to contact my family and ask them to bring a property deed for bail. The prison had become very crowded at that time and a few people were set free almost every day. I was on the fourth floor at the end of Section 240 and from there we could see a few people being released every night. Usually they would release people at 10 or 11 p.m. at night. The day after my family bailed me out, they opened my cell at 11 p.m. at night and told me to get ready and wear my blindfold. My friends began to clap and cheer and I said goodbye to them. Then they brought me inside a hall. There were 10 or 12 of us. They put us inside cars and took us to the same place where we had changed clothes on the first day. They handed over my clothes. They said my laptop had to be analyzed. I was blindfolded at all times until we reached the prison gate.

33. After I was released I was summoned twice to the Intelligence Ministry’s referrals office. On one occasion, they called me and said I should come to the Intelligence Ministry’s referrals office at 2 p.m. in the afternoon. When I went there two agents of the Ministry introduced themselves. One of them was very rude. He was tall and wore glasses.  The other was bearded, of medium height, and played the role of the “nice” guy. We talked for about four to six hours. They wanted to scare me. They said they had shown mercy by letting me go after a month and that they could keep me for a much longer time. They told me I should not take part in any activities and cooperate with them. What they really wanted from me was to write a letter of repentance and ask to be pardoned. I said I would not do it. They said they could have detained me but instead I had been summoned there nicely. Still I refused to repent and told them they can detain me if they want to.

34. The second time I was summoned was 20 days before my second detention in 2010. This time they told me I must repent in writing.  I refused. They said if I don’t they would open a new case against me.

Second Detention

35. Fifteen days later, on October 4, 2010, I received a summons from the 4th branch of the Shaheed Moghaddas prosecutor’s office located in Evin prison. I informed Dr. Dadkhah[6], my lawyer. He said this was probably related to my first detention and they wanted me to give my final defense and send my file to the court. Since my release I had not done anything at all. My blog had been blocked and I had not given any interviews. I did not want to give them any excuse. My summons stated that I should present myself to provide explanations about certain things. This was my understanding. I did not even say goodbye to my family when I went to the 4th branch of the prosecutor’s office on October 9, 2010.

36. The prosecutor’s assistant told me there was a new charge against me. I asked—why? I had not taken part in any activities.  He said when he studied my file he noticed he had forgotten to include another charge. At that point I realized this was related to the threat by the Intelligence Ministry agents to open a new case against me when I went to see them at the referrals office and they had demanded a written plea for pardon.

37. I asked the official: what is the charge against me? “Insulting the president,” he said. In my blog I had referred to the president as “the head of the coup d’etat government” 52 times, he added. These people have nothing better to do than count each one, I said to myself. My file contained 100 to 150 pages from my blog and they had underlined parts that could lead to charges against me.

38. The official told me I should not be worried. Insulting the president carried a penalty of no more than 300,000 tomans [approximately $ US 300 in 2010]. He then set bail at 50 million tomans [approximately $ US 50,000 in 2010]. I said I had paid bail once before but he renewed it and said I could go if I paid the entire 50 million tomans. I said I could not come up with such a sum at that moment and would need at least a day. He said in that case I would be detained until bail was paid.

39. They first took me to the quarantine room at Evin prison. I spent the worst day of my life there. Quarantine is a place where all new prisoners, despite the nature of their crimes, have to spend a couple of nights. Afterwards, they are transferred to other wards. For this reason I spent one night among murderers, addicts, thieves, hustlers and other such prisoners which was the worst mental torture for me. I asked the guard to transfer me to a solitary cell but they kept me there for 24 hours. Political prisoners were usually not kept in quarantine and were taken to Section 350. But they kept three of us there and transferred us to Section 350 the day after.

Section 350

40. When I was transferred to Section 350, I told my friends I probably would not be their “guest” for more than a couple of days and would be released after my bail was paid.

41. Three days later I heard my name and Majid Dorri’s paged on the loudspeaker. They said I should wear nice clothes to go to the prosecutor’s office. My friends said my bail had probably been paid and I would be freed. I kissed them goodbye and collected letters and messages for their families. I was going to wear shoes but the guard said I should go with slippers. I said my bail had been paid. He said I should go to court and if bail had been paid I would come back and take my belongings.

