A report of a legal and historic confrontation / What did Hamid Nouri's Swedish lawyers say in the appeals court in Stockholm?! / Interesting explanations about the events of 1967 in Iran

Mizan News Agency - According to the Media Center of the Judiciary - Hamid Nouri's Swedish lawyers made important legal and historical defenses of him during the revision stage of this long case and expressed some contradictions in the arguments of the Swedish prosecutor. These Swedish lawyers believe that the prosecutor did not go through the investigation phase of this case well and his evidence cannot be proven. They also believe that some important historical evidence has been ignored in this case. Hamid Nouri, on November 18, 2018, was illegally detained by the police of this country upon entering the airport of Stockholm, Sweden, and was kept in conditions similar to kidnapping for the first 8 months without any possibility of contact with his family or consular access. After about 8 months, Nouri made only one short phone call to his family and informed them that he was alive, and he was not allowed to meet his family in person until 25 months after his arrest. On July 23 of this year, after holding 92 court hearings, the Swedish judicial system issued a life sentence in a non-judicial and non-legal process for the arrested Iranian citizen Hamid Nouri. Is The Swedish Court of Appeals started reviewing the objection bills related to Hamid Nouri's case on January 11 (21st), and 7 sessions of the Court of Appeals have been held so far. Hamid Nouri's lawyers managed to present the first part of their defense in the sixth session of the Court of Appeal. In this report, an attempt has been made to review some of the most important points in the defense of Hamid Nouri's Swedish lawyers in the sixth session of the Court of Appeal, which contains important content because it is expressed by non-Iranian people: At the beginning of their defense, Hamid Nouri's lawyers stated that in this case, the Swedish prosecutor presented evidence to prove his claims, which is facing some serious problems. They then tried to address some of these issues. Providing case documents without investigation in Iran These Swedish lawyers further stated that the important point is that the prosecutor of the case did not have the opportunity to investigate the events of 33 years ago in Iran and the court accepted the arguments of the prosecutor simply because of repetition. The lawyers also pointed out that courts have been established in the international arena where the prosecutor has been able to document his investigation and present it as evidence in court by conducting investigations at the crime scene and observing and inspecting. Among these courts is the International Criminal Court of Rwanda. The lawyers continued that due to this important flaw in the investigation, it is not clear on what evidence Mr. Hamid Nouri was accused, and even though this judgment has several hundred pages of content, there is no serious evidence to prove Mr. Nouri's accusations. The hypocrites also waged an armed struggle against the government of Muhammad Reza Pahlavi Nouri's lawyers continued to explain the history of the terrorist nature of the Mojahedin Khalq group before the revolution and explained how the Mojahedin Khalq group was created and developed in Iran. They said: Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, as the last Shah of Iran, violated many people's rights in the last years of his rule, i.e. the years ending in 1970. In order to maintain power, the Shah of Iran used arrest and persecution to the death penalty for his political opponents, who often had Islamic ideology. In line with these great social injustices and systematic corruptions and dissatisfaction created among the people and national demonstrations, finally on January 16, 1979, the Shah left the country. The Mojahedin Khalq group was one of the left-wing political groups with a paramilitary structure, which at that time took armed action against the Pahlavi family. It did not take long after the Shah's escape that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini emerged as the new leader of Iran among the Shah's opponents, but he, who had been exiled to Paris, returned to Iran a week after the Shah's escape on February 1, 1979. At that time, Imam Khomeini formed a temporary government with the support and election of the people, and Iran became an Islamic Republic because Imam Khomeini believed that Iran should return to the principles of Islamic Sharia. But there were many political differences in Iran because there were other groups that wanted to take power, from the Kurdistan Democratic Party, which was also armed and launched a guerilla war against Iran in 1979, to the Marxist group of Komle, the Mujahideen group, and the People's Fedayeen Organization, all of which They were fighting with the Islamic Republic. The effective role of hypocrites in Iraq's war against Iran Hamid Nouri's lawyers continued their defense and pointed to the effective role of the People's Mujahideen in the Iran-Iraq war. They stated: The relations between different groups in Iranian society at that time were very complicated and they had different ideologies, which is normal, but what made it impossible to continue