This is a caption[/caption]

This is a caption.
Conversation with Ali Kalai

Dr. Mohammad Ali Dadkhah is a lawyer, a first-degree attorney, and a member of the Human Rights Defenders Association. He has represented many political, student, and human rights cases, especially in the years following the victory of the February 1979 Revolution and in the past two decades. This prominent lawyer and law professor has also been arrested multiple times by security forces, imprisoned, and sentenced by the Revolutionary Court.

We are in conversation with this law professor and human rights activist regarding the issue of corruption in the Iranian judiciary. He also discussed the reasons for corruption in the judiciary with an open mind while answering questions about the peace process, and examined the determination of this institution to fight corruption. Dr. Dadkhah also mentioned that he is optimistic about changing individuals in this institution and consequently reforming the issue of corruption in the judiciary, and he also discussed the challenges and difficulties faced by lawyers and law graduates in Iran, and the lack of respect for lawyers and their profession in Iran.

How do you define the areas of corruption in the judicial system of Iran? To what extent have legal loopholes and lack of a transparent monitoring system contributed to corruption in the judiciary?

In order to analyze the Iranian judiciary, we must pay attention to several issues. The first is the legality of the judicial system. When the Revolutionary Court was established, there was a debate about whether such a court was even competent. But as you can see, there was a lot of discussion about it and eventually the Revolutionary Court was regulated through a procedural law. When a country undergoes a revolution, it is accepted that there will be Revolutionary Courts for a period of time, but after that, each country returns to its own system. Currently, it has been about 40 years since the revolution. All crimes and cases are ultimately within the framework of the law. So what does the existence of Revolutionary Courts mean? Does it mean that the situation is still revolutionary? Does it mean that there is still a need for immediate decisions? Has the system not yet been fully established and the Revolutionary Council is still active?

Let us not forget that when the Supreme Council of the Revolution announced the establishment of the Revolutionary Court, the temporary government – that is, the government of Engineer Bazargan – could abolish this court with a bill. That is, the assumption was that it would be abolished at that time. Regardless of this issue, we are faced with multiple authorities. What does the existence of the clergy court mean? It means that the accusations of a group of people who are from this land and nationality must be addressed in a special court. Why? You may say that the military court also has these conditions. But it must be said that the military court takes action in matters related to the land and the need for immediate attention. That is, the clergy court also has these conditions and is essentially a special institution and acts within a specific scope? Of course, this is not the case and ultimately the clergy court and the revolutionary court must be integrated into other courts and these special characteristics are not acceptable. Especially when

Apart from this matter, we have nearly 16 million legal cases. Since no one is involved in a case alone, 16 million cases means at least 32 million people are involved. In fact, each case involves a minimum of two people, although many cases involve more than two people. Additionally, each case involves a judge, investigator, assistant, expert, court clerk, lawyer, and law enforcement personnel. Beyond all of this, what does a lawsuit mean? It means that after two to three years when the trial is held, they say who was right! This issue neither adds to production nor contributes to development. In fact, time, energy, and ultimately the determination and unity of a group of people in the country are wasted for no achievement. If we optimistically say that 32 million people are involved in these cases, we must not forget that minors under 18 are not taken to court, and among people over 80, there are usually no disputes; so we must

As a result, we must say that our judiciary has not been efficient in implementing what is stated in the constitution – that before anything else, it must take measures to reduce lawsuits and allow people to easily solve their problems. Unfortunately, we are faced with the issue that many judges are being prosecuted and accept exorbitant amounts of money as bribes, gifts, or under any other title.

You mentioned bribery in your discussion. In your opinion, to what extent has the Iranian judicial system stood against this type of corruption among judges? In December of last year – 1395 – Mohammad Jafar Montazeri, the Attorney General of the country, warned about corruption among Iranian judges, but on the other hand, he and other high-ranking officials of the judicial system in Iran have repeatedly complained about critics of the judiciary. Is there any serious determination to combat this type of corruption in Iran?

I think even if there is serious determination in this regard, the chosen mechanism is not effective. We see that bribery is increasing every day and this issue makes people more and more hopeless in terms of finding their rights in court and receiving support. Today, many people are not seeking to rely on the law, lawyers, and regulations, but rather they are looking for someone to find a different solution to their problems. It is a tragedy when people say it doesn’t matter what you know, it matters who you know.

If there is a serious will for this work, let us respect the powers of the head of the Bar Association and the Chief Prosecutor, who is also the Attorney General of the country, as stated by the law, and allow them to receive complaints and investigate to see where the problems lie. As long as there is no serious will to address these issues, the situation will remain the same. Therefore, in order to overcome these issues, we must first take steps towards transparency, accountability, and respecting the rights of the people based on what the constitution says. This includes announcing that the courts are obligated to inform both parties of the case before proceeding, and afterwards anyone can refer to them (except for family cases or cases related to the dignity and honor of the people). The extent to which our judges are loyal to the law, judicial procedures, customary practices, and a fair and just system of adjudication, is only tested by those who are knowledgeable, knowledgeable about the law, and knowledgeable about investigation

I emphasize that the solution to addressing these problems, in my opinion, is transparency. In this regard, we must form a broader panel of court decisions, their references, and especially their review and reconciliation in a think tank consisting of experienced lawyers, retired lawyers, and retired judges, who can provide their opinions on these decisions. It is very simple to form an association with the aim of reviewing closed cases. We just need to review 20-30 cases and explain why they were handled in a certain way. This action not only creates a new warning, but also takes a step towards honoring the judiciary by working towards its own improvement and reform.

Can we be optimistic that with changes in the judicial system of the country, corruption will be eliminated or do you see corruption as a structural issue?