42. At the prosecutor’s office I was told there was a new charge against me. I said how could there be a new charge when I had been in prison for three days? He said after closer examination of my file I had “committed blasphemy and questioned Islamic laws.” On what basis? I asked. He said I had written a weblog against stoning. I said: keep me in prison if you want to but don’t fabricate charges. He said my bail had been raised to 300 million tomans [approximately $ US 300,000 in 2010]. I realized they don’t want to let me go because I was not released even when the increased bail was going to be paid.

43. I was in Section 350 of Evin prison from October 10, 2010.  At that time there were 150 or 160 people imprisoned there. We ran everything ourselves: the library, the store, as well as the sports hall which had been built by our guys. There was a table in this section which we named the “Page Table”. Whenever they wanted to count the inmates or needed to call up the inmates for something else they would page them from this table. Three other inmates and I were put in charge of the Page Table a week after I came to the section. Every day the list of inmates arrived at this table and we had it. I remember most of the names. When I was released there were about 160 inmates. The number always fluctuated between 150 and 160 because some went on furlough and some were released.

44. I was in Room 3. It had the highest number of deaths in those two years. All those who were executed or had died had been kept in Room 3. Mr. Hoda Saber was in this room.[7] His bed was above mine.  Mr. Dokmehchi’s bed was below mine when he was in Section 350.[8] He had cancer and died. Mr. Jafar Kazemi and Mr. Mohammad Haj Aghaie were both executed.[9] Ali Akbar Siadat was executed on charges of spying.[10] Abdolreza Ghanbari, who has been sentenced to death, was also in our room.

45. I remember Mr. Mohsen Dokmehchi. At the time we did not know he had cancer but he was in great pain and could not eat. He went through a lot. In the middle of the night he would wake up and ask me to give him some bread and cheese. He could not eat anything during the day. The prison authorities would not take him to the clinic unless he was in a lot of pain and even then they would only inject him with painkillers and send him back. If he had been checked in time preventive steps could have been administered and he would have at least lived longer.

46. At that time there was a doctor in our section named Dr. Faraji. There were two brothers, Hassan and Hossein Faraji who were in prison on charges of espionage. One of them was released but the other is still in prison. Without any medical equipment Dr. Faraji did a check up on Dokmehchi and thought that he may have a stomach problem.

47. Every day ten inmates from Section 350 went to the clinic to see a doctor. If they had a headache or a cold we would tell them to fake two other ailments so that they could get medicines for others to use. In Section 350 there was an inmate, Dr. Fardoust, who was in charge of medicine. He would collect all the drugs. With these drugs we could calm Mohsen Dokmehchi’s pain a little. At the time we did not know he had cancer.  After I had been released they took him to hospital and tests showed he had cancer. But it was too late and the cancer had progressed too far.

48. Of the 150 or 160 prisoners who were kept in Section 350, at least 50 of them were mentioned in the media and there was activity surrounding their cases. Many of the prisoners who had been arrested during demonstrations had no specific political activities. News about some of the prisoners would leak out and get published through their families. The complete list of Section 350 inmates leaked out a couple of times and got published in Kaleme web site. For instance I was in charge of the Page Table and I took the list of names with me when I was released and it got published. The media would not pay much attention to those prisoners who did not have a political background.

Branch 26 of Tehran Revolutionary Court – Judge Pirabbasi

49. My trial was held 52 days after my arrest. They took me from the cell to Judge Pirabbasi at Branch 26. Gholamreza Khosravi and I went together. Our hands were in handcuffs. Pirabbasi wore glasses. He had a short beard and dark skin. He was [seemingly] kind and gentle. He seemed to be 45 to 55 years old. He treated me well.

50. Pirabbasi’s secretary’s name was Sattari and he was very ill-tempered, so much so that I had heard he had been appointed by the Intelligence Ministry to keep an eye on Pirabbasi. He treated me, Gholamreza Khosravi and two other defendants, badly.

