Everything is a one-sided court

Tell us about the latest status of Mr. Noori's case. Mr. Noori's case is in the appeal stage. The main lawyers are Swedish and we work with them as consultants. In the revision phase, we have done two things so far. We protested that the trial court made a mistake in applying universal jurisdiction in this case. We also wrote our arguments and objections to which the prosecutor responded and the court is supposed to decide on this part. If the appellate court recognizes our arguments as correct in this part, the case will basically end at this stage and will not enter the appeal stage. Of course, I think it is unlikely that this will happen, considering the decision issued by the Supreme Court of Sweden in a similar case in November in the Lundin company case, and it is likely that the appeals court will confirm the decision of the first court. The second step is about evidence. We have to see what reasons the prosecutor has and what reasons we have. Naturally, the prosecutor will present the same list of evidence from the preliminary stage and our lawyers will also present the list of evidence from the preliminary stage in addition to the new evidence that is supposed to be presented to the court. It has the advantage that there is almost no time limit and we can file a case any time we have a new reason. However, as a rule, from January 11, 2023, the court starts hearing the evidence of lawyers and prosecutors, and this issue continues until January 27. There is a very strong possibility that in September 2023, i.e. Shahrivar 1402, the substantive decision of the appeal will be issued, and the case will probably end before it reaches the Supreme Court. What is the main charge of Mr. Nouri? It has two charges. One is the violation of fair trial requirements as a war crime and the second is premeditated murder. The first one goes back to the hypocrites and the second one goes back to Marxists and leftists. The first one, because it was related to the operation called Forough Javidan, was called a war crime, and the second one, because it was not related to the conflict, or should have been called a crime against humanity, which, since this title was not criminalized in Swedish law in 1988, could not be referred to be retroactive; Therefore, they used an article in the Swedish law that says "Crimes committed outside the territory of Sweden are dealt with according to Swedish law and by a Swedish court, if the crime is committed by any other foreigner and is present in Sweden, and that crime is according to According to Swedish law, the punishment is more than six months. Of course, this is also against international law, because firstly, it harms the equality of sovereignty between states, and secondly, it is a kind of development of global jurisdiction that has no legal basis, because global jurisdiction is only in severe international crimes, which cases are limited to torture, severe violations of the four conventions. Geneva, piracy and extermination or the cases provided for in international treaties. If a country like Sweden is supposed to act, any other country can arrest and prosecute any Swedish citizen, and then what will happen to the equality of governments and respect for the sovereignty of countries? The type of judicial treatment that has been carried out regarding this case has become very controversial. We had different news about the witnesses and the proceedings. What is your feedback in this regard and how are you going to address this issue? In Iran, there is a case of serious objections in terms of fair trial. Not only us, who are Mr. Nouri's advisers and lawyers, but any other lawyer who looks at the case and reads the preliminary ruling, will agree on this matter. The obvious fact of the matter is that everything is one-sided. This means that the testimonies, statements and even the prosecutor's bias are one-sided. While the prosecutor must be impartial. During the investigation, the prosecutor must gather evidence that is both incriminating and exculpatory, and not just seek to find evidence that is incriminating. Despite the fact that the Swedish prosecutor did not conduct an external investigation from Sweden, he only relied on witness statements and reports written by NGOs or witnesses as books or material mentioned in Wikipedia, and this is a serious flaw in this part of the investigation, which balance and The bilateral nature of the case has been questioned. Naturally, fair trial is one of the principles of trial, and if it is not observed, apart from formal objections that can be expressed in the court itself, this issue can also be addressed in international mechanisms such as the European Court of Human Rights. Do you have a plan in this regard? By the way, despite the fact that the Swedish court has accused and tried Mr. Noori for violating the standards of fair trial, it is interesting that the Swedish court itself committed a gross violation of the requirements of fair trial in this case. More precisely, Mr. Nouri is a victim of violation of fair proceedings. Naturally, we mentioned these to the Swedish authorities from the very beginning, and even Mr. Noori himself wanted to speak about this during the hearing, which was interesting, but the judge did not allow him to speak about it and said that these are issues that should be dealt with outside of here. and I will only deal with your accusations! During the trial, the