I am an optimistic person and always say that there are still minutes of time ahead that their value is higher than the entire past. In this regard, although changes in people are not very effective, it can still be said that they are not ineffective. The more important action is monitoring, transparency, and questioning and accountability. If we ask why, with what reasoning and based on which law this verdict was issued, many problems will be solved. In some cases, we see that there is a solution, but with the entrance of a person, the situation changes. Based on these principles, we must see if all the reviews are correct and if all people are treated equally in the retrial or not.

Corruption in the Iranian judicial system is of special importance and sensitivity, and this issue is always mixed with political divisions. Apart from the recent verbal disputes between the head of the executive branch and the judicial branch, as another example, we can also mention the position of Mahmoud Sadeghi, a reformist representative in the parliament, who recently filed a complaint against Sadegh Larijani in the special court for clergy. In your opinion, to what extent can these types of disputes be considered a positive step towards transparency in the judicial system in the eyes of the public?

See, we must not forget that the President, as the regulator of the three branches and their coordinator, has the right to engage in dialogue with the heads of the other two branches. For example, it is not in accordance with the Constitution for the head of the judiciary to reject the President. Especially considering that Article 8 of the Constitution has recognized the duty of the government towards the people and the people towards the government to promote good and forbid evil, this creates a space for the President to inquire about these matters due to his position and heavy responsibilities. However, the filing of a complaint is a different matter. Complaints are the right of individuals, but the issue is whether the complaint is based on valid reasons and whether it will be investigated according to the law. If the answer to these two questions is positive, there is no need for concern. But the problem is that some complaints lack legitimacy and in many cases, we are faced with behavior outside the framework of the law in the courts

If you want to compare the performance of the judiciary during the presidency of Mr. Larijani with the previous period, which was the time of Mr. Shahroudi’s presidency, in your opinion, which period had a better performance in terms of the judiciary system and its independence?

I think that there are more dissatisfactions visible in this period. During Mr. Shahroodi’s time, better frameworks were established, but after that, many loopholes were created for those who want to escape from the law, from fulfilling the rights of the people, and from their own responsibilities.

How do you see the situation of lawyers in the judicial system of the country? Alongside the issue of lawyers’ independence, which is facing challenges, the judiciary has always had a negative attitude towards lawyers and has sentenced them to prison in numerous cases for defending a particular case. What is the reason for these attitudes and do these strict measures not create a breeding ground for corruption in this profession?

On one hand, they are promoting the legal profession, but on the other hand, they are not making it mandatory. If the real goal is to increase the number of jobs in the legal profession, they should at least come and make it mandatory in cities with a population of over one million. But when the legal profession is not mandatory in large cities, there is a possibility of any kind of action in cases – without anyone knowing about it – because it is the lawyer who investigates and reports these issues and deals with them. Beyond all of this, why is a legal system that is customary, general, and acceptable not created for accepting law graduates? There is a hierarchy for becoming a judge and being employed by the judiciary, which ultimately results in many people being employed under special protections. If officials say that there are a lot of cases, well, they should come in a year and address these problems by expanding the courts, hiring new judges, and training law graduates, and remove these obstacles from

In my opinion, it is a tragedy to see you advertising for lawyers on the streets. These advertisements mean that there are not enough clients for lawyers. Yet they continue to issue licenses. If the purpose of being a lawyer is to make a living through the work they have taken on, then this excessive issuance of licenses is equivalent to distributing poverty and unemployment. As I have said before, at least in cities with a population of one million, they should come and make it mandatory to obtain a license.

If they say, the angel of justice has two wings, one of which is a judge and the other is a lawyer, then why is only a fraction of what is paid to judges given to lawyers? The law declares that lawyers are also equal to judges, but this behavior that some judges have towards lawyers is unacceptable. They even dig into it from the beginning; this behavior should at least be suspended for those who have a lawyer’s license.

See, for example, police stations or dispute resolution councils can better manage with the help of judicial attorneys. If they come and create criminal reconciliation, they should at least choose some experienced, retired, or inactive attorneys to be able to create a mechanism with the assistance of young attorneys. This not only increases the security of the country, but also aligns with the law, reduces lawsuits, and helps a young group of people who have just entered the job market. We must feel responsible towards these young people. Not feeling responsible towards them can have negative consequences.

“We know that according to the law, no entity other than the Bar Association can revoke a lawyer’s license. The fact that some courts have suspended licenses, banned lawyers from practicing, or deprived them of many of their social rights is unacceptable and goes against the independence of the Bar Association. Especially when you consider the timing of these actions, starting after the trial of members of the Freedom Movement in 1963, it becomes clear that they were specifically targeted at these lawyers. If the law is followed in dealing with lawyers, what can we expect in dealing with other individuals, groups, and organizations? I mention this to emphasize that if the judiciary claims to be taking steps towards enforcing the law, it should be the first institution to abide by it. We have a famous proverb that says, ‘When they say salt is bad, they hit it with their shoe. Woe to the day when they say salt is no good…'”

Dear Mr. Dadkhah, if there is a point you would like to mention at the end, please do so.

We must instill love for Iran and love for this land in the hearts and minds of all law students. A judge who takes bribes does not have any love for this land. A prosecutor who colludes with a judge does not think about the future of this land. If this enduring love for the homeland is ignited in the hearts and souls of lawyers, more than 80% of today’s problems will be solved. An English proverb says that a person without a homeland is not a person. Homeland is not just about plains, mountains, and forests; homeland means being connected to the dynamic culture, traditions, and successful future of this land. But we witness that even the statue of Kaveh the blacksmith, which symbolizes justice and righteousness in Iran, is being removed in Isfahan.