51. On that day Gholamreza Khosravi did not see the judge because his sentence had already been issued and they only had to announce it to him. When he came into the court Pirabbasi’s assistant made a snide remark and said, “Here’s your sentence. God willing you’ve been sentenced to death.” Gholamreza looked at me and said, laughing, “After two or three years of confusion I finally know my fate.”

52. Perhaps Pirabbasi had a guilty conscience that day for sentencing Gholamreza Khosravi to death. He took me inside the room, gave me a cup of tea and closed the door. He pulled up his pants and showed me his injured leg. I don’t know if he had been hurt in the war with Iraq or what, but he said he had made his leg an excuse and skipped work for two months so that they would not give him new court cases. He swore to God that Gholamreza did not deserve the death penalty but “they forced me to sentence him to death.” He told me that Gholamreza had already been sentenced in Rafsanjan Revolutionary Court to six years’ imprisonment so it was not possible to issue a new sentence for him with the same accusation. Judge Pirabbasi added that for this reason his court had a lack of jurisdiction to review this case. But the moharebeh (or “warring against God”) accusation had been added to Gholamraza’s case so that he would be eligible to be sentenced to death. Then his case was brought to Judge Pirabbasi again and the Judge was forced to sentence Gholamreza to death for this new accusation.

Pirabbasi also said that 80 percent of the prisoners in Section 350 of Evin prison were innocent.”

53. Pirabbasi also said that 80 percent of the prisoners in Section 350 of Evin prison were innocent. These are the things he told me and I relayed them to Hoda Saber when I went back to my cell. Saber mentioned this in a letter he wrote to Mr. Sahabi and Dr. Zarafshan.

54. I asked Pirabbasi why he was doing this? Why didn’t he go home and refuse to work? He said he sat home for two months and if he had not come to the court that day my case would have been decided by Judge Salavati or Judge Moghiseh. They would have sentenced me to nine or ten years instead of five. He showed me the Intelligence Ministry’s report in my file which demanded a prison sentence of at least nine years. But he said he had sentenced me to five years and now he had to answer to the Intelligence Ministry. I realized he was right. They were all bad but it was better for Pirabbasi to be there because his sentencing was milder compared to Salavati or Moghiseh.

55. He read five charges against me. I could not deny them because they were all based on what I had written in my blogs and I had accepted responsibility for all of them. Also my interviews with the BBC and Voice of America were undeniable. Nevertheless I said none of the things I had said were against the law. They could only stick me with propaganda against the state and the maximum penalty for that was a year in prison. I said I accept this charge based on what I had written. “No! The punishment for that is one year. I will clear you of that charge but will sentence you to five years for participation and collaboration in protest gatherings,” he said.

56. On that day Judge Pirabbasi sentenced me to five years in prison and asked whether I had any objections. I said I did not have any objections because I did not recognize the court or his judgment.

57. It was a bad day for me. First because Gholamreza had been sentenced to death and secondly when I was in Pirabbasi’s room someone who apparently worked for another branch court knocked on the door and came inside. He went in front of Pirabbasi and said, “Do you know about Saeed Malekpour’s sentence?” Pirabbasi said no, what was it? “Death sentence!” he said. When I heard the news I fell apart and forgot about my own case.

58. When I left the room Pirabbasi called me in again and said he would give me a five-year suspended sentence, “any objections now?” I said I object. A suspended sentence was really bad because I would be under constant stress for five years. “Let’s say I would be free for four years and 364 days and then on the last day they accuse me of something and throw me in jail for five years.” So on this basis I objected, hoping that the court of appeals would reduce the sentence. Judge Pirabbasi told me to contact my family to pay the bail so that I could be released from prison that day.

59. When I went back to my cell Saeed Malekpour had not yet been informed about his death sentence. I told him. It was a really bad day to hear that two of my friends had been sentenced to death. I was set free that night.

60. I was in Section 350 for 52 days. I was freed on bail until the appeal. My sentence in the appeals court was changed to four years’ imprisonment plus a three year suspended sentence. So in fact the punishment was increased. When the sentence was finalized I received a summons to present myself to begin my four-year term but I left the country in February 2011.