standards of fair trial and the human rights of the accused and the arrested person were violated, but the court did not have a phone to listen to them at all, and threatened that if you want to continue, I will throw you and your lawyers out of the meeting and stop the meeting. We do not discuss these at the moment. There is also a type of inspection body in Sweden where we reported violations of fair trial. Of course, they said, because the case is currently ongoing, we cannot conduct an investigation and we have to wait until the case is finished. The next stage of this episode also me The appeal is to the European Court of Human Rights, which itself requires that domestic legal solutions have been passed, and for this reason, naturally, we have to wait for a final decision to be issued. We plan to raise these cases in the European Court of Human Rights. Give a few examples where you believe that a fair trial was not observed. As an introduction to this part, it is necessary to say that the Swedish prosecutor has accused Mr. Nouri of something that cannot be said to be a crime. What happened in one or two Iranian prisons in 1967 are trials that were conducted based on the procedural standards applicable at the time. In one case - I dare say - one case, the prosecutor did not provide evidence that a trial was conducted against the standards of the trial. They are just claims that some people made without providing any evidence. The first case is that in order to exercise universal jurisdiction and even based on that article of the Swedish Criminal Code, which considers intentional homicide regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator and the victim, and the place of the crime is subject to Swedish law, the presence of the accused in Sweden is mandatory. Therefore, as a rule, the accused must be present in the territory of that country in order to start the judicial processes, but it is interesting that when Mr. Nouri was still in Iran, the Swedish prosecutor issued his arrest warrant in absentia, which is also mentioned in the verdict. This is both a violation of fair trial and a violation of the application of the conditions of universal jurisdiction that exist in Swedish law. According to the explicit text of the Swedish law, the accused must be present in the territory of the Kingdom of Sweden. The second point is not doing research. In criminal law, we say that the principle is based on acquittal, and the prosecutor must bring evidence beyond any reasonable doubt and prove that the accusation is true and can be attributed to the individual, but the Swedish prosecutor is conducting an investigation in the territory of Iran or Iraq, where the hypocrites have been present for years. has not done That is, he did not go to Iraq to investigate the situation of this sect, which today can no longer be referred to as a political armed group or a political group, but has become a sect. In the case and vote, it is important to answer the question whether this group is really looking for democratic goals?! By the way, when we look, we cannot extract anything from it except a terrorist group. Also, the prosecutor cannot refer to the information published in Wikipedia about whether the military action known as the Forough Javidan operation is an armed conflict or not, but must be investigated in the field and territory of Iraq, which was a part of this operation, or in Iran, and Later, based on what was obtained from the field, he commented and had a legal description. The Swedish prosecutor has not done any of these things. The next point is that in similar cases, the Swedish prosecutor has entered into negotiations with the country that was a party to the story and has conducted investigations in the territory of that country. The cases of Rwanda and Yugoslavia are among the cases in which this has been done, but in the case of Mr. Nouri, the prosecutor did not investigate beyond what the witnesses and plaintiffs presented. It is interesting that the Swedish prosecutor referred to the reports of the hypocrites, and the authenticity of many of these claims was even questioned by the report of the US Department of State in 1994. Lack of comprehensive, independent and impartial investigation is itself a violation of fair trial. The next point is about something that the Swedes are very proud of, and that is that they say they held about 95 hearings in the case of Mr. Nouri, but I would say that in itself is a violation of fair trial, because if you Calculate the proceedings, something like 500 hours will be processed, but out of these 500 hours, I don't think that Mr. Noori, who is the defendant in the case, and his lawyers were given more than 20 hours of speaking time. Put this together with the physical condition of Mr. Nouri, a person who is about 61 years old, has been in solitary confinement for several months, has poor vision, but has never been allowed to see an ophthalmologist, and he is at least He did not have the conditions to see what was going on in the case at all. The next point in the discussion is choosing a lawyer. Here again, Swedes are always proud that we have independent lawyers, but two lawyers who were in the initial stage, I think one of them got a lawyer's license in 2015 and the other in 2017. In such a complicated case, they introduced the most inexperienced lawyers. Because Mr. Nouri, who could not introduce a lawyer himself, neither knew anyone nor knew