The approval of the Q-M-A 92 and its permanent enactment in 97: The M-A law was reviewed and regulated in the context of security and fear of the people, which originated from the popular and student protests of 78 and 88 against the regime, which responded with oppressive measures and labeled them as “thugs and agitators.” During this time, some members of the security forces were lost, and according to the M-A law of 70, articles 626 and 628 state that if people act in self-defense and have positive evidence, they will not be prosecuted or punished. This encourages the people to be more active and confident in taking to the streets in protests and riots, and the regime, despite its tyrannical control, saw that some laws were hindering its actions. Therefore, in the same Q-M-A 92 law, which briefly addressed stoning, in article 828, it repealed the previous M-A law of 70, except for

However, all details related to punishment are included in the M-A law, with the exception of security materials that harm the law enforcement forces, meaning killing in self-defense by the people, and it remains in effect. And two articles of the Q-M-A law of 70, in addition to 7 articles mentioned above, are null and void, as follows:

Article 626, repealed by the Law on Islamic Penal Code of 1991, states: Self-defense of life and property is permissible, even if it is against government officials.

Article 626: Whenever… based on evidence and indications, their actions (law enforcement and other judicial officers) result in murder or injury and violation of property, in this case, defense against them is also permissible.

Because in this same law, which is the abrogating and recent one, meaning the Penal Code of 2013, the concept of “mahdur al-dam” (which is related to self-immolation killings) is still not clearly defined in Article 313 of the Penal Code. It only considers it a punishable offense with a sentence of 3 to 5 years of imprisonment. These self-immolation killings are carried out by individuals, at the order of the regime, as a means of suppressing protests and specific security situations.

Therefore, we see that in the year 1397, with the background of the security situation and the atmosphere of fear among the people caused by the uprising and riots of December 1396, the oppressive and unjust law mentioned was made permanent through the approval of the Islamic Penal Code of Iran, passed by the parliament. The Q-M-A regime no longer has an experimental or temporary name. In order to better demonstrate the atmosphere of fear and security, during the drafting and approval of the Q-M-A 92, a specific case of 1869 reports from 92 (quoted from the Belgian activists campaign) has been examined, reporting 1361644 cases of human rights violations in Iran, of which 36238 are direct violations of fundamental human rights by the presence of the authorities, in contrast to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and 1325406 cases are legal violations that go against the fundamental rights in international treaties.

And also, the economic problems caused by sanctions, border conflicts, and the differences between left and right factions in the country, which have been drawn into the public during the 92 elections, especially events such as the 78 and 88 incidents … and the increase in arrests, detentions, and executions by the regime have created an atmosphere of fear and insecurity among the people, leading to the enactment of despotic and unjust laws.

The method of crime writing and increasing criminal titles in the mentioned law:

The method of crime writing in the medieval regime of Iran is similar to the inquisition courts of the Western Church, which inherently considers society as sinful. This is a society where a prophet was hanged for trying to purify their sins, and during the period of distorting their beliefs, they declared their own prophet’s mother, who was a virgin, as impure in the Council of Nicaea. They argued that she was not innocent and used this reasoning to impose strict social, economic, and judicial laws and regulations on the people, including how they should live, heavy taxes, and harsh punishments, even burning scientists and alchemists at the stake, whom they called “sorcerers,” and stoning adulterers… This method is the same as the reactionary regime of Iran, where no one is considered pure except for God, God’s representatives, the Imam, and their representatives, such as the Supreme Leader, and they elevate him to the level of a prophet (

Unlimited scope of jurisdiction in the judicial system of Iran.

But the legislator, in order to prevent a defendant from being unjustly convicted by the judicial system, considers the scope of criminalization in articles 220 and 167 of the Islamic Penal Code and the Constitution, as these two articles mention in the Islamic Penal Code and the Constitution:

• Article 220 of the Islamic Penal Code approved in 1392: Regarding limits that are not mentioned in this law, according to Article 167 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, it shall be acted upon.

• Article 167 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran: The judge is obligated to make every effort to find the ruling for each case in written laws, and if it cannot be found, to issue a ruling based on Islamic sources or valid fatwas. The judge cannot refuse to hear a case or issue a ruling under the pretext of silence, deficiency, generality, or conflict of written laws.

This means that in any case or matter where the act is not considered a crime in the law and the law remains silent about it, the judge must try to determine the crime by referring to religious sources, the opinions of religious scholars, and their own knowledge. Then they must find the appropriate punishment for the crime and issue a verdict, even if that verdict results in punishing a “mosque builder in Shush” instead of a “sinful blacksmith in Balkh” (a sinner in Balkh, a blacksmith in Shush).

