In this issue of the monthly magazine “Peace Line”, we have gone to Mohammad Olyaie Farad and talked to this lawyer about the special case of “Political Crime Plan” which has recently been approved by the representatives of the parliament and will soon be voted on in the open session of the parliament. Mohammad Olyaie Farad was born in Tehran in July 1966 and in 1999, he obtained his license to practice law. From the beginning, he entered the field of human rights and took on the defense of many political and civil activists. In the course of defending his clients, he has been arrested several times.

Mr. Olyaie Farad believes that the Political Crime Plan does not meet the needs of a political criminal and their rights, including the right to a fair trial, and is more of an internal government plan rather than an external one, although it is better than lawlessness. In an interview with “Peace Line”, he says: “All those who

Mr. Oliayi Farad; as you know, the draft of the political crime plan has recently been submitted to the parliament and in the past few days, its generalities have been approved. What is your overall opinion on such a plan?

See, in this plan, a new crime is not defined, meaning that these criminal acts have existed before and have been defined before, and now they have just considered a cover for it; of course, it has conditions; on one hand, the person must have a political motive, on the other hand, they must not strike against the system.

The meaning of political motivation is that a person does not have personal motives and interests, and strives for social goals and improving the current situation. It should also be noted that this plan is based on the four main pillars of the Islamic Republic system, which are republicanism, Islamism, guardianship of the jurist, and the fourth being the official religion and faith. It states that if we want to accept someone as a political criminal, we must not oppose these four principles. We can criticize them, but we must not oppose them. For example, we cannot say that it is better for the Islamic Republic system to become a monarchy, or that the official religion of the country should change, or even that my goals are within the framework of the Islamic system but I do not accept the guardianship of the jurist. This also brings the crime to another level and does not recognize it as a political crime or as a political activist. However, individuals can still criticize these four pillars, but

But in all these aspects, I believe that in reality, if we go towards the direction of the constitution, especially its third chapter and the principles that have been neglected, it will have good results, which is indeed obtaining the rights of the people. Just as the government in the contract it has made with the people tries to prevent them from breaking the contract, it should not break the contract it has made with the people and if it does not implement the principles of the constitution, it is in a state of breaking the contract and is procrastinating in a friendly manner. Therefore, the more these principles are observed, the more beneficial it is for the people and it can be in the direction of public interests.

What are the issues and characteristics of this plan that have apparently caused a lot of controversy?

This plan has many flaws, but because it aims to implement Article 168 of the Constitution, it must be welcomed. This plan is equivalent to the standards that a political criminal has, which are not regulated, meaning that in the world, what we hear as the definition of it in front of political opponents is that they sometimes have problems with the type of government. In fact, this plan does not address the needs of a political criminal and their rights, including the right to a fair trial, and is somewhat an internal plan, not an external one; although it is better than lawlessness. As I mentioned before, if someone does not accept the rule of the Supreme Leader or the Islamic Republic in general and takes actions in this regard, their crime will no longer be considered a political crime, but rather a crime of waging war against God, and they may face severe punishments, including the possibility of execution.

But in any case, it is better than lawlessness and it is very bad if there is no law at all. The general void that we have had until today is the lack of implementation of Article 168 of the Constitution, and the implementation of such a plan is the first step, and over time and through the activities of parliamentary representatives or civil activities, perhaps its flaws can be addressed. Despite the presence of authoritarian and extremist forces in the entire system of the Islamic Republic who do not believe in any rights for the people, we must welcome this law; of course, with criticism and criticism until it is defined as a political crime.

It might be better to start by defining the terms that have become the subject of dispute among political activists and even human rights advocates. What do political and security prisoners mean linguistically and legally, and what is the boundary between them?