Swedish, so he had left it to the court itself. It is interesting that in the appeals court, when the family of Mr. Nouri introduced a lawyer who had 25 years of experience as a lawyer in Sweden, they said that this lawyer had no experience, while those novice lawyers, I dare say, if we were not consultants, they would not have thought at all. It didn't make sense that they should bring up the discussions of international humanitarian law and international criminal law, because they had not really worked. Another point in the issue of violation of fair proceedings is the publicizing of Mr. Nouri's court. One of the things in Mr. Nouri's case is that the court was influenced by the media and hypocrites who gathered there. The hypocrites gathered in front of the court every day, and from the very first days, their demand was that Mr. Nouri should be sentenced to life imprisonment. In the end, it became what the hypocrites wanted from the beginning! Another form of popularization and the influence of the people on the court decision is a modern state in the form of NGOs and media. NGOs took the Swedish court and public opinion in a direction that is not legal. Also, especially Persian-language media such as BBC Farsi, Iran Internet Shenal, Manoto, Voice of America and others who were active in this case in those days, naturally had a bad effect on the mentality of the judges. Another reason for violating the principles of fair trial is the weakness in translation. When the hearings were translated orally, I myself, as someone who studied law, did not understand many things; That is, despite the fact that it was translated into Farsi, I did not understand the meaning of the sentence that the judge or the opposite lawyer said now. Well, naturally, it was more difficult for someone like Mr. Noori to understand it. When the preliminary verdict was issued, we had until August 4th to file an appeal, but while Mr. Nouri was the main subject of the verdict, he received the Persian text of the verdict on August 25th, that is, almost 21 days after the legal deadline for the appeal! This is another weakness in fair proceedings. They may argue that Mr. Nouri's lawyers would understand, but the fact is that Mr. Nouri's lawyers would not understand at all, because this case is not an ordinary case, to say that it is related to Swedish law or even international law, which Swedish lawyers lead. In the case, there are special concepts of Iranian criminal law and special concepts of jurisprudence, and there is also information about the political situation and political history of Iran, which by the way, Swedish lawyers did not understand at all, and Mr. Nouri himself understood these things better than them. For example, Moharebeh was translated with the literal title of war with God, while the juridical or legal meaning of Moharebeh is not this. The cases mentioned are some of the issues that show that there is no fair trial in the way that the Swedes claim. You said that in similar cases, the Swedish prosecutor has also conducted investigations in the country in question. Do you have an example that shows the double approach of the Swedish prosecutor? One of the cases is about the Zionist regime, which, if I am not mistaken, is related to 2002. A case is filed against an official of the Zionist regime, but the fact of the matter is that Sweden does not want to involve itself in a conflict with the Zionist regime, and on the other hand, because it does not want to declare this issue openly, it is therefore looking for a legal solution. to find Finally, he says, because we cannot conduct an independent investigation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the prosecutor stops the complaint here. In the case of Mr. Nouri, he could have put forward the same argument that we do not have a judicial assistance agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran, so from the legal point of view, it is not possible to conduct an investigation. But he didn't do this and he just based on the very contradictory and baseless things mentioned by Shakat and the witnesses. What is more interesting is that the court assumed all the statements of the witnesses and doubts and even did not add buts and ifs to them, except for some cases that were really contradictory; For example, regarding whether there was a relationship between the armed conflict and the Forough Javidan operation and what was in Iran's prisons, he did not investigate and assumed it very casually; While from the legal point of view, we are faced with a document that has no date, stamp or signature, and is even a copy and has no originality. In such cases, the logic of criminal law dictates that we interpret ambiguous cases in favor of the accused. You mentioned that many hypocrites were witnesses and suspects in the case, and the Swedish court itself somehow did not observe a fair trial. Does Mr. Nouri's family intend to file a counter-complaint against these people and the court itself? Regarding the performance of the court, it is only the European Court of Human Rights that Mr. Noori's family will probably file a complaint against the Swedish government in the European Court of Human Rights due to the violation of a fair trial, which is one of the subjects of the European Convention on Human Rights, but if a countersuit is filed against the hypocrites, for example, It requires some more legal discussion to determine who is suing in what