After eight years of Hassan Rouhani’s government, the time has come for the government’s record in the areas of citizen rights and human rights to be reviewed and scrutinized. It has been twenty-four years since the second of Khordad 76 and the beginning of the government that later became known as the Reformist government. Do governments in the Islamic Republic of Iran have the ability and power to protect human rights and citizen rights? Have the incoming and established governments, especially the Rouhani government, taken any steps in this regard? And what should be done in light of events such as Dey 96 and Aban 98 and the anger present in society?

In this regard, with a focus on the Rouhani government and comparing it to its predecessor, we turned to Reza Khandan, a journalist and husband of Nasrin Sotoudeh, a lawyer who has been in the forefront of the human rights movement in Iran for years. They have been constantly dealing with

You have been arrested before the government of Hassan Rouhani and during his time. In these two periods, your wife, Mrs. Nasrin Sotoudeh, has also been arrested and imprisoned. In fact, both as a prisoner and as a prisoner’s family, you have experienced two periods. Based on your experience, how have the pressures, difficulties, problems, and behaviors of security institutions, especially the Ministry of Intelligence, been different in these two periods, before and during the Rouhani government?

The reality is that I cannot see much of a connection between the government and the way judicial and security institutions deal with suspects or detainees, or, to put it more broadly, with human rights activists and individuals who are persecuted for exercising their freedom of speech and their rights. In my opinion, increasing arrests and restricting freedoms does not have much to do with changes in the government. Although it is not completely unrelated. Whenever the government feels weak and afraid of movements that may weaken it and put its position at risk, it takes action. This can happen under the Rouhani government, the Ahmadinejad government, or any other government. Specifically, during the Ahmadinejad era, we had the Green Movement. All intelligence, security, and law enforcement agencies joined forces to suppress it. The same thing happened in November 2019 and December 2020. So it is not really related to governments. Although one government may suppress more and another may suppress less. I cannot say that the Rouhani

A part of this device is a suppressive ministry called the Ministry of Intelligence. Although we know how the minister of this institution is selected, nevertheless this ministry is a part of the government’s body. Do you think that a change in government has any role in the behavior of this Ministry of Intelligence and its case-making?

Specifically, if I want to talk about specific cases, the case of lawyers is under the Ministry of Intelligence. Apart from the cases of Mr. Arash Kikhosrovi and Qasem Sholeh Saadi, who were arrested due to the gathering they had in front of the parliament and their commander was Sepah, the case of lawyers of the Ministry of Intelligence is organized. From the case of Ms. Shirin Ebadi to Mr. Saifzadeh and Sultan and other lawyers. All of these have been and are under the Ministry of Intelligence. This has happened in all periods. I (Nasrin Sotoudeh) was also arrested during the Ahmadinejad era and during the Rouhani era. In the Ahmadinejad era, she was initially sentenced to eleven years and then six years. In the Rouhani era, her sentence was such that it makes one dizzy. (33 years of imprisonment) Even if we take the worst case

The discussion is both about the behavior of interrogators and the behavior of Ministry of Intelligence personnel towards you as a family.

There was no difference in that era and in this era. If we see any changes in the detention system that do not behave like the 90s, it has no relation to changes in governments. It is the pressure of public opinion and the presence of powerful media that causes the judicial and security apparatus to not be able to behave as they did for years, regardless of which government is in power. But when it comes to a specific person, whether it is the Ministry of Intelligence, the Revolutionary Guard, or the judicial apparatus itself, there is no difference. The judicial apparatus itself is part of the repressive apparatus, which is clearly located in the prosecutor’s office and the prosecutor’s representatives, specifically in Evin Court. Some of them support the agents of the Ministry of Intelligence and the Revolutionary Guard. They are willing to do anything. Not only do they obey orders, but sometimes they are ready to behave even more violently. I can tell you for sure that it was the work of the

In Mr. Rouhani’s government, the issue of the Charter of Citizens’ Rights was raised. Did the proposal of this charter have any impact?