For these terms, there are no specific legal definitions. Different countries have their own specific definitions for them based on their governing methods, and the laws of each country are also different from other countries. In fact, we cannot completely impose our standards on them, although there are definitions that most jurists believe in, but they are relative. According to these definitions, individuals who actually engage in activities that are against the security of a country and have no social motivations or public interests, but rather prioritize their own personal interests, are referred to as committing acts against security; such as espionage, which of course must be fairly tried and the accused has the right to a lawyer, appeal, and review, but in any case, these cases are dealt with severely in the world. This is the difference between a political and security criminal; when someone receives money to provide certain information to another country – meaning they are only thinking about that money and not wanting the people to be well-off – they undermine the security of

On the other hand, the discussion of a political criminal is that the work they do is not for personal gain, but rather to improve the situation for the public interest. If they criticize or take action against the government, it is to free the people from oppression. These are the major differences between political prisoners and those held for security reasons. Currently, in our laws, because there is no specific definition of a political crime, everyone is treated as a security threat. That is why officials everywhere say we do not have political criminals and everyone is a security threat. This is a mistake and in reality, it is an incorrect statement and we must differentiate between these two categories.

Well, as you yourself mentioned, all definitions usually fall under the same term “national security”. Now, what does this term mean in Iran or even in other countries?

See different countries have different views on their national security. Some countries – mostly in the West – like the United States or France, open their security lines and consider it a bigger gateway for their national security, and respect some freedoms and have less interaction with people. They say that a person can have freedom of speech, criticize the president, even criticize the government. Say that, for example, a republic is not good, a constitutional monarchy is good, or a good communist. People can gather in the streets and all of these things do not disrupt the country’s security. Although I believe that human rights violations exist in many or even all countries, the difference is in the type and extent of it. We cannot give an example of a country that has a clean record in this regard. But in countries that usually have an authoritarian system, they make their security space smaller and tighter and tie their fate to the fate of the people, creating a strict atmosphere. That is, if someone speaks or critic

Does the rights of a security prisoner differ from a political prisoner? If there is a difference, in what cases is it?

There are definitely differences and these differences are significant. One of the main discussions is about public perception. When it is announced that someone has committed a political crime, it is a very different matter than saying that this person has committed a security or ordinary crime; because in relation to political activities, noble motivations are taken into consideration. On the other hand, in international laws, there is no discussion of extradition for political criminals. Inside the prison, a series of special values and facilities are given to political prisoners; such as not having to wear prison clothes, having the right to use the phone and visit their families, access to newspapers and the internet, not having their hair cut, and even the prison guard is required to treat them differently than ordinary prisoners and follow certain rules. In addition, the style of trials is also different. The trials of political prisoners are held publicly and with the presence of a fair jury, and the message of a political prisoner is heard through this jury, who are representatives of

You mentioned a good point; I mean the different and positive view towards political prisoners compared to security prisoners. Especially after 1988, there have been many discussions on this matter that label many individuals as “political prisoners” who are facing charges such as “collaboration with opposition political parties”, even though none of these individuals usually have any charges of espionage in their files. My question to you, as a lawyer, is which category of current prisoners do you consider as political prisoners? How do you view individuals charged with insurgency and sentenced to death?

I cannot express an opinion about a specific case that I have not seen, but in a general and personal view, I believe that all those who are politically opposed should be considered political prisoners and their cases should be addressed by a fair tribunal. See, we cannot just rely on public opinion in this matter; a part of public opinion gives the right and a part does not. Perhaps public opinion may have a positive view towards one case and not towards another.

In any case, when it comes to political opposition of individuals or groups, we are faced with two definitions. Some lawyers say that those who have not taken up arms can be political activists. They can have the right to a fair trial and a public court because of their activities. But when they take up arms, they are no longer considered political activists and it cannot be said that they have engaged in political activities, and other aspects may be used. But some other lawyers take a higher definition and say that even if a group takes up arms and shows their political opposition in this way, they should still be considered political criminals and should be tried in a public court with a fair jury. Therefore, it depends on what definition of political crime we have in mind.

Everyone can have their own definition. Now we see that, for example, the Iranian government accepts this model, that by accepting the four axes that I explained before, one can be a political critic but my personal opinion is this: anyone who opposes politically should be considered a political criminal and should be tried publicly in a fair court.

“این عکس یک منظره زیبا از کوهستان است که در آن آسمان آبی و ابرهای سفید به طور طبیعی ترکیب شده اند.”