capacity and against whom. There are international judicial mechanisms that governments can file complaints with; Is the Iranian government supposed to use these mechanisms? A part of your question refers to the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which I am not in a position to comment on. Regarding the part that relates to Mr. Nouri and his family, the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations has a provision in Article 36 that when the receiving government detains a citizen of the sending country, it must immediately inform the consulate of that country for consular protection. There is a double right here, which is both a sovereign right and an individual right. For this reason, perhaps like what happened in the Lagrand case between Germany and the United States, the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran can accept the case of its own citizen both in terms of consular protection, in terms of exercising his right and in terms of the right that the citizen has. One of the doubts raised by the anti-revolutionary media was that Mr. Nouri himself had resigned from the defense. I don't remember anything that Mr. Nouri objected to the defense, except where the sentence was in a protest mode. Suppose no one listened to him or he was not given a chance and Mr. Nouri said, I will not say anything more. Someone who is always in a solitary cell comes out for a few hours and talks to everyone, and Kelly is upset that the police treated him badly and harassed him; He still has pain in his ear due to the blow given to him by the Swedish police; He protests, but he is not allowed to defend himself. Many may say, is it possible for the police to beat someone in the Swedish detention center? Yes It really happened and we also complained about this matter, but because they did this very cleverly in a place where there was no camera, it was naturally difficult to prove it, but Mr. Noori's lawyers gave the report to the court at the same time. . Now it seems that the process of Mr. Nouri's case has changed compared to before. Do you confirm this? The germ of this case was closed with politics from the beginning, but it continued in legal form. At the appeal stage, we have some hope that it is legal and lawyers are present. In the preliminary stage, they were present in the jury, which were usually representatives of political parties and there was a risk of publicizing them. The current lawyer of Mr. Nouri, who is the former Minister of Justice of Sweden, is a positive opening that could help improve the case, of course, I must also mention that the new conditions that happened in the country can affect the process of the case.

Tuesday 2023/01/10 | 19:32:18

150

Everything is a one-sided court

Tell us about the latest status of Mr. Noori's case. Mr. Noori's case is in the appeal stage. The main lawyers are Swedish and we work with them as consultants. In the revision phase, we have done two things so far. We protested that the trial court made a mistake in applying universal jurisdiction in this case. We also wrote our arguments and objections to which the prosecutor responded and the court is supposed to decide on this part. If the appellate court recognizes our arguments as correct in this part, the case will basically end at this stage and will not enter the appeal stage. Of course, I think it is unlikely that this will happen, considering the decision issued by the Supreme Court of Sweden in a similar case in November in the Lundin company case, and it is likely that the appeals court will confirm the decision of the first court. The second step is about evidence. We have to see what reasons the prosecutor has and what reasons we have. Naturally, the prosecutor will present the same list of evidence from the preliminary stage and our lawyers will also present the list of evidence from the preliminary stage in addition to the new evidence that is supposed to be presented to the court. It has the advantage that there is almost no time limit and we can file a case any time we have a new reason. However, as a rule, from January 11, 2023, the court starts hearing the evidence of lawyers and prosecutors, and this issue continues until January 27. There is a very strong possibility that in September 2023, i.e. Shahrivar 1402, the substantive decision of the appeal will be issued, and the case will probably end before it reaches the Supreme Court. What is the main charge of Mr. Nouri? It has two charges. One is the violation of fair trial requirements as a war crime and the second is premeditated murder. The first one goes back to the hypocrites and the second one goes back to Marxists and leftists. The first one, because it was related to the operation called Forough Javidan, was called a war crime, and the second one, because it was not related to the conflict, or should have been called a crime against humanity, which, since this title was not criminalized in Swedish law in 1988, could not be referred to be retroactive; Therefore, they used an article in the Swedish law that says "Crimes committed outside the territory of Sweden are dealt with according to Swedish law and by a Swedish court, if the crime is committed by any other foreigner and is present in Sweden, and that crime is according to According to Swedish law, the punishment is more than six months. Of course, this is also against international law, because firstly, it harms the equality of