cooperation and interaction with the Mujahideen was that they wanted to participate in power, but They did not recognize the Islamic Republic. For this reason, Mujahideen played an effective role in Iraq's armed war against Iran. The hypocrites did not hand over their weapons Hamid Nouri's Swedish lawyers criticized Amnesty International's report called "Secrets Stained in Blood" in the continuation of their defense. These lawyers stated: Prosecutors cited Amnesty International's report called "Secrets Covered in Blood" and that in order to examine this report, we need to explain some things, including that the People's Mojahedin Organization was also an armed group after the revolution. Remained. On April 8, 1981, the Supreme Prosecutor of Iran, Ali Qudousi, announced that all political groups that used weapons before the revolution should hand over their weapons immediately, and warned that all these groups that did not act in this way would be declared illegal. We emphasize that these events coincided with the war between Iran and Iraq, and the People's Mojahedin Khalq organization avoided handing over its weapons. Declaration of armed war of the hypocrites against the Islamic Republic Hamid Nouri's lawyers investigated the beginning of the armed war between the Mujahideen and the Islamic Republic. These lawyers continued: In 1981, the Mujahideen announced that they would enter into an armed conflict with the regime, and since that date, the Mujahideen assassinated people who were in the service of the government. 74 people who served in the government, including the head of Iran's Supreme Court, Ayatollah Beheshti, 10 ministers and 20 parliament lawyers were assassinated by this group. After Massoud Rajavi, the leader of Mujahideen, was expelled from France in 1986, he moved his group to Iraq, while Iraq was officially at war with Iran. The evidence used by the prosecutor is from the books, articles, and researches of the members of the hypocrites, and the appeals court should not accept only one opinion. Hamid Nouri's lawyers further stated that the prosecutor used books, articles and researches written by interested people, not what is required from the judicial point of view. These lawyers continued: But it should be said that there are as many theories as there are researchers, that's why there are different theories, considering this issue, one research cannot be equated with evidence. Because there are as many writers and researchers who have opposite opinions to the evidence cited by the prosecutor, and for this reason, the appeals court should not simply accept only one opinion. Whether the Mujahideen were part of an international conflict or not depends on the government's control over that armed group. Of course, a terrorist organization or a guerilla organization has never come under the control of any other government and does not accept this issue. But the prosecutor states this issue as if the Mujahideen were not under the control of Iraq at all. The Swedish lawyers continued: This issue is not like the issue between Nicaragua and the United States, that the opposing government has only helped economically, but the control of the Iraqi government over this group is complete, and this organization has carried out military operations under the orders of this government. In fact, the hypocrites were part of the armed conflict against Iran. The Mujahideen were declared terrorists by the West for nearly a decade In the continuation of their defense, the lawyers pointed out an important point: It should be noted that some Western countries included the Mojahedin organization in their list of terrorist groups for nearly a decade. For example, this organization was declared a terrorist by the European Union in 2002, by the United States in 1997, by the United Kingdom in 2001, by Canada in 2005, and by Japan in 2002. They reconsidered their political relations with Iran in this decision. Declaring the end of the war and the continuation of the conflict and war by the Mujahideen Hamid Nouri's lawyers reminded the court about the announcement of the end of the Iran-Iraq war and its history. These lawyers stated: The Iran-Iraq war was ended by UN Resolution 598 and this was a rare action in the international community because it had never happened that a war was ended unanimously by the UN Security Council, so this It was a global news and certainly the Mujahideen knew about it. The war parties agreed to the terms of the resolution and exchanged prisoners, but the interesting thing was that the People's Mojahedin Organization or the National Liberation Army did not accept the peace agreement because they were pursuing other goals. In this regard, this organization carried out various military operations in West and West Islamabad and Kermanshah. Operation Forough Javidan was not part of the Iran-Iraq war In the continuation of their defense, Nouri's lawyers stated: Operation Forough Javidan was not part of the Iran-Iraq war and the Iraqi army did not participate in this operation. The court must determine whether this operation is a civil war or an international armed action and based on that, evidence to prove the claim must be provided. Forough Javidan operation failed due to the lack of cooperation of the people with the hypocrites