These actions are mostly for show and display. There is not much determination behind them. In order for a government to be able to use the rights of its citizens, it must perform a series of actions before coming to power. Otherwise, if the government is supposed to come to power in the weakest possible state and defend the rights of its citizens, this is neither possible nor will that government be able to do it. Let me explain what I mean to you. The custom in Iran is that individuals who want to run for presidency go to the leader and seek his permission. When you, as the president who is supposed to uphold the constitution and defend the rights of the nation, have not done anything yet, you are depriving yourself of the right and privilege to freely go and run for presidency and seek permission. This means that if you take the presidency – as they have in the past – you will not succeed. You cannot defend the rights of others as a citizen. From the beginning, the

You said that the government has very little influence on the establishment of human rights and citizenship rights in Iran. During the government of Mr. Khatami and also at least in the first government of Mr. Rouhani, it was claimed that the government could have a positive role in governing in this direction. Even in Mr. Rouhani’s campaign for the second term, he told others that they have been in prison and executed for 38 years and mocked them. Can the government have the least positive role in this area?

When I said governments have little impact, I meant the governments that have come to power in Iran. I do not accept that a government can do nothing within the framework of this system. When a prisoner with a weak body, without the slightest facilities, sacrifices his life and sometimes even shakes the government with his protests, how can a government with a large budget, facilities, public support, ministries, administrative forces, etc. do nothing? I do not accept this at all. The problem is that there is no will to exercise such power. Experience has shown that if slogans are given during elections, it is only to gain power and position. Otherwise, my point was not that governments cannot do anything at all.

It means that you are saying within the legal system that is in place in Iran, governments have the ability, but governments like Mr. Rouhani’s government do not actually have the will to do so?

My intention is that within the current framework, they can make more limited maneuvers. At least not participate in suppressing. The Rouhani government has been complicit in suppressing critics. They could have chosen not to do this. Now the Minister of Interior in Rouhani’s government is among the first people involved in the November 98 massacre. We had governors like Leila Vaseghi, the governor of Qaleh Hasan Khan, who you have heard what they have said. This means that the Rouhani government has been involved in suppressing. Not only did they not do anything about citizens’ rights and preventing the abuse of security and judicial institutions, but they also participated in suppressing.

This means that you are saying we have a legal system in which there is the possibility of positive action towards the rights of citizenship and human rights, but the real regime and power dynamics in Iran do not allow for such a matter?

Definitely. I do not want to say that this legal regime is fifty-fifty. Definitely not. I understand that the president, who does not have the authority of a soldier according to the law, is very restricted. But not everything is a soldier. The gun is not always the determining factor. When the president is elected by over twenty million votes, this public opinion is a very powerful force that can greatly limit the hands of those who want to immediately resort to weapons, or at least restrict them. I understand that the powers of the president are very limited. Within the framework of these limited powers, I have no doubt that governments, especially the Rouhani government, not only fell short, but also collaborated with the repressive apparatus.

As a prisoner and a prisoner’s family, you have had a unique life experience during both Ahmadinejad and Rouhani’s terms, and you have understood what has happened in prisons and the oppressive system through your own experience. Based on this experience and what you have understood, do you think it is possible to advance the discourse of human rights and citizenship rights within the current ruling regime?

We can write and say on paper whether it is legally possible or not. But I think if we review the experience of the past twenty years, the answer to your question will definitely be negative. If such an event was supposed to happen and if it was supposed to be within the framework of this system of citizen rights, it would have been done by now. This experience failed. If the governments that have come so far did not have the will, then in this system no government has the possibility to have such a will. Even those who have power and ability, definitely do not have the permission or ability to enter.

The experience from June 1977 until now has shown that the answer is negative. If we draw a chart based on the encounters that have happened in prisons or judicial and security institutions, the trend is towards more negativity. This has no connection to the general and global conditions where they are often restricted. The Ministry of Intelligence is still behaving the same way it did ten years ago

On what basis?