sovereignty between states, and secondly, it is a kind of development of global jurisdiction that has no legal basis, because global jurisdiction is only in severe international crimes, which cases are limited to torture, severe violations of the four conventions. Geneva, piracy and extermination or the cases provided for in international treaties. If a country like Sweden is supposed to act, any other country can arrest and prosecute any Swedish citizen, and then what will happen to the equality of governments and respect for the sovereignty of countries? The type of judicial treatment that has been carried out regarding this case has become very controversial. We had different news about the witnesses and the proceedings. What is your feedback in this regard and how are you going to address this issue? In Iran, there is a case of serious objections in terms of fair trial. Not only us, who are Mr. Nouri's advisers and lawyers, but any other lawyer who looks at the case and reads the preliminary ruling, will agree on this matter. The obvious fact of the matter is that everything is one-sided. This means that the testimonies, statements and even the prosecutor's bias are one-sided. While the prosecutor must be impartial. During the investigation, the prosecutor must gather evidence that is both incriminating and exculpatory, and not just seek to find evidence that is incriminating. Despite the fact that the Swedish prosecutor did not conduct an external investigation from Sweden, he only relied on witness statements and reports written by NGOs or witnesses as books or material mentioned in Wikipedia, and this is a serious flaw in this part of the investigation, which balance and The bilateral nature of the case has been questioned. Naturally, fair trial is one of the principles of trial, and if it is not observed, apart from formal objections that can be expressed in the court itself, this issue can also be addressed in international mechanisms such as the European Court of Human Rights. Do you have a plan in this regard? By the way, despite the fact that the Swedish court has accused and tried Mr. Noori for violating the standards of fair trial, it is interesting that the Swedish court itself committed a gross violation of the requirements of fair trial in this case. More precisely, Mr. Nouri is a victim of violation of fair proceedings. Naturally, we mentioned these to the Swedish authorities from the very beginning, and even Mr. Noori himself wanted to speak about this during the hearing, which was interesting, but the judge did not allow him to speak about it and said that these are issues that should be dealt with outside of here. and I will only deal with your accusations! During the trial, the standards of fair trial and the human rights of the accused and the arrested person were violated, but the court did not have a phone to listen to them at all, and threatened that if you want to continue, I will throw you and your lawyers out of the meeting and stop the meeting. We do not discuss these at the moment. There is also a type of inspection body in Sweden where we reported violations of fair trial. Of course, they said, because the case is currently ongoing, we cannot conduct an investigation and we have to wait until the case is finished. The next stage of this episode also me The appeal is to the European Court of Human Rights, which itself requires that domestic legal solutions have been passed, and for this reason, naturally, we have to wait for a final decision to be issued. We plan to raise these cases in the European Court of Human Rights. Give a few examples where you believe that a fair trial was not observed. As an introduction to this part, it is necessary to say that the Swedish prosecutor has accused Mr. Nouri of something that cannot be said to be a crime. What happened in one or two Iranian prisons in 1967 are trials that were conducted based on the procedural standards applicable at the time. In one case - I dare say - one case, the prosecutor did not provide evidence that a trial was conducted against the standards of the trial. They are just claims that some people made without providing any evidence. The first case is that in order to exercise universal jurisdiction and even based on that article of the Swedish Criminal Code, which considers intentional homicide regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator and the victim, and the place of the crime is subject to Swedish law, the presence of the accused in Sweden is mandatory. Therefore, as a rule, the accused must be present in the territory of that country in order to start the judicial processes, but it is interesting that when Mr. Nouri was still in Iran, the Swedish prosecutor issued his arrest warrant in absentia, which is also mentioned in the verdict. This is both a violation of fair trial and a violation of the application of the conditions of universal jurisdiction that exist in Swedish law. According to the explicit text of the Swedish law, the accused must be present in the territory of the Kingdom of Sweden. The second point is not doing research. In criminal law, we say that the principle is based on acquittal, and the prosecutor must bring evidence beyond any reasonable doubt and prove that the accusation is true and can be attributed to the individual, but the Swedish prosecutor is conducting an investigation in the territory of Iran or Iraq, where the hypocrites have been present for