Nouri's lawyers went on to explain the Mojahedin's intention to carry out Forough Javidan operation. They said: The Mojahedin organization's primary goal in Forough Javidan operation was to create a revolutionary state in Iran to overthrow the Islamic Republic. and for this purpose they need the people to stand behind this military army, but the people did not do this. As a rule, the Iraqi government also has goals in mind from the war with Iran and sees its success in changing the regime in Iran, and the Forough Javidan operation after the approval of the Rozeneh resolution was a hope for Iraq to achieve this goal, which was not supported by the people due to the lack of support for the Mujahideen. This operation failed. The Forough Javidan operation was a terrorist operation whose purpose was to create terror for the supporters of the regime so that the Islamic Republic would be overthrown with the terror created and the People's Mujahideen group would take power. Criminal laws are not retroactive Hamid Nouri's lawyers continued their defense by stating some international laws. They stated: According to international human rights custom, in a non-international armed conflict in 1988, how can one be blamed and held responsible for him, while there were no pre-written provisions at that time. If the international custom provisions that were established in the 90s are considered retroactive, how can we use them in this case, and if used, it will definitely be in conflict with the principle of non-retroactivity. The prisoners who were executed in Iranian prisons were citizens of Iran and had been tried, imprisoned and sentenced to death for committing crimes in Iran, and it is in this way that Nouri cannot be held responsible in these matters according to Article 6 of the Criminal Laws of Chapter 22. . Execution is carried out in many countries such as China, Thailand, Japan, Egypt and Iraq, and 53 of the 93 member countries of the United Nations have the death penalty in their punishments. In America, the death penalty is actually included in the law, so that since 1970, more than 1,600 people have been executed. The claim of issuing a fatwa for the execution of Mujahideen is baseless Hamid Nouri's lawyers went on to state that the evidence proving the claim based on Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa for the execution of the Mujahideen was baseless. They said: In the proof of the lawsuit, the fatwa of Ayatollah Khomeini, who was the authority at that time, was cited, stating that he ordered that any person who is a supporter of the Mujahideen should be executed. It should be said that Ayatollah Khomeini did not issue a fatwa in this regard. Because the truth of the fatwa is that if the Shia authority issues a fatwa, everyone will be aware of it and it will be obligatory for everyone to do that, like the fatwa that was issued to Salman Rushdie. Therefore, the fatwa is not confidential, and so far no document has been submitted to the court regarding the issuance of this fatwa. It is also claimed that a three-person committee was formed in this regard, but the name of the prison guard was not mentioned because Hamid Nouri was a prison guard at that time. This alleged fatwa was only mentioned by Hossein Ali Montazeri in his memoirs 12 years after the fatwa was issued, without a single person in Iran or any other country talking about it, even though Ayatollah Khomeini at that time It was the leaders who were in the center of attention, and the Iran-Iraq war had intensified this attention. Ayatollah Montazeri had serious differences of opinion with Ayatollah Khomeini, and therefore such a person benefits from announcing that Ayatollah Khomeini issued such a fatwa, and his statements cannot be cited. These lawyers continued: This court cites Montazeri's book of memoirs, while Montazeri was trying to create political changes for his own benefit by expressing these memoirs, and he used this fatwa as a political tool. The interesting point is that this person knew and hid this issue and mentioned it later in his memoirs. If the court is going to cite this book, it should also cite 9 pages after stating this memory, that the author wrote something that 100% disproves this claim. Ayatollah Montazeri states in this book, "Whether or not this letter (fatwa) was written by Ayatollah Khomeini himself is still unclear to me..." There is no historical document about issuing a fatwa Hamid Nouri's lawyers further said: If the question arises as to whether this fatwa was due to the Forough Javidan operation or not, then more attention should be paid to the events of those years because there is no accurate information on this matter and even Ayatollah Montazeri He could not announce an exact date and only based on a personal conclusion, he suggested that this letter could have been issued on July 28, 1988, i.e. after the Forough Javidan operation. It must be said that a wrong and strange conclusion has happened. Mujahideen do not believe in Islam and declare war according to their custom. Mujahideen spied for Iraq and carried out operations in the western, northern and southern parts of the country in cooperation with Iraqi parties. From the first day of the establishment of the Islamic Republic, they questioned it and fought against it.

