It was the summer of 1399 when some users of the social network Twitter revealed a crime that had been committed against them. They were talking about a man who would lure women to his house and drug them, then take advantage of them while they were unconscious and helpless. The number of testimonies increased, confirming the truth of the matter, and after several lawyers announced their readiness to pursue legal action, the case was eventually brought to the attention of the Tehran Security Police. The suspect, Kiavash Imamverdi, was arrested for sexual assault.

This is the beginning of a criminal case, specifically related to sexual crimes, which was opened for the first time in Iran using social networks. Although it reached its conclusion (the verdict on the guilt of the accused), the process of handling the case and the final verdict were not in accordance with the principles of due process in sexual crimes, especially sexual assault, in other countries (pioneering countries). In this regard, the Tehran Revolutionary Court, in July of this year, sentenced Kian Imamverdi to death on charges of “corruption on earth” through sexual assault.

The issuance of the death sentence was immediately criticized by human rights activists, women’s rights defenders, civil society activists, and especially by some of the plaintiffs and their lawyers; however, this is not the only criticism of the judicial system in Iran in this case and an examination of the process of handling the case shows that although the plaintiffs played a key role in exposing the crime, they were ultimately sidelined by the court.

The origin remains the same, it is the criminal laws of Islam.

Shima Gousheh, the lawyer of the victims, said in late Tir month of this year (2022) that the court did not allow the presence of the complainants in any of the hearings to review the content of the case and the hearings were held without the presence of the plaintiffs, which has caused anger and dissatisfaction among the victims. (1)

This disregard by the complainants of the case is not simply a mistake caused by incorrect legal procedures or the will of the court, but rather the result of a broader approach in criminal laws in Iran. According to this approach, what is recognized as sexual crimes have been criminalized in criminal laws based on Islamic law, which are considered violations of Islamic laws regarding the sanctity of sexual relationships between individuals, not due to the lack of an element called consent in sexual relationships. For the religious law and consequently the legislator in Iran, it is the prohibition and sanctity of sexual relationships outside of marriage that is important, not the individual’s desire and will. It is clear that in this approach, sexual assault victims have no subjectivity or agency, but are merely evidence of the existence and proof of the occurrence of a forbidden act; therefore, the decision on how to use them lies with the ruler of the law (the judicial system) and it is up to them to determine the extent of their

The criminal law approach in Iran towards the issue of sexual harassment and abuse has two practical consequences. These consequences play a significant role in the reluctance of sexual abuse victims to report the crime in Iran and the effectiveness of punishments. From a social justice perspective, this is not the only way the judicial system deals with crime and criminals, as it also affects the level of sensitivity of society towards a criminal act and its perpetrator. The judicial process, especially when it involves the victim, can also have an impact on reducing or increasing the sensitivity and tolerance of society towards a criminal act. The reason for this is that without a judicial process, punishment is meaningless. Therefore, any facilitation in the police-judicial process of dealing with crimes with private complainants increases the likelihood of citizens reporting crimes, while any unnecessary strictness or obstruction in the judicial process will decrease the likelihood of victims reporting the crime.

Lack of reporting crimes to legal authorities by others also reduces the level of deterrent punishment; because the criminal knows that his crime will not be reported by the victim and therefore he will never be pursued and prosecuted; therefore, no matter how severe the punishment may be, it will not have any deterrent effect.

The second practical result of the criminal law approach in Iran to the crime of sexual harassment and abuse is that since the victim’s gender is not relevant, this crime (forbidden act) and the perpetrator (the one who commits the forbidden act) are the main focus. As a result, efforts are not made to compensate the victim and alleviate their suffering, because the ultimate goal is to protect the law and punish the perpetrator of the forbidden act.

For this reason, in Islamic penal law (both in terms of limits and deterrent penalties), there is essentially no mention of the necessity of compensating for physical and emotional damages caused by non-sexual harassment and sexual assault; while in many countries today, sexual offenders are required to compensate for the damages inflicted on the victim. This practical result is clearly seen in the case of Kavon Imamverdi, and his lawyer has also confirmed it. According to Shima Gousheh, the lawyer in Kavon Imamverdi’s case, the issue of compensating for damages was raised, but “the court remained silent in its ruling.” (2)

Another point that exists in the case of Kian Imam is the change of the title of the committed crime. In a strange move, the Tehran prosecutor changed Kian Imam’s charge from “rape by force” which is a private complaint crime, to “corruption on earth” which is a serious crime and does not require a private complainant. The death sentence issued against Kian Imam is also based on this charge. One of the reasons for this change is the difference in the approach of the law towards sexual crimes based on Islamic law, and another reason is probably to facilitate the issuance of punishment. However, since rape by force is also a serious crime in Islamic criminal law, it is more likely that the judicial system in Iran has changed Kian Imam’s charge with the aim of neglecting the maximum punishment for the victims, because in this new charge, neither the consent of the private complainant nor the need for the criminal to compensate for damages plays a role, and everything will be

The necessity of compensating for losses in sexual crimes is important because the criminal act violates the physical, spiritual, and human integrity of the victim, who is the one who has suffered the harm, not society or the government. Therefore, the primary goal is to compensate for the damage caused and then to take action against the criminal. This is why in many countries, sexual offenders are punished not only with imprisonment but also with compensation (usually through payment to the victim); a matter that was deliberately overlooked in the case of Kianoush Emamverdi.

The issued punishment (execution) against Keyvan Imamverdi is also one of the other points that has been strongly criticized by both the attackers and the defense lawyers, as well as the opponents of the death penalty. Although the legal punishment for both crimes (rape and corruption on earth) is execution and changing the charge does not affect the essence of the punishment, the prosecution’s approach in changing the charge from rape to corruption on earth has made the issuance of the death sentence and its implementation much easier, and essentially the satisfaction of the complainants has no role in the severity and type of punishment.

Although some claim that the implementation of the death penalty for sexual harassment and assault in Iran is evidence of the severity of Islamic criminal laws against such crimes and the intolerance towards them, and therefore serves as a deterrent, in reality, this claim is not true and the available statistics do not confirm it. On the other hand, the implementation of the death penalty in practice causes many individuals who oppose it and consider it unjust and inhumane to refrain from reporting sexual assault crimes in order to prevent its implementation.

In the midst of all this, although the judicial system in Iran can claim to be truthful in dealing with a sexual offender and this encounter has also begun with the report of the victims, the change in the accusation of the committed crime and especially the disregard for the victims, both in form (not appearing in court) and in content (remaining silent in response to requests for compensation) shows that for the judicial system in Iran, where sexual crimes are involved, it still revolves around the “sacred law” and its criminal laws.

Notes:

1- Shima Goushe, a first-grade attorney, in a video conversation with “Etemad Online”: They have mentioned numerous accounts of the number of assaults/ The issued sentence was based on cases that have been brought to the judge’s attention/ Our initial request was definitely not for execution.

Online Trust

July 21st, 2022.

2- Same.