The story of the sorrowful repentance and redemption in the 1960s/ Reza Alijani
According to the jurisprudential and legal laws governing the courts of the Islamic Republic, repentance of criminals can be effective in the severity of the sentence issued against them. Articles 114 to 119 of the Islamic Penal Code pertain to repentance and its methods of verification.
It should be noted that most of these substances are related to ordinary crimes such as theft, addiction, etc., but in some cases, there are also references to the charge of “combat”, which is one of the crimes related to national security and has a political aspect; of course, the meaning and scope of “combat” is more widespread than the political sphere and includes any use of weapons, including in theft, coercion, and the like.
In this article, however, we focus exclusively on the issue of “repentance” and its verification in relation to political prisoners and prisoners (especially in the 1990s), and of course we leave the legal dimensions and aspects of it to our dear lawyers who are experts in this matter.
***
The words “repentance” and “repentant” in the prisons of the 1980s in the Islamic Republic of Iran were always seen as negative and even terrifying for activists and political prisoners. From the perspective of the minds and emotions of these activists and prisoners, “repentance” symbolized breaking the prisoner and “repentant” was interpreted as a spy and torturer of other prisoners who were seen as “head of the situation” or passive and impartial and seeking their own freedom. The story of the twisted, sorrowful, terrifying and sometimes frightening repentant in the prisons of the 1980s is an independent story. The repentants themselves were victims of this system and sometimes became ruthless agents or, conversely, were capable of mercy.
The story of “repentance” and “repentance” is a very complicated one; all those who had returned from their previous positions in their group – whether left or mujahideen, etc. – were considered “problematic” and were in doubt. Sometimes they truly repented, but they did not do anything wrong against others. Some of them, while maintaining their past beliefs, pretended to repent and repent in order to escape from interrogations, prison, or to be released from prison in order to lead a normal life with their families, or on the contrary, to continue their previous activities and join their group. It cannot be explained in one word.
In any case, the story of “repentance” in the prisons of the 1960s had various reasons and origins. One of them was the absolute and exclusive perception of oneself by the political system and its interrogators. Each suspect was considered a soldier of the anti-religion, hypocrisy, and espionage front (synonymous with the three main branches of interrogation in the 1960s Evin prison), who had to be guided towards the right path and truth, which is the path of the Islamic Republic, the Supreme Leader, and the Imam of the nation. In this way, he would not deviate or go astray for the rest of his life and may even become a soldier of the front of truth.
Another influential factor in the process of reconciliation is anger and frustration towards the political accused, who must be retaliated against.
Another element that can be considered part of revenge is the humiliation and downfall of the accused’s character by forcing them to repent.
And finally, another function of repentance is to transform the repentant person into a mirror and a lesson for others.
The methods of repentance verification were also almost the same as those that have now been announced in the repentance verification guidelines by the head of the judiciary power.
In Article 1 of this regulation it is stated: “Repentance is a spiritual state that involves an individual’s attention and return to God, after committing a criminal behavior, in a way that the perpetrator becomes aware and remorseful of their misconduct and is determined to observe and abandon such behavior in the future, and makes efforts to rectify and compensate for the damage.”
Two expressions, “observing remorse and correcting behavior” and “compensation”, were key factors for interrogators and torturers in the 1990s. The individual had to show helplessness and submission towards the interrogator, and the interrogator would also beat the prisoner while saying “you must compensate” to their body, mind, and soul.
One of the ways to observe repentance and correction of Article 5 in this regulation is: “Commitment to fulfilling religious duties”. The individual would either truly repent or pretend to torture themselves with long prayers, repeated fasting, crying and pleading to God with supplication and begging. It was a famous joke and irony that some repenters would mark a seal on their foreheads by burning a spoon or even prayer beads to show their purity, worship, night prayers, and long prostrations.
The next section of the regulations clarifies the methods of “compensation”: “The judicial authority, in order to verify repentance, remorse, and reform of the perpetrator, pays attention to the following clauses, which often indicate the truthfulness of the claim of repentance: effective cooperation of the perpetrator in discovering the crime or introducing accomplices or assistants in the crime.”
The word “jebraan” was like a whip that the interrogator would constantly spin over the head of the accused, who had the possibility of being beaten and harmed at any moment. He had to betray his friends and cooperate practically in order to arrest them, or go along with the false agreements he had to make with his friends, or sit in the car with the interrogators and wander the streets to identify and arrest his former friends, in hopes that it would be a form of “jebraan” for his past crimes and sins.
All of this may not have been enough for repentance, but the individual should also help with another aspect of this code, which is “participation in good deeds”, to confirm their repentance. Examples of “good deeds” in the prisons of the 1960s included writing “confessions” against former friends and anyone who could possibly have collaborated with the “counter-revolutionaries”, participating in interrogating them, and in more serious cases, beating and even participating in their execution by pointing the gun at the heads of former comrades and taking part in their execution. (A very painful memory shared by one of the prisoners who was forced to participate in the execution of his friends in the London Tribunal with great emotion, tears, and sorrow).
Article 8 of this regulation, however, opens another gate of the black hell of the 1960s, when it states: “The judicial authority, in enforcing Article 117 of the Islamic Penal Code, shall inform the repentant claimant that if it is proven after the implementation of the regulations regarding repentance that they have pretended to repent, the suspension of punishment and the considered reductions shall be revoked and they shall be sentenced to the maximum or minimum disciplinary punishment, as appropriate.”
This means that despite all the psychological changes, prayers, long nights of prayer, and all kinds of cooperation with interrogators, if it is revealed even after several years that the person has hidden a part, even a small part, of their own or others’ records, this is a sign that they have been “pretending” to repent.
It has happened many times that years later, due to the arrest of another person and their confession, it becomes clear that the person has not disclosed all of their information; now, whether they have forgotten or intentionally concealed it to lessen the accusations and crimes, or to save another person from the suffering of arrest and torture. This leads to long interrogations and new tortures to obtain information or seek revenge for what they pretended to repent and deceive their interrogators. In this case, all previous deals may be nullified and the person may be sentenced to a new punishment, such as extended imprisonment or even execution.
At the end of this tragic scenario, if the lucky ones have passed through all these terrifying tunnels and after years of enduring imprisonment, they want to be released from prison, they must once again abide by other clauses of the same regulations; including “a written commitment not to commit a crime” or “a commitment to refrain from communicating and associating with wicked individuals, accomplices, and crime deputies” who are the same former conspirator friends.
This chance and opportunity, however, is not available to all people because some of them lose the chance of freedom from prison during these processes; as Laajvardi interpreted, “repentance is like menstruation that we discard after using it.” Therefore, after all kinds of cooperation, it was possible for Laajvardi’s deceit to come to an end and his hidden anger and hatred to be revealed, and he could also lead repentance to the path of execution or the gallows.
This is the tragedy that Lajvardi, in the last days before his departure from Evin in the month of Dey in 1363, had collaborated with a number of repentant prisoners, mostly in higher positions within the organization – mainly in leftist groups. He had told these prisoners, “You have repented and collaborated with us, but only God knows if your repentance was true or not. In any case, you have been sentenced to death. I hope your repentance in this world will lead to forgiveness of your sins in the next world,” and then handed them over to the execution squad.
Bottom of the form.
Tags
1 Peace Treaty 1591 Atonement Compulsory confession Islamic Penal Law peace line Repentance Repentance Verification Guidelines Sixties White torture شکنجه شکنجه ع Functions