Tuesday 2023/01/31 | 16:41:37

150

A report of a legal and historic confrontation / What did Hamid Nouri's Swedish lawyers say in the appeals court in Stockholm?! / Interesting explanations about the events of 1967 in Iran

Mizan News Agency - According to the Media Center of the Judiciary - Hamid Nouri's Swedish lawyers made important legal and historical defenses of him during the revision stage of this long case and expressed some contradictions in the arguments of the Swedish prosecutor. These Swedish lawyers believe that the prosecutor did not go through the investigation phase of this case well and his evidence cannot be proven. They also believe that some important historical evidence has been ignored in this case. Hamid Nouri, on November 18, 2018, was illegally detained by the police of this country upon entering the airport of Stockholm, Sweden, and was kept in conditions similar to kidnapping for the first 8 months without any possibility of contact with his family or consular access. After about 8 months, Nouri made only one short phone call to his family and informed them that he was alive, and he was not allowed to meet his family in person until 25 months after his arrest. On July 23 of this year, after holding 92 court hearings, the Swedish judicial system issued a life sentence in a non-judicial and non-legal process for the arrested Iranian citizen Hamid Nouri. Is The Swedish Court of Appeals started reviewing the objection bills related to Hamid Nouri's case on January 11 (21st), and 7 sessions of the Court of Appeals have been held so far. Hamid Nouri's lawyers managed to present the first part of their defense in the sixth session of the Court of Appeal. In this report, an attempt has been made to review some of the most important points in the defense of Hamid Nouri's Swedish lawyers in the sixth session of the Court of Appeal, which contains important content because it is expressed by non-Iranian people: At the beginning of their defense, Hamid Nouri's lawyers stated that in this case, the Swedish prosecutor presented evidence to prove his claims, which is facing some serious problems. They then tried to address some of these issues. Providing case documents without investigation in Iran These Swedish lawyers further stated that the important point is that the prosecutor of the case did not have the opportunity to investigate the events of 33 years ago in Iran and the court accepted the arguments of the prosecutor simply because of repetition. The lawyers also pointed out that courts have been established in the international arena where the prosecutor has been able to document his investigation and present it as evidence in court by conducting investigations at the crime scene and observing and inspecting. Among these courts is the International Criminal Court of Rwanda. The lawyers continued that due to this important flaw in the investigation, it is not clear on what evidence Mr. Hamid Nouri was accused, and even though this judgment has several hundred pages of content, there is no serious evidence to prove Mr. Nouri's accusations. The hypocrites also waged an armed struggle against the government of Muhammad Reza Pahlavi Nouri's lawyers continued to explain the history of the terrorist nature of the Mojahedin Khalq group before the revolution and explained how the Mojahedin Khalq group was created and developed in Iran. They said: Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, as the last Shah of Iran, violated many people's rights in the last years of his rule, i.e. the years ending in 1970. In order to maintain power, the Shah of Iran used arrest and persecution to the death penalty for his political opponents, who often had Islamic ideology. In line with these great social injustices and systematic corruptions and dissatisfaction created among the people and national demonstrations, finally on January 16, 1979, the Shah left the country. The Mojahedin Khalq group was one of the left-wing political groups with a paramilitary structure, which at that time took armed action against the Pahlavi family. It did not take long after the Shah's escape that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini emerged as the new leader of Iran among the Shah's opponents, but he, who had been exiled to Paris, returned to Iran a week after the Shah's escape on February 1, 1979. At that time, Imam Khomeini formed a temporary government with the support and election of the people, and Iran became an Islamic Republic because Imam Khomeini believed that Iran should return to the principles of Islamic Sharia. But there were many political differences in Iran because there were other groups that wanted to take power, from the Kurdistan Democratic Party, which was also armed and launched a guerilla war against Iran in 1979, to the Marxist group of Komle, the Mujahideen group, and the People's Fedayeen Organization, all of which They were fighting with the Islamic Republic. The effective role of hypocrites in Iraq's war against Iran Hamid Nouri's lawyers continued their defense and pointed to the effective role of the People's Mujahideen in the Iran-Iraq war. They stated: The relations between different groups in Iranian society at that time were very complicated and they had different ideologies, which is normal, but what made it impossible