We don’t know. So far, none of these incidents have given us any answers. Even when my wife was on leave two months ago, she went to the prosecutor’s office in person to follow up, but they didn’t give her any answers. I went there myself at the same time. There was a time when only Mrs. Stoodeh’s accounts were blocked and mine were not. I went, but they didn’t answer at all. Lawyers also went and didn’t get an answer. They use all means to put more pressure. Recently, the issue of transfers has been raised. Of course, it has been around for a long time and they used to move prisoners for punishment. But now they use this possibility extensively. They want to make the space more chaotic and destroy communication. Shock families and break them apart. Since my wife was sent to Garchak and Varamin prison, due to the distance, inappropriate space for visits, limited visiting time, and other issues

You are a journalist and a member of the press. You have been active in both periods, before and during the Rouhani government. If you want to compare the situation of freedom of the press and treatment of media members in these two periods, in your opinion, which period had more confrontations?

After the second of Khordad in 1376, the media was somewhat opened due to public pressure. However, after the widespread suppression that took place during that time, the media and journalists went into their shells and even changes in government were unable to bring about any changes in these conditions. Especially since the emergence of social media, the society’s need for these media and outlets that produce content within the country has decreased, and unfortunately, journalists have also learned to work in these conditions. They were forced to operate within predetermined frameworks, and some of them even adhered to these frameworks to a certain extent. Those who did not adhere to these frameworks and went beyond them faced problems and are still struggling with these issues. In fact, a form of self-censorship has been imposed. Now you are talking to a domestic reporter, and they know whether the sentences and words you use are usable and publishable or not. This is the worst possible situation for a media outlet and journalist to have

Does that mean that the media themselves have become their own censors?

It has happened exactly like this. They know that they should not deviate from a certain framework. Last year, a newspaper reporter interviewed me and published exactly what I said. It’s also the case like this. But in the end, all of these things are done within a framework in terms of the volume of news and content. Of course, sometimes when a subject is talked about so much and it becomes a hot issue, the authorities accept that some things are said about that subject. In that situation, the reporters’ antennas are sharp and they understand the issue and know that, for example, a brief article should be written about this person or this topic. We are in the worst possible situation in terms of freedom of expression and professional freedom in the field of journalism.

In recent years, we have faced two events: Dey 96 and Aban 98. Due to the heavy suppression and high number of casualties in these events, which the Ministry of the Islamic Republic of Iran has admitted to being in the hundreds, there has been a strong sense of anger and rage among the people. What should be done about this anger and rage caused by suppression? We know that violence goes against human rights and also creates more violence. Some talk about revenge. Anyone who speaks against revenge is met with severe attacks, which we see on social media.

We are obligated to educate ourselves. We are obliged to learn from the experiences of other countries and educate our citizens. This responsibility greatly increases the role of human rights activists. People have the right to be angry. Grieving families have the right to be angry and seek revenge. This has been the case all over the world. But the reality is that violence begets violence and we cannot continue this cycle indefinitely. Of course, I am not in the position of a mother who has lost her child, so I cannot judge and know how far I can control my anger. I do not allow myself to have such desires. But I can invite everyone to study the experiences of other countries. Learn from them. Gain experience. And know that there are other ways. But I never recommend to someone who has lost a loved one to control their anger. Someone who loses their child, someone who loses a member of their family over a piece of bread, and their family is destroyed, cannot be expected to

Does this lack of violence have any impact on the behavior of the ruling authority, meaning the main perpetrator of violence in the situation?

What is known in the world as nonviolent resistance does not mean that we sit idly by and let the government carry out any violence without taking any action. When we say nonviolent resistance, the word “resistance” is also present. It’s not that we say the government can be violent and we will refrain from violence. We have nonviolent resistance. The reason governments resort to violence is because the other side is fighting. However, their method of confrontation is different from the government’s. If someone has the misconception that we do nothing and sit idly by in nonviolent resistance, they have not understood the concept correctly. In the method of nonviolent resistance, we can tie the hands of governments with methods that are known in the world as nonviolent civil resistance. Governments are hindered by more suppression. But people, with their collective actions, can tie the hands of governments and prevent further bloodshed, massacre, and suppression. These are various methods. I understand that this is

Thank you for the time you have given to the peace talks.