years. has not done That is, he did not go to Iraq to investigate the situation of this sect, which today can no longer be referred to as a political armed group or a political group, but has become a sect. In the case and vote, it is important to answer the question whether this group is really looking for democratic goals?! By the way, when we look, we cannot extract anything from it except a terrorist group. Also, the prosecutor cannot refer to the information published in Wikipedia about whether the military action known as the Forough Javidan operation is an armed conflict or not, but must be investigated in the field and territory of Iraq, which was a part of this operation, or in Iran, and Later, based on what was obtained from the field, he commented and had a legal description. The Swedish prosecutor has not done any of these things. The next point is that in similar cases, the Swedish prosecutor has entered into negotiations with the country that was a party to the story and has conducted investigations in the territory of that country. The cases of Rwanda and Yugoslavia are among the cases in which this has been done, but in the case of Mr. Nouri, the prosecutor did not investigate beyond what the witnesses and plaintiffs presented. It is interesting that the Swedish prosecutor referred to the reports of the hypocrites, and the authenticity of many of these claims was even questioned by the report of the US Department of State in 1994. Lack of comprehensive, independent and impartial investigation is itself a violation of fair trial. The next point is about something that the Swedes are very proud of, and that is that they say they held about 95 hearings in the case of Mr. Nouri, but I would say that in itself is a violation of fair trial, because if you Calculate the proceedings, something like 500 hours will be processed, but out of these 500 hours, I don't think that Mr. Noori, who is the defendant in the case, and his lawyers were given more than 20 hours of speaking time. Put this together with the physical condition of Mr. Nouri, a person who is about 61 years old, has been in solitary confinement for several months, has poor vision, but has never been allowed to see an ophthalmologist, and he is at least He did not have the conditions to see what was going on in the case at all. The next point in the discussion is choosing a lawyer. Here again, Swedes are always proud that we have independent lawyers, but two lawyers who were in the initial stage, I think one of them got a lawyer's license in 2015 and the other in 2017. In such a complicated case, they introduced the most inexperienced lawyers. Because Mr. Nouri, who could not introduce a lawyer himself, neither knew anyone nor knew Swedish, so he had left it to the court itself. It is interesting that in the appeals court, when the family of Mr. Nouri introduced a lawyer who had 25 years of experience as a lawyer in Sweden, they said that this lawyer had no experience, while those novice lawyers, I dare say, if we were not consultants, they would not have thought at all. It didn't make sense that they should bring up the discussions of international humanitarian law and international criminal law, because they had not really worked. Another point in the issue of violation of fair proceedings is the publicizing of Mr. Nouri's court. One of the things in Mr. Nouri's case is that the court was influenced by the media and hypocrites who gathered there. The hypocrites gathered in front of the court every day, and from the very first days, their demand was that Mr. Nouri should be sentenced to life imprisonment. In the end, it became what the hypocrites wanted from the beginning! Another form of popularization and the influence of the people on the court decision is a modern state in the form of NGOs and media. NGOs took the Swedish court and public opinion in a direction that is not legal. Also, especially Persian-language media such as BBC Farsi, Iran Internet Shenal, Manoto, Voice of America and others who were active in this case in those days, naturally had a bad effect on the mentality of the judges. Another reason for violating the principles of fair trial is the weakness in translation. When the hearings were translated orally, I myself, as someone who studied law, did not understand many things; That is, despite the fact that it was translated into Farsi, I did not understand the meaning of the sentence that the judge or the opposite lawyer said now. Well, naturally, it was more difficult for someone like Mr. Noori to understand it. When the preliminary verdict was issued, we had until August 4th to file an appeal, but while Mr. Nouri was the main subject of the verdict, he received the Persian text of the verdict on August 25th, that is, almost 21 days after the legal deadline for the appeal! This is another weakness in fair proceedings. They may argue that Mr. Nouri's lawyers would understand, but the fact is that Mr. Nouri's lawyers would not understand at all, because this case is not an ordinary case, to say that it is related to Swedish law or even international law, which Swedish lawyers lead. In the case, there are special concepts of Iranian criminal law and special concepts of jurisprudence, and there is also information about the political situation and political history of Iran, which by the way, Swedish lawyers did not understand at all, and Mr. Nouri himself understood these things better than them. For