to continue cooperation and interaction with the Mujahideen was that they wanted to participate in power, but They did not recognize the Islamic Republic. For this reason, Mujahideen played an effective role in Iraq's armed war against Iran. The hypocrites did not hand over their weapons Hamid Nouri's Swedish lawyers criticized Amnesty International's report called "Secrets Stained in Blood" in the continuation of their defense. These lawyers stated: Prosecutors cited Amnesty International's report called "Secrets Covered in Blood" and that in order to examine this report, we need to explain some things, including that the People's Mojahedin Organization was also an armed group after the revolution. Remained. On April 8, 1981, the Supreme Prosecutor of Iran, Ali Qudousi, announced that all political groups that used weapons before the revolution should hand over their weapons immediately, and warned that all these groups that did not act in this way would be declared illegal. We emphasize that these events coincided with the war between Iran and Iraq, and the People's Mojahedin Khalq organization avoided handing over its weapons. Declaration of armed war of the hypocrites against the Islamic Republic Hamid Nouri's lawyers investigated the beginning of the armed war between the Mujahideen and the Islamic Republic. These lawyers continued: In 1981, the Mujahideen announced that they would enter into an armed conflict with the regime, and since that date, the Mujahideen assassinated people who were in the service of the government. 74 people who served in the government, including the head of Iran's Supreme Court, Ayatollah Beheshti, 10 ministers and 20 parliament lawyers were assassinated by this group. After Massoud Rajavi, the leader of Mujahideen, was expelled from France in 1986, he moved his group to Iraq, while Iraq was officially at war with Iran. The evidence used by the prosecutor is from the books, articles, and researches of the members of the hypocrites, and the appeals court should not accept only one opinion. Hamid Nouri's lawyers further stated that the prosecutor used books, articles and researches written by interested people, not what is required from the judicial point of view. These lawyers continued: But it should be said that there are as many theories as there are researchers, that's why there are different theories, considering this issue, one research cannot be equated with evidence. Because there are as many writers and researchers who have opposite opinions to the evidence cited by the prosecutor, and for this reason, the appeals court should not simply accept only one opinion. Whether the Mujahideen were part of an international conflict or not depends on the government's control over that armed group. Of course, a terrorist organization or a guerilla organization has never come under the control of any other government and does not accept this issue. But the prosecutor states this issue as if the Mujahideen were not under the control of Iraq at all. The Swedish lawyers continued: This issue is not like the issue between Nicaragua and the United States, that the opposing government has only helped economically, but the control of the Iraqi government over this group is complete, and this organization has carried out military operations under the orders of this government. In fact, the hypocrites were part of the armed conflict against Iran. The Mujahideen were declared terrorists by the West for nearly a decade In the continuation of their defense, the lawyers pointed out an important point: It should be noted that some Western countries included the Mojahedin organization in their list of terrorist groups for nearly a decade. For example, this organization was declared a terrorist by the European Union in 2002, by the United States in 1997, by the United Kingdom in 2001, by Canada in 2005, and by Japan in 2002. They reconsidered their political relations with Iran in this decision. Declaring the end of the war and the continuation of the conflict and war by the Mujahideen Hamid Nouri's lawyers reminded the court about the announcement of the end of the Iran-Iraq war and its history. These lawyers stated: The Iran-Iraq war was ended by UN Resolution 598 and this was a rare action in the international community because it had never happened that a war was ended unanimously by the UN Security Council, so this It was a global news and certainly the Mujahideen knew about it. The war parties agreed to the terms of the resolution and exchanged prisoners, but the interesting thing was that the People's Mojahedin Organization or the National Liberation Army did not accept the peace agreement because they were pursuing other goals. In this regard, this organization carried out various military operations in West and West Islamabad and Kermanshah. Operation Forough Javidan was not part of the Iran-Iraq war In the continuation of their defense, Nouri's lawyers stated: Operation Forough Javidan was not part of the Iran-Iraq war and the Iraqi army did not participate in this operation. The court must determine whether this operation is a civil war or an international armed action and based on that, evidence to prove the claim must be provided. Forough Javidan operation failed due to the lack of cooperation of the people with the hypocrites Nouri's