Is there a broader circle for such a method of criminalization to formulate criminal titles and their punishments? If the situation and approval of these matters (Articles 220 and 160 of the Penal Code approved in 2013) have no legal basis and legitimacy, why should crime and punishment be legal? These two articles contradict the legality of crimes. Allowing judges to use such a method of criminalization undermines the judicial security of citizens. According to the law, citizens should know what is considered a crime and what its punishment is, so that they can know their rights and responsibilities. Similarly, judicial officials should use the law as a guide in legal proceedings. Therefore, in the new law, which is the same Penal Code approved in 2013, not only has stoning not been abolished, but it remains in force under Article 1 of the approved 2017 law. In addition, the judge’s hands have been left free to impose punishments that go against the legal principle of crimes in

Article 728 of the approved 1392 law, as well as the approved 1370 law, with the exception of clause 7, has been confirmed and remains in force, which itself is another factor in the wide range of criminal titles.

How to handle and process stoning and stoning cases:

Like all other criminal cases, it does not meet the conditions and principles of fair trial, and in terms of the fact that adultery is considered a major sin in the court of law, the severity and intensity of the trial and its proceedings have removed it from justice.

Therefore, it can be seen that unfortunately, due to the two aforementioned factors, the severity and uniformity in dealing with such cases (stoning to death) leads to unjust verdicts and sometimes mistakes due to unfair trials.

• Mrs. Shemameh Ghorbani (known as Malak), an Iranian Kurdish woman in Urmia court who was sentenced to stoning in June 2006, wrote in a letter to Branch 12 of the Criminal Court: “As a rural and illiterate woman, I was unaware of the law and did not understand what I was doing. I thought that if I confessed to having a relationship with the victim, I could clear my brother and husband of the murder charges. (2) I only spoke irrelevant words in court and now I realize that I have wronged myself.”

• Mrs. Hajieh Ismailvand: She speaks Turkish and does not have enough literacy. She did not know the meaning of the word “rape” and said that the murderer had intended to rape her… During the trial, she signed a paper confessing to adultery! She spent several years in prison because she did not know the meaning of the word “stoning”… After serving 5 years in prison, a sentence of stoning was issued in Jolfa prison. After international pressure and media attention, her case was investigated by her lawyers and she was acquitted of adultery and tried for involvement in the murder.

1. A: Article 167 of the Constitution: The rulings of the courts must be based on legal and principled evidence that the judgment is issued according to.

Article 2 of the Approved Law of 1970: Any action or omission that is punishable by law is considered a crime.

Due to the fact that they may have been subject to execution by stoning (according to the 2013 Criminal Code, Article 630), the same article is mentioned in the 1953 Criminal Code, Article 169. However, this article has no legal basis even in Shia jurisprudence, as in this case the principle is retribution, unless evidence is provided. But still, it was better than stoning.

Some of the unfair aspects of trials in Iran include the following:

• Loss of access to legal counsel and chosen lawyer

• Violence and misconduct against suspects in detention before trial.

• The use of false confessions obtained in prison and detention centers through force, pressure, and torture.

• ان

  “Utilizing security measures in detention centers under the control of the Ministry of Intelligence and the Revolutionary Guards against suspects.”

• Deprivation of fundamental rights is like the right to summon a witness and even present documents during the course of the trial within the specified deadlines.

• Depriving the accused of sufficient time and opportunity to defend themselves.

• Imprisoning their own family and loved ones, the accused are usually and even their defense lawyers, especially in cases where lawyers protest against the unjust judicial process.

• Teaching and presenting charges against the accused during the stages of the trial by the standing judges.

• Failure to consider the disqualification of judges in handling political cases or cases related to political matters due to their impartiality in the subject or surrounding of the cases.

• The arbitrariness of trials is because political cases were previously decided in consultation sessions by standing and sitting judges, based on reports from their own intelligence and security channels, without the presence or knowledge of lawyers and defendants.

• Failure to observe legal procedural principles in court proceedings and completion of the case based on formal and objectionable agreements without considering the deadline for objection and necessary time for review… Also, changing the classification of the case from civil to criminal or vice versa without informing the defendant, and suddenly the defendant realizes that they are standing in front of a criminal court judge with handcuffs on.

• The judges’ aggressive behavior, bad treatment, and unethical conduct towards the defendants and insulting them is solely based on their one-sided reports from their own intelligence and law enforcement channels.

• The impartiality of judges and courts in handling cases of accused individuals is often met with suspicion, as they tend to be aggressive towards the accused and do not pay attention to their legal statements and defenses. This is why they do not deal with the accused’s case in accordance with the natural course of the trial.

• Management and assistance in creating files against opponents and dissidents of the system by creating fake and mercenary accusations and falsely imposing their own demands on them through prosecutors and judges of the system.

• Forcing the defendants to sign the minutes of the preparatory sessions of the judicial system, both in preliminary hearings in courts and in courtrooms.

• Creating a prison mafia of mercenary criminals in detention centers and prisons to control or deal with specific cases, usually political and security-related, and physically punishing those who the judicial system has not been able to handle properly due to media or advertising reasons… Therefore, this flaw is compensated for by the prison mafia through physical punishment under the excuses of “illness, self-harm, and suicide”… We will limit ourselves to this amount to avoid the topic of stoning.

Footnote: 1. This clause has been witnessed and documented by the author in one of the local courts in southern Iran.