Conversation with Simin Rouzgar

The following note under Article 48 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which has recently been published after almost three years since the implementation of this law, has led to the publication of a list of approved lawyers by the head of the judiciary in the virtual space. During this short period, it has caused numerous protests and criticisms. The Bar Association of the Central Judiciary and many lawyers have explicitly considered this note to be in violation of the right to defense of the people and the various principles of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, including Article 35.

In this issue of the Peace Line, we have approached Saeed Dehghan, a lawyer and member of the Bar Association, and asked for his opinion on this provision and also about the lawyers approved by the head of the judiciary. Mr. Dehghan tells the Peace Line that he and many other lawyers have no desire to be added to such a list; as it will tarnish their credibility. He adds, “In this list of approved lawyers by the judiciary, there is a name that stands out, Saeed Mortazavi, who was the representative of the prosecutor in 2009 and defended the political and security defendants in court. It is a bitter irony that now these political and security defendants are forced to go to someone who until recently was a representative of the ruling and prosecution authorities, and is now in prison.”

Dear Mr. Dehqan, to what extent does Article 48 of the new Criminal Procedure Code comply with the principles stated in the Constitution?

First of all, I must say that if we look at the list of approved lawyers by the head of the judiciary from any angle, we will find serious flaws. Therefore, we must approach this issue from several perspectives. In any case, what has happened today has its roots in the parliament. That is, the parliamentarians who were supposed to be the essence of the virtues of the nation, according to what was said, passed a law that allows the selection of their own lawyers from among the approved lawyers by the head of the judiciary to judge political and security crimes. In this case, we have two possibilities: either we have to say that these representatives do not truly represent the people, or they do not have a proper understanding of the rights of the nation (as stated in Chapter 3 of the Constitution). Accepting the fact that a parliamentarian, who is responsible for legislation in the parliament, still does not know that according to Article 9 of the Constitution, no authority has the

In such conditions, it must be said that the representatives of the parliament did not even pay attention to the alphabet of the constitution and only took the initiative to establish controlling and ideological laws.

From the perspective of the principles of the right to defense and judicial justice, what criticism do you have of this provision?

Fair or just trial is an integral part of judicial justice. If we assume that the head of the judiciary – as it is commonly believed in public opinion – is the chief justice (although this is not true from a judicial perspective; because the head of the judiciary is an administrative position and does not actually perform judicial duties as a chief justice), the country’s chief justice who must know that the angel of justice has two wings: one is advocacy and lawyer and the other is judgment and judge. How is it possible for them to see one wing of the angel of justice as incomplete and at the same time not see the fundamental right of citizens to defense? In fact, judicial justice has been sacrificed in this case.

If I were the head of the judiciary, I would quickly propose the removal of clause 48. As it is evident, Mr. Larijani expressed his opposition to this clause during his meeting with the Bar Association’s board of directors. However, in reality, in June 2018, three years after this decision, they published a list that has gone beyond the legal problem and created new judicial problems.

We know that our legal system has flaws, but before we enter into our laws to defend the rights of the people, if the formal rules are not observed, the lawyer cannot even declare his representation in order to reach the essence of defense. Keep in mind that political or security defendants or journalists are people who live in this society and their basic citizenship rights have been violated. However, they are forced to only go to lawyers approved by the same institution that does not care about their legal rights. In fact, how should they trust among all these lawyers, only a handful of approved ones? So this clause has created mutual distrust and deepened the gap between the defense and the judiciary. Keep in mind that in this list of approved lawyers by the judiciary, a name stands out, who in 2009 was the representative of the then prosecutor, Saeed Mortazavi, and defended the defendants in the political and security court. This is a bitter irony that political and security defendants are now forced

What do you mean by new legal problems? Is there a concern that this law will not only be applied during the initial investigation stage, but also in later stages such as in court?

Yes, this is the more serious problem that we are facing. It means when the legislator makes a mistake and the head of the judiciary also chooses from among the lawyers, the judges go beyond this wrong law. Although in this same clause of Article 48, the preliminary investigation stage was considered and it was only mentioned that lawyers must be approved by the head of the judiciary in the preliminary investigation stage and the court, now some branches of the Revolutionary Court have also brought this issue to the court and even believe that lawyers must be approved in both the initial court and the appellate court. This action is a clear violation of this clause. It means that even beyond the wrong law, this is happening.

What has been the reaction of lawyers and the Bar Association to this provision and the published list of approved lawyers by the head of the judiciary?

You must be aware that during these days we have not sat idle and as lawyers and civil activists in this field, we have decided to take actions to express our opposition. We are trying to use all legal and lawful capacities, as well as civil society capacities, to eliminate Article 48. Among the actions we have taken in this regard based on collective wisdom, or are on the agenda to be taken, are issuing a statement, gathering in front of the parliament, blocking the Bar Association, and holding a scientific session to discuss this issue.

The main concern is that such a wrong law severely violates public interests, people’s benefits, and citizens’ right to defense. Our entire effort is to quickly remove this wrong law and clause.

What is your opinion about the lawyers whose names are seen on this list? And whether choosing only 20 lawyers can actually handle the large volume of political and security cases in the country?

It seems that this list has been engineered and on the other hand, it increases the gap of mistrust. Because when we look at the names – regardless of the quantity, why should this small number be chosen among thousands of lawyers – there are also clear qualitative flaws. The first flaw is that, although this list includes names of people who could be independent lawyers (like 10 out of 20 members of this list are members of the Bar Association, but some of them are not well-known), the problem is that they generally do not have expertise in political and security cases. Even one of the lawyers from the Bar Association whose name is on this list, stated that he has never dealt with such cases and was surprised to see his name on the list. Another problem is that some of these individuals may be professional in dealing with these types of cases, but they are not independent lawyers. The third flaw in this list – which includes the majority – is that the lawyers who have been approved by

Regarding the quantity, it is possible that this list becomes more complete, but my colleagues and I pray that our names are not included. Because we believe that being added to this list and being approved does not only give us credibility, but also tarnishes our credibility. This belief is also due to the unfair discrimination that has taken place. It is recommended to those friends whose names are on this list (those who are members of the Bar Association but are not experts in this field) to withdraw from this list and declare that they do not accept it.

Overall, it must be said that with the large volume of files we have in this field, both in terms of quantity and quality, these individuals are not capable. Additionally, this list is different for each province and the list of 20 people we are talking about is related to Tehran. It is clear that in some provinces, a list has not yet been provided, but in any case, they will have a list.

If there is a point you have in mind at the end, please do tell.

Another point that I can mention in this regard is that before announcing this list, there were whispers that such a list would be published this year. Since last winter, some lawyers had approached us (usually in court and on the sidelines of court sessions) to make some kind of deal in order to have their names included on the list. Many lawyers resisted because they believed the principle of this matter was wrong. But the important issue is why brokers should be involved in such deals. In any case, it seems that for those who value force and coercion more than understanding the legal community and the position of citizens’ defense rights, brokering has also found its way here. When a wrong law is passed and a list is also chosen and published in complete lack of transparency and secrecy, it is natural to expect such incidents. Of course, it is not possible to provide evidence regarding the illegal and peripheral talks of these brokers. Because nothing is signed, there is no document. Moreover, even if the

We swore truthfully and honestly at the time of receiving our license of attorney, and therefore, according to our oath, we have the right to say that this law is wrong and has created a more incorrect practice for the space of brokers.

Thank you for the opportunity you have given us.