lawyers went on to explain the Mojahedin's intention to carry out Forough Javidan operation. They said: The Mojahedin organization's primary goal in Forough Javidan operation was to create a revolutionary state in Iran to overthrow the Islamic Republic. and for this purpose they need the people to stand behind this military army, but the people did not do this. As a rule, the Iraqi government also has goals in mind from the war with Iran and sees its success in changing the regime in Iran, and the Forough Javidan operation after the approval of the Rozeneh resolution was a hope for Iraq to achieve this goal, which was not supported by the people due to the lack of support for the Mujahideen. This operation failed. The Forough Javidan operation was a terrorist operation whose purpose was to create terror for the supporters of the regime so that the Islamic Republic would be overthrown with the terror created and the People's Mujahideen group would take power. Criminal laws are not retroactive Hamid Nouri's lawyers continued their defense by stating some international laws. They stated: According to international human rights custom, in a non-international armed conflict in 1988, how can one be blamed and held responsible for him, while there were no pre-written provisions at that time. If the international custom provisions that were established in the 90s are considered retroactive, how can we use them in this case, and if used, it will definitely be in conflict with the principle of non-retroactivity. The prisoners who were executed in Iranian prisons were citizens of Iran and had been tried, imprisoned and sentenced to death for committing crimes in Iran, and it is in this way that Nouri cannot be held responsible in these matters according to Article 6 of the Criminal Laws of Chapter 22. . Execution is carried out in many countries such as China, Thailand, Japan, Egypt and Iraq, and 53 of the 93 member countries of the United Nations have the death penalty in their punishments. In America, the death penalty is actually included in the law, so that since 1970, more than 1,600 people have been executed. The claim of issuing a fatwa for the execution of Mujahideen is baseless Hamid Nouri's lawyers went on to state that the evidence proving the claim based on Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa for the execution of the Mujahideen was baseless. They said: In the proof of the lawsuit, the fatwa of Ayatollah Khomeini, who was the authority at that time, was cited, stating that he ordered that any person who is a supporter of the Mujahideen should be executed. It should be said that Ayatollah Khomeini did not issue a fatwa in this regard. Because the truth of the fatwa is that if the Shia authority issues a fatwa, everyone will be aware of it and it will be obligatory for everyone to do that, like the fatwa that was issued to Salman Rushdie. Therefore, the fatwa is not confidential, and so far no document has been submitted to the court regarding the issuance of this fatwa. It is also claimed that a three-person committee was formed in this regard, but the name of the prison guard was not mentioned because Hamid Nouri was a prison guard at that time. This alleged fatwa was only mentioned by Hossein Ali Montazeri in his memoirs 12 years after the fatwa was issued, without a single person in Iran or any other country talking about it, even though Ayatollah Khomeini at that time It was the leaders who were in the center of attention, and the Iran-Iraq war had intensified this attention. Ayatollah Montazeri had serious differences of opinion with Ayatollah Khomeini, and therefore such a person benefits from announcing that Ayatollah Khomeini issued such a fatwa, and his statements cannot be cited. These lawyers continued: This court cites Montazeri's book of memoirs, while Montazeri was trying to create political changes for his own benefit by expressing these memoirs, and he used this fatwa as a political tool. The interesting point is that this person knew and hid this issue and mentioned it later in his memoirs. If the court is going to cite this book, it should also cite 9 pages after stating this memory, that the author wrote something that 100% disproves this claim. Ayatollah Montazeri states in this book, "Whether or not this letter (fatwa) was written by Ayatollah Khomeini himself is still unclear to me..." There is no historical document about issuing a fatwa Hamid Nouri's lawyers further said: If the question arises as to whether this fatwa was due to the Forough Javidan operation or not, then more attention should be paid to the events of those years because there is no accurate information on this matter and even Ayatollah Montazeri He could not announce an exact date and only based on a personal conclusion, he suggested that this letter could have been issued on July 28, 1988, i.e. after the Forough Javidan operation. It must be said that a wrong and strange conclusion has happened. Mujahideen do not believe in Islam and declare war according to their custom. Mujahideen spied for Iraq and carried out operations in the western, northern and southern parts of the country in cooperation with Iraqi parties. From the first day of the establishment of the Islamic Republic, they questioned it and fought against it.

Tuesday 2023/01/31 | 16:41:37

150