This is a caption

This is a caption.
Mohammad Mohabbai

The case of the Kahrizak murders is one of the most mysterious cases in the history of the Islamic Republic. This case has six identified victims: Mohsen Ruholamini, Mohammad Kamrani, Amir Javadi Far, Ramin Qahramani, Ahmad Nejati Kargar, and the prison doctor, Ramin Pourandarjani, who later died under suspicious circumstances.

Kahrizak is the name of a detention center on the outskirts of Tehran that, during the command of Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, was used by the police to hold dangerous suspects and criminals. However, during one of the protests in 2009, several detainees were transferred to this detention center in mid-July of that year. There is a lot of evidence and indications of various forms of torture in this detention center during that time, but there is no doubt or suspicion about the murder of Kahrizak victims. In summary, at least 5 people were killed in this detention center, and the duty doctor also suspiciously lost his life later on.

For these murders, a criminal case was formed. Judges who had issued the order for the victims to be sent to Kahrizak detention center, including Judge Heydari Far and Judge Mortazavi, were summoned. Several trial sessions were held with the presence of defendants, defense lawyers, complainants, and plaintiffs’ guardians. In November 1389, the court ruled that the Kahrizak murders were unintentional.

But a few weeks ago, a court ruling regarding Judge Mortazavi created a great ambiguity in this case, whether the murder was intentional or unintentional. Is it possible for a murder case to have a deputy, but not have a mastermind?! In the case of the Khavizak murders, it was announced that these murders were unintentional. However, it has recently been announced that Judge Saeed Mortazavi has been sentenced to two years in prison on charges of “complicity in murder.” While in unintentional murder, “complicity” has no meaning. It is said that a liar has a poor memory or perhaps no memory at all.

Now the main question is, if Saeed Mortazavi was involved in the murders of Kahrizak, then who are the intermediaries or intermediaries of these murders?

The Assistant of Crime in Iranian Law and Analysis of the Situation of Mortazavi with it.

Assistance in a criminal act, is an indirect and related act to the direct behavior. This means that if the direct behavior is considered a crime in the law, those who assist in that behavior will also be punished. For example, if someone helps another person commit suicide, they have not committed a crime. This is because the act of “suicide” is not considered a crime in Iranian law, therefore there is no crime called “assistance in suicide” in Iran. Article 126 of the Islamic Penal Code (approved in 2013) specifies the exact cases of assistance in a crime:

”

“Individuals under the supervision of a crime are considered: a) anyone who incites, threatens, persuades, or instigates another to commit a crime, or causes a crime to occur through deceit, trickery, or abuse of power. b) anyone who creates or obtains the means to commit a crime, or provides the perpetrator with the means to commit a crime. c) anyone who facilitates the occurrence of a crime.”

Guideline – In order to establish complicity in a crime, the unity of intention and precedence or simultaneous occurrence between the behavior of the accomplice and the perpetrator is a condition. If the main perpetrator commits a more severe crime than what the accomplice intended, the accomplice will be sentenced to a lighter punishment for complicity in the crime.

As can be inferred from the concept and scope of the above-mentioned article, the instances of complicity in a crime have an exclusive aspect and are never symbolic. In the cases specified in Article 43 of the Islamic Penal Code, complicity in a crime is not included in the punishment. According to the instances determined by the law, complicity includes: incitement, instigation, threat, deception, preparation of tools for committing a crime, providing a method for committing a crime, and facilitating the occurrence of a crime. However, participation in a crime varies according to the nature of each crime and can be realized in any way that is effective in the commission of the crime.

This means that Mortazavi, as the deputy of the Khavaran killings, has committed one of the six major cases and if he had not committed it, he would not have been convicted as “complicity in intentional murder”.

In better terms, an accomplice is someone who carries out the operational or material element of a crime and the accomplice facilitates this process. The material element of the crime of intentional murder is defined as “intentional deprivation of life from another living person.” As stated in the above clause, “unity of intent” is a requirement for accomplice liability. This means that the accomplice must have had the same intent as the perpetrator, in this case, the intent to commit intentional murder. Saeed Mortazavi, who has been convicted of being an accomplice in these murders, had the same “unity of intent” as the perpetrators and facilitated the process of intentional murder. This means that Saeed Mortazavi, logically, had the intent to commit intentional murder of the prisoners in Kahrizak and without a doubt, is aware of the accomplices of this crime. Through the six factors mentioned above, he has collaborated with the accomplices of these murders. It