President Putin Directs Government Attack on Bill Browder to Stop Magnitsky Sanctions Being Enacted in Europe

Press Release
Hermitage Capital

5 March 2013 – In a further escalation of the persecution of Hermitage executives and lawyers by the Russian authorities, this morning the Russian Interior Ministry announced new spurious allegations targeting William Browder, CEO of Hermitage Capital Management.  The retaliatory campaign of state slander, posthumous prosecution and intimidation gained momentum in Russia after President Putin’s personal attack on Mr Browder two months ago at a national press conference. This morning, the Russian Interior Ministry made further accusation against Mr. Browder alleging “theft” of Gazprom shares by companies affiliated with the Hermitage Fund ten years ago and accusing Bill Browder of attempting to interfere with Gazprom’s strategic direction through requests for financial information and for campaigning for a seat on the board of the company between 2001 and 2004. The Russian Interior Ministry also threatened to use international search and arrest warrants in their “investigation” into Browder.

“The Interior Ministry’s allegations against Hermitage are spurious and without any foundation. The only logic that support the allegation of “theft” of Gazprom shares would be to think that the assets of the company belong to the company’s management who also happens to run the country, not to its investors and shareholders,” said a Hermitage Capital representative.

“These absurd allegations are clearly motivated by the retaliation to our global campaign for justice for Sergei Magnitsky. Our campaign angers and scares the Russian officials who want to keep their criminally obtained wealth abroad. But this intimidation and harassment will not stop the campaign that is carried out by many people and organizations around the world,” said William Browder.

Mr Browder has been running a global campaign for justice seeking sanctions against Russian officials involved in the killing in Russian police custody of his lawyer Sergei Magnitsky. The campaign has also traced significant amounts of the money that had been paid by Hermitage in taxes to the Russian Government and subsequently stolen by the Russian officials and criminals through a sophisticated fraud scheme, which is now being investigated across a number of EU countries at Hermitage’s request.

“The Russian authorities are now desperate to extend their abuse outside their own territory and use the international criminal justice channels to further harass Hermitage and stop justice from being done, –  said a Hermitage Capital representative. – These efforts have already been condemned in 2009 by the Council of Europe of which Russia is a member which issued recommendations to all member countries to reject any requests of assistance from the Russian government in relation to Hermitage executives and lawyers.”

The recent escalation in the Russian government’s attack on Hermitage follows directly from President Vladimir Putin’s 20 December 2012 press conference, where he was confronted seven times by journalists about the Magnitsky Act adopted in the United States. President Putin promised to “delve deeper” into this case.

Four days later, in an unprecedented U-turn, the Russian public prosecutor asked for an acquittal of Dmitry Kratov, the only Russian official brought to a trial for the death of Sergei Magnitsky. As a result, no one has been convicted for Mr Magnitsky’s death.

The following month, Russian state-controlled media began a campaign to slander Sergei Magnitsky and his colleagues.

In February, Sergei Magnitsky’s brother-in-law and colleagues received summonses for interrogation from the Russian Interior Ministry and were intimidated with threats of criminal prosecution.

Yesterday, the posthumous trial against Sergei Magnitsky began, which is the first posthumous trial in the history of Russia.

This morning, the Interior Ministry put forward more spurious allegations against Bill Browder and Sergei Magnitsky in relation to Gazprom shares.

“The ownership of Gazprom shares was completely legal. It was approved by the Russian authorities and the Russian Federal Securities Commission as well as Gazprom itself. If one took these accusations seriously then every foreign investor in Russia should be under arrest,” said a Hermitage Capital representative.

Hermitage was the largest foreign investor in Russia until 2005, but had to wind down its operations in Russia when the Russian government revoked the visa of its Bill Browder, Hermitage’s CEO, on “national security” grounds. Hermitage’s Moscow offices were then raided by the Russian Interior Ministry who seized documents, which were used in the expropriation of three of its investment companies and the theft of $230 million of taxes paid by Hermitage to the Russian government. The Interior Ministry then launched retaliatory criminal cases against Hermitage executives and lawyers who exposed the multi-million thefts from the Russian budget. After Sergei Magnitsky testified about official involvement in the crimes, he was arrested, tortured and killed in Moscow police custody. The Russian government has now tried to posthumously blame the theft on Mr Magnitsky, who paid with his life for exposing their crimes.

