A proposal regarding human rights and the February 1979 revolution.

Given the conviction of the Shah and the report of the International Red Cross Organization regarding the torture of political prisoners by SAVAK in prisons as an example of human rights violations, to what extent were the concerns of the revolution and revolutionaries about human rights standards and components? How much did the slogans of the revolution refer to human rights concepts? In terms of human rights and freedom of expression, what was the situation in Iran before the February 1979 revolution and what was it after? What were the main reasons for the people’s protests? Some believe that the revolution itself cannot be free from violence; but what is actually considered violence? Do you consider yourself a revolutionary today or someone who is more committed to human rights standards?

These are the questions that we have wanted to find answers to different perspectives in order to possibly come to a unified conclusion. Therefore, we have turned to a group of political and social activists who were somehow involved in the political and social events of Iran in the late 1950s; most of these individuals are also considered victims of human rights violations before and after the February 1979 revolution.

Hedayatollah Matin Defteri, a political activist and the grandson of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, is one of the individuals who has answered our questions in this proposal and we are grateful for his cooperation…

The Shah was condemned by those who were concerned about freedom, independence, the future of their country, and democracy, in terms of human rights violations and similar issues. However, he was not convicted in court for these actions, and the International Red Cross had also been invited by the Shah to visit prisons and report their findings according to their own customs. This report was never published before the regime’s downfall, but international organizations, particularly Amnesty International, were exposing human rights violations.

In 1977, the Shah invited three international organizations to come to Tehran and have a conference with him. The Secretary-General of Amnesty International, the President of the International Red Cross, and the Chairman of the International Commission of Jurists all attended the conference in Tehran. During my meeting with the Chairman of the International Commission of Jurists, he told me in detail about this session. The Shah had mentioned that he invited you to come and help organize these issues so that after me, my successor can govern; because governing, the way I was doing it, will be beyond their capabilities. Each of them also made suggestions to the Shah to improve the situation, including the need to abolish military courts and transfer their jurisdiction to the judiciary that was established for this purpose, and they were supposed to come back to Tehran the following year.

At that time, in general, there was a space for defending human rights, especially issues such as executions, closed trials, and the freedom and independence of Iran. But it is better not to call those who thought about Iran and these issues “revolutionaries”. In my opinion, they were those who sought justice and wanted to change society, but it did not necessarily mean a revolution, as a revolution requires certain previous and ideological backgrounds that did not exist at that time. There were different groups with various ideologies, thoughts, and beliefs that were all active in that time. For example, an important event that happened at the end of 1355 (1976) was when Dr. Ali Asghar Haj Seyyed Javadi wrote a letter to Nasrollah Moeinian, the head of the Shah’s special office, addressing many of Iran’s problems and issues, including those related to human rights, freedom, and independence. This letter was printed and distributed in large numbers

In the field of human rights activities, I would like to mention three important examples: the Iranian Writers Association, which resumes its activities in the direction of freedom of expression and fighting censorship. University students gather for the freedom of science and expression and form the National Association of Iranian Students. Following that, the Association of Leading Lawyers begins its activities and provides the groundwork for the establishment of the Iranian Bar Association. One of the important meetings held in this regard was in July 1977 at the Tehran Park Hotel, where many prominent Iranian lawyers were present. The issue at hand was that the right to defense is a sacred right in Iran and must be fought for in order to fully exist; defending ordinary individuals and criminals was an issue that had arisen in Iran, and the Bar Association was also involved in this work, even through appointing a lawyer for individuals, advancing this issue. However, in order to maintain power, the government wanted to intensify all political trials and impose heavy punishments, from the judiciary

According to a detailed resolution made at the end of their meeting, attorneys of the judiciary concluded that they must fight for the implementation of all constitutional laws, free elections, respect for human rights, and all other necessary issues that promote independence and democracy in the country. This fight should not only be for their own professional interests, but also for the greater good of the nation. The political movement that emerged against dictatorship in the country was primarily in this manner. In fact, step by step, issues were raised both professionally and politically, and each profession began to defend their own rights and the rights of the entire society.

After the fall of Reza Shah, the third constitution was established in Iran and after more than sixteen years, the constitution had found its fundamental meaning in terms of the rights of the Iranian people. However, the process that had begun in September 1941 and continued with the nationalization of the oil industry led by Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, was stopped by the coup d’état on August 19, 1953. The people’s desires were left unfulfilled and a fundamental work for the future life of the people and the happiness of the Iranian nation was not only interrupted, but also suppressed by the regime and government. Savak controlled everything and there was no possibility of gathering; the daily reality was that if five people gathered and wanted to have a conversation, they would be summoned, threatened, imprisoned, or tortured the next day.

In the years 1356 and 1357, there were two important forces in Iran; one was the main force of freedom and independence fighters – essentially the Democrats – and other progressive ideas, and the other was the fundamentalist religious forces. The difference was that the progressive and rising force did not have any political organization that could appear on the scene and mobilize the people, and of course, they were suppressed (mostly as communists and unable to organize). Meanwhile, the fundamentalist religious forces, who later took over the government and called it the Islamic Revolution, came to the field by taking advantage of massive organization in the form of various councils on the outskirts of cities – which were filled with peasants who had moved from villages to cities and outskirts due to economic problems after land reforms – but they did not have any progressive ideas. They only expressed themselves and gradually grew, but did not have any formal structures.

As a result, we had a classic, military, and modern dictatorship before the revolution, and a backward and reactionary religious tyranny after the revolution. That dictatorship lived in contemporary civilization and acted contrary to the laws and principles that were the basis of politics in Iran. The laws that were established in Iran after the Constitutional Revolution and the form of legislation that was carried out were a modern and compatible set with contemporary civilization. The regime at that time was against the law, but at the same time, it tried to hide its lawlessness because it wanted to maintain an appearance for itself in international arenas. But the new government that came to Iran was the exact opposite. The laws that this government has introduced over the years, including the Islamic Penal Code and even its own constitution, have all been created for a severe religious tyranny. The implementation of laws during the old government was based on upholding justice and fairness, but the implementation of laws in the current government means violating the natural and innate rights of the people

At the end, I must emphasize that I am a Mosaddeghist in the first degree; meaning someone who believes in the freedom and independence of Iran, democracy, establishment of human rights, and fundamental freedoms. Therefore, if you want to define me, I am and have always been a seeker of rights.

Revolution is full of violence. I will give the example of three major revolutions in history, including the French Revolution, the October Revolution, and the Islamic Revolution, all of which were full of violence. Therefore, we must conclude that revolutions cannot take place without violence and fundamental change only occurs when there is a transformation and a platform for practicing democracy and human rights, along with all the rights that come with it. After the fall of the previous regime in Iran, there has been no platform for advancing these rights and demands. Even the constitution that was written for this purpose and included almost all principles for the rights of the Iranian people, each one is somehow conditional and subject to violation.