The topic of discussion in the monthly magazine “Khat-e-Solh” with “Mostafa Tork Hamedani”, a lawyer and legal expert, is the issue of accountability of the government towards its citizens. He seeks the right to accountability in the eighth principle of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran and in the matter of enjoining good and forbidding wrong. In response to a question about the one-sided perception of this right by the government towards the people, he says, “In reality, individuals are accused of things like spreading lies and slander. It is these actions and lack of immunity of citizens from government intrusion that brings to mind the one-sidedness of the issue.”

In another part of this conversation, the issue of disregard for the law and citizens’ rights and protections mentioned in the law was also discussed. The lawyer told us in the monthly magazine “Line of Peace” that in the pursuit of upholding citizens’ rights, “necessary protections that exist in the law for the people are being ignored and causing trouble for the people.”

This judicial lawyer has also said in response to the issue of the independence of the judiciary: “The judiciary is an independent entity. A judge is something else, with honor and independence. The judge works within a system and strives to comply with the laws. However, sometimes we see that the actions of that independent and honorable judge do not align with that judiciary, and the result is that the judge is set aside.”

You can read the detailed interview with Mostafa Tork Hamadani in the following of the monthly magazine of Khatt-e-Solh.

The right to be heard, a human right and a guaranteed right for all, exists in many societies. Tell us about some of its roots in our constitution in Iran.

This right in our laws is based on religious sources and specifically refers to two religious branches of commanding good and forbidding evil. There is a duty for citizens to respond in these two religious branches; meaning when we command someone or forbid something, we have the right to demand a response from them. In this demand for a response, if the opposite party is a normal person, it has one quality. If the opposite party is our ruler, it has another quality. Ultimately, these two religious branches are present in our constitution and can also be used in regards to rulers.

The eighth principle of the Iranian Constitution states: “In the Islamic Republic of Iran, enjoining good and forbidding wrong is a universal and reciprocal duty of all towards each other, the government towards the people, and the people towards the government. The conditions, limits, and quality of this duty are determined by law.”

The new law of implementation, which was passed in recent years (1394), also indicates the same issue; that people can exercise their right to respond within the framework of enjoining good and forbidding wrong and, based on the law of supporting enjoiners of good and forbidding deniers of wrong, hold the rulers accountable.

You mentioned the origin of religious branches such as enjoining good and forbidding evil. What is commonly discussed is the relationship between these two issues from the rulers to the people, not from the people to the rulers. Have the positions been reversed?

What you have said about the plan is correct. However, the issue here is not a difference between two sides, and this issue is between both sides. But after Mostafa Tork Hamadani and when these words were manipulated and perhaps we can say they were used as a tool, the government felt that it should take action, and this issue became one-sided, from the government towards the people. It was also dealt with in a hasty manner and was limited to the issue of hijab and women’s hair. Whereas this issue is much broader than these words, and both sides, the government and the people, can deal with it together.

When they realized that they shouldn’t have dealt with it so carelessly and that they should have used all means available, the Islamic Consultative Assembly tried to include it in the form of a law and say that this issue is not one-sided, it is two-sided. As a result, in the approved law of 1394, the rulers were also mentioned as recipients of the duty of enjoining good and forbidding wrong. All I am saying is that regardless of how much this law is enforced, who has the courage to express this issue to the rulers and if they do, they are immune from attacking the government. In this law, executive guarantees have also been considered for citizens, but in reality, individuals are accused of crimes such as spreading lies and slander. It is these actions and the lack of immunity of citizens from government attacks that bring to mind the one-sidedness of the issue.

Why is answering important and why do victims or their survivors seek to get answers?