 

For further information please contact:
Hermitage Capital
Phone:             +44 207 440 1777
Email:              info@lawandorderinrussia.org
Website:           http://lawandorderinrussia.org
Facebook:        http://on.fb.me/hvIuVI
Twitter:            @KatieFisher__
Livejournal:     //hermitagecap.livejournal.com/

U.S. Affirms that It Adheres to Rome Statute Signatory Obligations: It Should Put This In Writing

Jennifer Trahan is associate clinical professor at NYU’s Center for Global Affairs (NYU-SCPS). She is also chair of the American Branch of the International Law Association International Criminal Court Committee and was a member of the American Bar Association’s 2010 International Criminal Court Task Force.

A little-noticed event has taken place.  Before he returned to Yale Law School, top State Department Legal Advisor Harold H. Koh has made it clear in three speeches that the U.S. (despite an earlier writing to the contrary made under the Bush Administration), does respect the “object and purpose” of the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute.  In other words, the U.S. considers itself a signatory to the treaty.  Koh’s words—which reaffirm only a lose commitment to support the Court—are nonetheless a significant step in the right direction, continuing the U.S.’s policy (under the Obama Administration) of positive engagement with the ICC.

On December 31, 2000, then-U.S. War Crimes Ambassador David Scheffer signed the Rome Statute on behalf of the U.S.  Under article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a signatory is obligated not to do anything that would undermine the “object and purpose” of a treaty.  (The U.S., which is not a party to the Vienna Convention, does recognize it as customary international law.)  However, by note dated May 6, 2002, the Bush Administration stated that the U.S. was no longer bound by the obligations of a signatory. Specifically, the note from John R. Bolton stated that “the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty.  Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000.”

Koh has now orally negated the Bolton note by remarks he made that the Administration’s policy is not to defeat the object and purpose of the Rome Statute.  He stated this at N.Y.U.’s Center for Global Affairs on October 27, 2010, the Grotius Center of Leiden University on November 16, 2012, and the New York City Bar Association on November 26, 2012.

The Bolton 2002 note did not in fact withdraw the U.S.’s signature because there is no provision in the Vienna Convention for removing a signature to a treaty.  Yet, it was nonetheless a dispiriting low-point that the Bush Administration chose not to adhere to even the very minimal obligations of a signatory to the treaty—not to undermine the “object and purpose” of the ICC.

While various NGOs and others—including the American Branch of the International Law Association’s International Criminal Court Committee (which this author chairs)—have urged the Obama Administration to send a new note negating the Bush Administration’s note, Koh’s oral statements are nonetheless welcome.  While the statements do not necessarily have the weight of a counter-note, hopefully, support will galvanize to send such a counter-note.  Koh has taken the position that Bolton’s note is merely a piece of “graffiti” and no further action is required; yet, the U.N., in its listing of Rome Statute States Parties and signatories has a footnote by the U.S.’s name still reflecting the Bolton note as the official position of the U.S. government.

Being a signatory only creates a loose commitment for a state to support a treaty, and is in no way akin to joining the treaty—done through the process of ratification or accession.  The U.S.—which now supports the ICC’s work on a case-by-case basis—should have no problem in supporting the “object and purpose” of a court designed to prosecute the worst instances of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

*Article re-posted with permission of author*

International Criminal Justice News Roundup: February 2013

Dear all,

Please find below the news headlines on international criminal justice from February. You can find past headlines and other relevant resources on the International Association of Prosecutors’ (IAP) Forum for International Criminal Justice(FICJ) website.
The FICJ is password protected and only IAP members have access. This is meant to facilitate open and frank dialogue between prosecutors. Please contact Evie Sardeman, Office Manager (OM@iap-association.org) or Janne Holst Hübner, Communication Manager (CM@iap-association.org) with questions about IAP membership and website access.