example, Moharebeh was translated with the literal title of war with God, while the juridical or legal meaning of Moharebeh is not this. The cases mentioned are some of the issues that show that there is no fair trial in the way that the Swedes claim. You said that in similar cases, the Swedish prosecutor has also conducted investigations in the country in question. Do you have an example that shows the double approach of the Swedish prosecutor? One of the cases is about the Zionist regime, which, if I am not mistaken, is related to 2002. A case is filed against an official of the Zionist regime, but the fact of the matter is that Sweden does not want to involve itself in a conflict with the Zionist regime, and on the other hand, because it does not want to declare this issue openly, it is therefore looking for a legal solution. to find Finally, he says, because we cannot conduct an independent investigation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the prosecutor stops the complaint here. In the case of Mr. Nouri, he could have put forward the same argument that we do not have a judicial assistance agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran, so from the legal point of view, it is not possible to conduct an investigation. But he didn't do this and he just based on the very contradictory and baseless things mentioned by Shakat and the witnesses. What is more interesting is that the court assumed all the statements of the witnesses and doubts and even did not add buts and ifs to them, except for some cases that were really contradictory; For example, regarding whether there was a relationship between the armed conflict and the Forough Javidan operation and what was in Iran's prisons, he did not investigate and assumed it very casually; While from the legal point of view, we are faced with a document that has no date, stamp or signature, and is even a copy and has no originality. In such cases, the logic of criminal law dictates that we interpret ambiguous cases in favor of the accused. You mentioned that many hypocrites were witnesses and suspects in the case, and the Swedish court itself somehow did not observe a fair trial. Does Mr. Nouri's family intend to file a counter-complaint against these people and the court itself? Regarding the performance of the court, it is only the European Court of Human Rights that Mr. Noori's family will probably file a complaint against the Swedish government in the European Court of Human Rights due to the violation of a fair trial, which is one of the subjects of the European Convention on Human Rights, but if a countersuit is filed against the hypocrites, for example, It requires some more legal discussion to determine who is suing in what capacity and against whom. There are international judicial mechanisms that governments can file complaints with; Is the Iranian government supposed to use these mechanisms? A part of your question refers to the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which I am not in a position to comment on. Regarding the part that relates to Mr. Nouri and his family, the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations has a provision in Article 36 that when the receiving government detains a citizen of the sending country, it must immediately inform the consulate of that country for consular protection. There is a double right here, which is both a sovereign right and an individual right. For this reason, perhaps like what happened in the Lagrand case between Germany and the United States, the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran can accept the case of its own citizen both in terms of consular protection, in terms of exercising his right and in terms of the right that the citizen has. One of the doubts raised by the anti-revolutionary media was that Mr. Nouri himself had resigned from the defense. I don't remember anything that Mr. Nouri objected to the defense, except where the sentence was in a protest mode. Suppose no one listened to him or he was not given a chance and Mr. Nouri said, I will not say anything more. Someone who is always in a solitary cell comes out for a few hours and talks to everyone, and Kelly is upset that the police treated him badly and harassed him; He still has pain in his ear due to the blow given to him by the Swedish police; He protests, but he is not allowed to defend himself. Many may say, is it possible for the police to beat someone in the Swedish detention center? Yes It really happened and we also complained about this matter, but because they did this very cleverly in a place where there was no camera, it was naturally difficult to prove it, but Mr. Noori's lawyers gave the report to the court at the same time. . Now it seems that the process of Mr. Nouri's case has changed compared to before. Do you confirm this? The germ of this case was closed with politics from the beginning, but it continued in legal form. At the appeal stage, we have some hope that it is legal and lawyers are present. In the preliminary stage, they were present in the jury, which were usually representatives of political parties and there was a risk of publicizing them. The current lawyer of Mr. Nouri, who is the former Minister of Justice of Sweden, is a positive opening that could help improve the case, of course, I must also mention that the new conditions that happened in the country can affect the process of the case.

Tuesday 2023/01/10 | 19:32:18

150