“This photo is a beautiful landscape of a mountain where the blue sky and white clouds are naturally blended together.”
Evin Prison Corridor – Photo of Herana

This is not about evaluation, all criminal laws of the country are somehow derived from jurisprudence and are covered under the Islamic Penal Code. The system is, in any case, a system that is mentioned in the constitution, but the biggest problem is why laws are taken from narrow-minded jurisprudents. Look, Islamic law is like a showcase that has all kinds of interpretations, one comes in a Taliban-like way and recently even ISIS-like interpretation, which is actually a hellish and satanic interpretation, and they go to the city and shoot. We must ask if this was really the same attitude as the Prophet of Islam had in the conquest of Mecca? When the Prophet of Islam went to Mecca, he gave security to all his political opponents and told his companions not to destroy people’s homes, etc.

There are better interpretations available; although in these circumstances where there is coercion and we are forced, the discussion of better interpretations arises, otherwise it is better if the laws are not derived from jurisprudence; because when you criticize that law, it is no longer considered an insult to jurisprudence and Sharia. I myself was condemned for criticizing the law, as an insult to retaliation and Sharia, while my argument was about the execution of juveniles under 18 years old and I had nothing to do with Sharia, but because it is dependent on such a law and derived from Sharia, when you want to criticize or oppose it, you face such problems and serious accusations. In a situation where we are forced to make laws in accordance with jurisprudence, why not at least use better and more acceptable interpretations in jurisprudence, which are more popular among people? Interpretations that do not harm the process of democracy and do not contain any kind of cruelty. Such interpretations exist and there are many

How effective can such inquiries, especially in relation to death row inmates, be?

It will definitely be effective as long as we only focus on evaluating it in one or two cases. For example, myself.

In the case of Behnoud Shojai, I consulted with Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi. He did not go into the details of the case, but he said that it would be better if he was not executed and instead the family of the victim received blood money. He said that if he is not executed, it is closer to piety. These are positive things and in fact, my recommendation is for lawyers and people to use the opinions of religious authorities who have a broader perspective. Over time, as these interpretations become more common, people will realize the difference between narrow-minded interpretations of jurisprudence and those that have a broader perspective. They will realize that the law can be interpreted differently, even if it is based on Sharia. For example, Ayatollah Montazeri also respected the rights of Baha’is and in his talks, he acknowledged these rights. In any case, he was once an option for the deputy leadership of Iran and had a

At the end, if you have any specific point or conversation that has been left unsaid, please let me know.

The last thing I am currently more concerned about is the situation of Ward 350 in Evin Prison. Because I believe that with the recent actions being taken by security officials, there is a possibility of the dissolution of this ward. The fact that no new political prisoners are being sent to Ward 350 and that they are gradually executing the sentences of exiling prisoners or sending them to Ward 7 and 8 of Evin Prison, Qezel Hessar Prison, or Rajai Shahr Prison, has created the suspicion of dissolving Ward 350. Therefore, we must pay attention to this issue and the public should show sensitivity towards it, because dissolving Ward 350 of Evin Prison is completely illegal. According to the regulations of the Prison Organization, individuals should be separated based on their crimes and dissolving Ward 350 and keeping its prisoners among ordinary prisoners or even dangerous criminals is illegal.

We also hope that our colleagues, Mr. Soltani and Mr. Saifzadeh, and other lawyers of the Dervishes will be released. My strong recommendation to Mr. Rouhani is that the promises they made, considering that almost a year has passed since the beginning of their presidency, must be fulfilled. Their limitations are recognizable, as the executive branch, according to the principle of separation of powers, has its own limitations. However, Mr. Rouhani must also keep in mind that according to the constitution, they can implement a part of the constitution and oversee another part. So we know their limitations, but we also expect the President of Iran to fulfill his duties within the limits of the constitution. He is even responsible for preventing the violation of the constitution by other powers and must give legal warnings and notices to these powers. Through the parliament and the executive branch, he has the authority to prosecute those who violate the rights of the people.

Thank you for the time you have given us in the monthly publication of the Peace Line.