 

******

28 February
Haiti’s ex-ruler ‘Baby Doc’ Duvalier attends court 
(Source: BBC News)
Haiti’s former ruler Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier has appeared in court for a hearing to determine if he can be charged with crimes against humanity. At the hearing he denied responsibility for abuses carried out during his time as president, between 1971 and 1986. Human rights groups say hundreds of political prisoners were tortured or killed under his rule…

Bangladesh war crimes tribunal sentences Jamaat-e-Islami leader to death 
(Source: Jurist)
The International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh (ICTB) on Thursday sentenced to death Jamaat-e-Islami party (JI) leader Delwar Hossain Sayeedee. Following the death sentence, violence between police and activists from Sayeedee’s party ensued throughout the country resulting in at least 30 deaths while more than 300 were wounded…

ICTY overturns ex-Yugoslav army chief’s war crimes conviction 
(Source: Jurist)
The appeals chamber of the ICTY on Thursday overturned the convictions of ex-Yugoslav army chief Momcilo Perisic for crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war. The appeals chamber found that the court’s trial chamber had failed to apply the law correctly when it determined that “specific direction is not an element of aiding and abetting liability.”…

27 February
Trial delay likely for Kenya’s ICC accused 
(Source: Al Jazeera)
Kenyan presidential candidate Uhuru Kenyatta and his running mate, William Ruto, have won a reprieve in their legal fight against accusations of crimes against humanity…”At the same time, the prosecution recognises that logistical constraints such as courtroom availability make a trial on April 11, 2013, unlikely. Therefore, the prosecution does not object to a reasonable adjournment, to allow time for protective measures to be put in place for the witnesses whose identities remain to be disclosed and to provide the defence with adequate time to prepare.”..

26 February
Britain pledges £1.4 mn for Cambodia war crimes court
(Source: AFP)
Britain pledged £1.4 million ($2.1 million, 1.6 million euros) on Monday to fund Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge war crimes court, which is close to running out of money. British Foreign Secretary William Hague said the court, which is trying top leaders of the murderous communist regime that ruled Cambodia in the late 1970s, was one of the most important since the post-World War II Nuremberg trials…

23 February
Uruguay high court declares dictatorship trials unconstitutional 
(Source: Jurist)
The Uruguay Supreme Court ruled on Friday that a 2011 law allowing for investigations into crimes committed during the country’s 1973-1985 dictatorship is unconstitutional. Uruguay’s legislature passed the law in 2011, allowing the government to investigate human rights violations that occurred during the 12-year dictatorship and not subjecting these violations to a statute of limitations…

21 February
Jury convicts Rwandan of lying about genocide to enter U.S.
(Source: Los Angeles Times)
A year after her first trial ended without a verdict, a Rwandan-born woman was convicted by a second jury Thursday of lying about her role in Rwanda’s 1994 genocide to gain entry to the United States. A judge immediately stripped 43-year-old Beatrice Munyenyezi of her citizenship, 10 years after she was granted it in the same Concord, N.H., courthouse where her two trials took place. Munyenyezi became the fourth member of her family to be convicted of crimes stemming from Rwanda’s 1994 political turmoil and genocide, which left hundreds of thousands of people dead across the East African nation…

20 February
I. Coast’s Gbagbo ‘responsible’ for post-poll bloodshed, ICC hears
(Source: AFP)
Ivorian ex-president Laurent Gbagbo bears responsibility for some of the worst crimes committed during a bloody post-election standoff in the west African nation two years ago, the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor said on Tuesday. “We will show that Mr Gbagbo and forces under his control are responsible for the death, rapes, serious injuries to, and arbitrary detention of countless law abiding citizens,” Fatou Bensouda told judges at the Hague-based ICC…

Rwanda: ICTR Speaks Out On Genocide Cases in France
(Source: allAfrica)
The Registrar of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) has said that structural concerns are the reason France has delayed to try cases of Wenceslas Munyeshyaka and Laurent Bucyibaruta which were referred to Paris under the tribunal’s completion strategy in 2007…