This relates to the issue of trust between the people and their rulers. When the 1957 revolution happened, we were faced with a complete constitution in which all aspects, including this very discussion of accountability, were anticipated and the people believed in it and trusted it; that if something happened, they could question and hold their rulers accountable. This belief and trust led the people to the conclusion that they could exercise this right (in case something happened). In the early years of the revolution, it was not common for many events to occur for the people. We thought that the government finally intended to be accountable. Over time, as the time for citizens to hold their rulers accountable approached, we saw that individuals, according to their beliefs in the constitution, turned to their rulers. The rulers sometimes responded and some considered themselves exempt from accountability. Some, especially after the war, became self-sufficient, to the point that even today they consider themselves involved in post-war security issues. Even more than that,

So, do you believe that the main obstacles to citizens’ inability to hold the government accountable in Iran are not the existing laws, but rather their lack of enforcement?

The legislator has tried to codify the right to respond, which exists in the Constitution, Islam, and Shia religion, in order to be implemented; take it from the same law of supporting the enjoinment of good and forbidding of evil, approved in 1394, to the regulations that have been passed by various governments – from the Khatami government to the Rouhani government – under the title of supporting citizens and protecting citizen rights. Also, various heads of the judiciary have each drafted regulations to protect citizen rights, as if the late Ali Akbar Davar has just returned from France and is currently writing laws! While these laws have existed before. Instead of trying to update the laws, they were just repeating them.

The legislator has tried to pass a law to specify the work. The heads of relevant authorities have also proposed regulations to get the work done. Terms such as “whistleblowing” or reporting have been introduced to allow people to report any misconduct by the rulers. The head of the executive branch has also formed a committee to collect and follow up on reports of corruption 24/7 and respond to citizens. However, the problem is like the proverb that says “a seven-handed cauldron, but no dinner or supper!” meaning that there are laws, but in practice, what people want and think should be done, is not being done.

I have previously read the eighth principle of the Constitution for you. This principle is clear, but when you want to put it into practice, you encounter problems. Even laws that are supposed to be in line with the Constitution are in conflict with it. The Guardian Council, which is supposed to oversee this matter, approves laws that are in conflict with the Constitution. In the eighth principle, as mentioned before, it is predicted that the limits of regulations will be determined by law. A law has been passed that cannot be against the explicit principle of the Constitution. But it exists and is present.

Now let’s assume that the following law has been passed and the people, according to their beliefs in the fundamental and subsidiary laws, have come and taken action. But still, the necessary protections that exist in the law for the people have been ignored and it creates trouble for them. In other words, in that law, support for enjoining good and forbidding evil has been predicted, and these enforcers and forbidders have certain immunities that they can use in case of special circumstances. But this matter has been reduced to trivial issues and has become like dealing with apartment co-owners.

One of the main elements in upholding the rights of citizens is an independent judicial system. Is the judicial system in Iran independent? Does it bear any resemblance to modern judicial systems in the world?

I am a lawyer from the judiciary power and I have obtained my license from the judiciary power and I do not speak about it. I have been a lawyer for twenty-two years and have worked in this system. During this time, I have used the same existing laws for my clients’ cases.

In my opinion, we cannot say that we have an independent judicial system. However, in some cases, there are do’s and don’ts. What can be said is that sometimes court officials become commanders instead of being court officers. This is a problem. These officials are mainly security officials.

Of course, we do not lack honor. Look! The independent judicial system is one thing. A honorable and independent judge is another. The judge works within a set of rules and strives to act accordingly. However, sometimes we see that the actions of that honorable and independent judge do not align with the judicial system, and as a result, that honorable and independent judge is sidelined.

Are there any institutions in Iran that can monitor the right of citizens to respond and oversee that this right is granted to them? What is their mechanism?

The main thing is that these are the executive devices that are provided for in the same law to support the good and prevent the bad. Of course, each device and department has its own criticism and suggestions box, but what is poured into it is very high and usually no one opens it and does not pay attention to it.

In your opinion, to what extent can media owners help with this right to respond?

Media is known as the fourth pillar of democracy. You can see that whenever we face security issues in our country, the media is restricted. But whenever the media has been more free, we have seen how much they have helped in preventing corruption. In the past two decades, the media has played a major role in uncovering many scandals, and they have been able to fulfill their mission and help in exposing corruption in the country by following press laws and restrictions. The media in Iran has shown that if they are free, they can be of great help. Although many media owners have fled and gone to other places (outside the country).

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