Conversation with Simin Rouzgar

Tara Sepahri Far, a former student activist, is currently a researcher at the Human Rights Watch organization. In an interview with Khat-e-Solh magazine, she emphasizes the lack of transparency in the trial of Mohammad Ali Taheri, the founder of the Erfan-e-Halgheh group in Iran, saying: “Apart from the fact that as a human rights group, we do not accept the charge of corruption on earth, nor the evidence and most importantly the punishment that is being considered, even according to the ruling of the highest court in Iran, the evidence does not hold true for him.”

Ms. Sepehri believes that the reason for the sensitivity of the security system towards the case of Mohammad Ali Taheri is “fear-mongering of the system due to the prevalence of beliefs held by individuals like Mr. Taheri and essentially those who have the ability to promote a certain belief.”

What is your evaluation and that of your organization on the legal process of Mr. Taheri’s case? What rights do you think have been violated for Mr. Taheri as a defendant during the course of the trial, from the moment of arrest until today?

Given that Mr. Taheri has been in detention for more than six years, we were unable to document the exact circumstances of his arrest. Therefore, I cannot comment on any potential violations of his rights during his detention. However, it is clear that there have been issues with his access to fair trial, especially since the accusation of being a “corrupter on earth” was brought against him. It also appears that his defense has not been adequately considered. Based on the information provided by his family and lawyer to the media and human rights organizations, it seems that there have been significant interventions by interrogators in his case and, contrary to judicial procedure, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn the death sentence, it has been upheld in a lower court.

More important than anything else, is that the crime for which they have been sentenced, is not considered a criminal act. Apart from the issues surrounding the methods they used or did not use for treatment, at this stage their case has been brought up due to their beliefs and the accusation of being a corruptor on earth, which has no legal basis, its definition is unclear and it is completely against human rights.

Mr. Taheri is not the first person to be imprisoned for his beliefs and sentenced to execution by the Iranian judicial system on charges such as spreading corruption on earth. But what do you think is the reason for the intense sensitivity of security institutions towards this case?

The reason for this, it seems, is the fear that exists in society from the promotion of beliefs like Mr. Taheri’s. I say this because I believe that this treatment has not only been directed towards Mr. Taheri, but also towards many individuals who were actually followers of the beliefs and teachings that Mr. Taheri had. These confrontations, of course, have taken place at much lower levels, but have been organized. Therefore, I believe that the reason for the sensitivity towards this case is the fear of the system being threatened by the spread of beliefs of individuals like Mr. Taheri, and essentially those who have the ability to promote a certain ideology.

What political reasons do you think could lead to the issuance of a death sentence for Mr. Taheri? Are you in favor of a political approach in this case?

Unfortunately, their trial process has been very opaque and this is one of the biggest problems in their case. Lengthy interrogations, long periods before the court, and a very long process of going through different courts, from the initial court to the appeals court and the Supreme Court, and returning the case to the court, are all factors that can strengthen the possibility of individuals influencing this case. Additionally, during this opaque and lengthy trial process, there have been many advertisements against their beliefs in various media outlets. These media outlets are not necessarily independent and the content they publish is usually not a critique of Mr. Taheri’s beliefs. According to their lawyer and family, one of the methods used has been seeking fatwas from religious scholars, both to confirm and reject this ruling. Therefore, it seems that there has been interference in their case.

The main issue, however, is that fundamentally, the death penalty cannot be accepted from a human rights perspective. Apart from the fact that as a human rights group, we do not accept charges of corruption on earth, nor any of the punishments that are considered for it, even according to the ruling of the highest court in Iran, the charges against them are not true. Therefore, it seems that there is pressure in lower stages to issue the death penalty for them again.

After the reissuance of the death sentence for Mohammad Ali Taheri, there has been an increase in clashes with his supporters in various cities of the country. What do you understand from these clashes?

As I mentioned, in my opinion, the reason that Mr. Taheri’s case has reached its current situation is due to the fear of his ability to attract people to support his beliefs. As a result, while dealing with Mr. Taheri in the most severe manner, similar actions are also taken against his associates or those who follow his beliefs. It should be noted that the individuals who are harassed, persecuted, and face legal demands solely for supporting Mr. Taheri’s beliefs have not committed any crime other than having a belief.

Mrs. Sepahri Far, in your opinion, why is the Revolutionary Guards involved in this case instead of the Ministry of Intelligence? In what types of cases does this institution usually intervene? Do you think the intervention of this institution is due to the weakness of Mr. Rouhani’s government?

I don’t know exactly why the Revolutionary Guards have taken over this case instead of the Ministry of Intelligence. But the problem that unfortunately has been prevalent in Iran’s security and legal system in the past twenty years is that instead of separating, these two systems are getting closer to each other. Parallel intelligence institutions, sometimes in coordination and sometimes in conflict with each other, restrict legitimate freedoms in society. As a result, it seems that the Revolutionary Guards’ intelligence organization has kept this privilege for itself, to intervene in cases where it feels that the main institution (if we consider the Ministry of Intelligence as the main institution, although I don’t know how much role this institution can actually play) may not take the desired action. Another example in this regard is related to the case of managers of Telegram groups close to reformists in Iran, where despite the views of parliament members and the government itself, the Revolutionary Guards’ intelligence organization has intervened in this case; a case that is currently ongoing and initial verdicts

It must be said that more than this being a weakness of Mr. Rouhani’s government, there is a structural weakness that allows intelligence organizations to work parallel to each other; this parallel work is sometimes in accordance with their own views, and sometimes in opposition to each other. It goes without saying that institutions without proper monitoring systems can act autonomously.

Thank you for the opportunity you have given us.