18 February
U.N. Rights Officials Urge Syria War Crimes Charges
(Source: New York Times)
The United Nations Security Council should refer Syria to the International Criminal Court in The Hague to prosecute those responsible for war crimes and other abuses committed in nearly two years of conflict, Carla del Ponte, a United Nations human rights investigator, said Monday…

17 February
Rwandan jailed in Norway genocide trial
(Source: The Local)
A 47-year-old Rwandan was on Thursday jailed for 21 years by an Oslo court for being complicit in the massacres of more than 2,000 people in his home country in 1994. Sadi Bugingo, a 47-year-old Hutu who has lived in Norway since 2001, was found guilty of being an accessory to genocide for ensuring that orders issued for the killings were carried out. He did not face any charges of having carried out any killings himself. The 21-year-sentence demanded by prosecutors is the maximum available in Norway…

14 February
Bangladesh: Post-Trial Amendments Taint War Crimes Process
(Source: Human Rights Watch)
Retroactive legislation that violates fair trial standards undermines the legitimacy of the work of Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT). The amendments were offered to enable an appeals court to overturn a life sentence imposed on Abdul Qader Mollah and impose the death penalty…

11 February
Kenya’s Odinga taunts vote rival over war crimes court
(Source: Reuters)
Raila Odinga, the frontrunner in Kenya’s presidential election, taunted his rival Uhuru Kenyatta in a debate on Monday, asking how he would be able to rule from the Hague, where Kenyatta goes on trial shortly on charges of crimes against humanity…

10 February
Bangladesh to amend war crimes law amid protest

(Source: Reuters)
Bangladesh is planning to amend a law to allow the government to appeal for tougher penalties for war criminals, the law minister said on Sunday, the sixth day of protests since a convicted Islamist leader got a sentence many people think was too light…

Rwanda: ICTR’s Weak Legacy Further Tarnished By Acquittals

(Source: allAfrica)
While the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) has in the past already been criticized for having a relatively low output compared to its huge budget, at least it contributed to justice with its convictions and a few mostly justified acquittals.That legacy, however, is now being eroded by a series of incomprehensible acquittals by the appeals chamber, especially of people who were high-ranking officials at the time of the Genocide against the Tutsis…

9 February
Senegal war crimes court starts work on Habre trial

(Source: AFP)
A special African court set up to try ex-Chadian president Hissene Habre for war crimes and crimes against humanity officially began its work on Friday in Senegal, where he has lived in exile for over two decades. The trial against Habre, delayed for years by Senegal where he has lived since being ousted in 1990, will set a historic precedent as until now African leaders accused of atrocities have only been tried in international courts…

7 February
Thousands in Bangladesh war crimes protest 
(Source: Aljazeera)
Tens of thousands of protesters have rallied in cities across Bangladesh for a third consecutive day, demanding the execution of a religious political leader who was sentenced to life in prison for war crimes committed during the country’s 1971 war of independence. The sentencing of Abdul Quader Mollah by a war crimes tribunal on Tuesday for charges including murder, rape and torture was the second verdict in trials that have reopened the wounds of Bangladesh’s struggle to break away from Pakistan…

ICC: Libya Must Hand Over Gadhafi Spy Chief 

(Source: VOA News)
International Criminal Court judges ordered Libya on Thursday to hand over Moammar Gadhafi’s former spy chief and let him see his lawyer, raising the stakes in a dispute over who has the right to try the deposed strongman’s top lieutenants. The statement placed the Hague-based court on a collision course with Libya’s new rulers, who say Gadhafi-era leaders in their custody should face local justice over charges of mass killings and other atrocities…

6 February
Kenyan war crimes suspect asks international court to reconsider trial decision
(Source: Washington Post)
One of four prominent Kenyans charged with involvement in crimes including murder and deportation following disputed elections wants the International Criminal Court to reconsider its decision to put him on trial, saying it was based on “fraudulent evidence.” In a written motion released Wednesday, lawyers for Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta have asked the court to halt the April 11 start of his trial and again assess whether prosecution evidence is strong enough to warrant his prosecution…

5 February
Bangladesh: Abdul Kader Mullah gets life sentence for war crimes
(Source: BBC News)
A war crimes tribunal in Bangladesh has found a leader of the main Islamist party guilty of crimes against humanity during the war for independence from Pakistan in 1971. Abdul Kader Mullah of Jamaat-e-Islami, who denied all the charges, was sentenced to life in prison. Official estimates say more than three million people were killed in the war…

A flawed international tribunal [Bangladesh]
(Source: The Law Society Gazette)
…Sadly, the so-called international tribunal, which is trying 12 individuals, is tainted. Opponents describe it as a political witch-hunt against Jamaat-e-Islami. In December, the tribunal chairman, Mohammed Nizamul Huq, resigned when a dossier of emails and telephone conversations came to light suggesting collusion between the government, prosecution counsel and judges…

4 February
Rwanda genocide: ICTR overturns ex-ministers’ convictions
(Source: BBC News)
A UN-backed court has overturned the genocide convictions of two Rwandan former ministers and ordered their immediate release. Justin Mugenzi and Prosper Mugiraneza had been sentenced to 30 years in prison in 2011 for complicity, and incitement, to commit genocide. Analysts say Rwanda’s government is likely to be angry at their acquittal…

French Lawmakers Call on Russia to Cease “Grim Comedy” of Magnitsky Posthumous Trial Ahead of the 4 March Hearing

Press Release
Hermitage Capital

1 March 2013 – Ahead of the 4 March hearing in Moscow in the first ever posthumous trial in the history of Russia of dead whistle-blowing lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, ten French lawmakers published an open letter calling on the Russian authorities to cease this “grim comedy” echoing of “repression” and take steps to bring Magnitsky killers to justice and protect his family from intimidation.

“Magnitsky killers should not be above the law, and the grim comedy of his posthumous trial must stop. Similarly, the ongoing harassment and suffering caused to his mother and widow must stop,” said French lawmakers.

The open letter published yesterday in the weekly French magazine Marianne (http://www.marianne.net/Monsieur-le-President-les-droits-de-l-Homme-en-Russie-c-est-maintenant-_a226954.html) is signed by Bruno Le Roux, President of the ruling Socialist group in the National Assembly, Senator Jean-Vincent Place, chairman of the Green faction in the Senate, Senator Andre Gattolin, Deputy Axelle Lemaire and other lawmakers from both the French Senate and National Assembly.

“Those whom Magnitsky sought to prove complicit with the impunity denounce him today and accusing him of fraud. His trial reopened in a closed court in Moscow a few days ago sounds like an echo of repressive mobilization,” said French parliamentarians.

French lawmakers urge Russia to return to the values of Enlightenment and the European Human Rights Convention which bars posthumous proceedings as being contrary to the principle of fair trial where people cannot obviously defend themselves.

“In ancient times the dead were sometimes judged – in ancient Egypt, in medieval Italy or in France of the Ancien Régime. But in the legal tradition of the Enlightenment, “it does not suit the corpses or the memory of the dead,” and the post-mortem condemnation of an accused is precluded by the European Court of Human Rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights ratified by the Russian Federation,” said French deputies and senators in their open letter.

In making their point about the Magnitsky case being symbolic of human rights violations, French lawmakers drew parallels between the Magnitsky’s ordeal and his prison diaries with the poignant description by Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn of the Soviet Gulag.

“Fifty years ago Alexander Solzhenitsyn published One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, a literary narrative of the daily life of a “zek”, a prisoner of the Gulag, describing fatalism with deprivation and torture. The same attention to detail in his presentation but with a revolt of an alive was applied by the lawyer Sergei Magnitsky to explain in the hundreds of letters from prison in Moscow his ordeal and the reasons for his innocence. But after 358 days of detention, threats, isolation, cold and lack of care the determination of this young tax lawyer came to an end, when he died November 16, 2009 at the hands of his captors.”

 

For further information please contact:

Hermitage Capital
Phone:             +44 207 440 1777
Email:              info@lawandorderinrussia.org
Website:          http://lawandorderinrussia.org
Facebook:        http://on.fb.me/hvIuVI
Twitter:           @KatieFisher__
Livejournal:     //hermitagecap.livejournal.com/