Political Judges and Unfair Trials: the Widespread Infiltration of Intelligence Operations Into Judicial System

Acting as court officers, Iranian Police, Ministry of Information, and the Intelligence Unit of IRGC have always interfered to varying degrees in the Iranian Judiciary’s different activities such as arrests, interrogations, and trials, and have been known to harass prisoner families. But after the presidential elections last year, the interference has entered a new level. In many arrest cases after the elections, though the case judge has ordered bail or has given he prisoner families permission to visit with the prisoner,court officers have refused to carry out the orders and complaints filed by families have not been addressed.

While Iranian Judiciary’s Prisons Organization has full responsibility for Iran’s prisons and the way the prisoners are kept, the court officers seem to have the last word in prisons. For example, Ward 240 at Evin Prison is under complete control of Ministry of Information and the Chief Warden of Evin Prison does not have much influence there. The same is true for wards which are under the control of IRGC. The domination and interference of court officers in the Iranian judicial system has faced fair trials with serious danger.

In September 2009, when Jafari Dolatabadi replaced Saeed Mortazavi as Tehran’s General and Revolutionary Courts Prosecutor, he made a reference to this subject and demanded the Prosecutor’s oversight on court officers’ work. However, after he took office, not only court officers and particularly IRGC, Police Intelligence Unit, and Minisitry of Information court officers continued their activities, they increased their interference and control on judicial cases. In his introduction ceremony, Dolatabadi said: “The Prosecutor’s oversight on court officers and those attending investigation sessions is a serious thing to me. If some people expect me to determine my moves based on their orders, I will not oblige.” He also said: “We will strongly confront court officers who dictate whom to arrest, release, or convict, and I won’t stand for this.” Jafari Dolatabadi who was previously Khouzestan Prosecutor, said that he is responsible for detentions and releases. “Court officers and interrogators must carry out their duties within legal frameworks and policies and under full supervision of the Prosecutor, and I accept the responsibility for releases and detentions and judicial orders, because I have to be accountable.”

Even so, families of several prisoners told International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran that court officers have violated laws, acting beyond their duties during arrests, visitations, and in carrying out bail orders issued by judges. In at least five cases, while prisoners were authorized by judge’s orders to have in-person visitations, “case analysts,” or interrogators, refused to allow in-person visitations. In other cases, it has been observed that though bail amounts have been set, court officers refuse to release the suspects. In many cases, prisoners’ listed personal belongings are not returned to them according to the list and their personal computers with all their files including their unpublished articles, family photographs, etc. have been erased and families know that their objections would not be heard. Interrogation methods are also outside the supervision of the judicial system and behind closed doors of prison cells, court officers can do whatever they wish with suspects, and particularly political suspects.

In an interview with ILNA News Agency, former Minister of Information during Khatami era, Ali Younesi has expressed his concern about this issue. Younesi who is currently an adviser to Iran’s Head of Judiciary, has said: “Court officers are not allowed to interfere in the judicial process and must only present their reports and acceptance or refusal of the report is upon the judge.” Ali Younesi’s statements come at a time when there is growing concern about security and intelligence organizations’ interference in their capacity as court officers. In many cases, judges act in a fashion entirely coordinated with the wishes of information organizations. It is a bitter truth that Iranian Judiciary has fallen victim to political and non-judicial decisions. Prolonged “temporary detentions,” mistreatment of prisoners, lack of attention to health conditions of prisoners who need serious medical care, willful actions with respect to visitation privileges and releases, and contacting prisoner families as a means to apply pressure on prisoners and their families to keep them from talking about political cases, are only some of the instances of widely used practices of court officers.

Regarding the interference of court officers in the Judiciary’s affairs, Younesi said: “A court officer’s job is to carry out orders from the Judiciary, therefore a court officer is not permitted to interfere in judicial affairs and must only present his report and the judge is entitled to take the report under advisement or not.” Referring to facts which have practically departed from the Iranian Judiciary for a long time, he added: “By virtue of its independence, The Judiciary must not allow infiltration into the court officer system, whether from the police or security organizations. When I was at the Ministry of Information, I controlled this seriously and would never allow security officers to interfere in a judge’s work; I developed guidelines about this and personally oversaw their implementation.”

He provided an example, indicative of the interference by court officers in the judicial process, a subject which is highly visible now. “I told the judicial authorities at the time that if security officers attempted to interfere in a case, they were to inform me immediately. If they reported that a security officer was following up on a case from this branch to that, I confronted that officer and issued him a warning reminding him that since the case has been delivered to the judicial authorities, it is no longer a concern of Ministry of Information what the judge’s ruling would be.”

The power and authorities of court officers are now important factors in the deteriorating condition of processes leading to a fair trial and implementation of the law, due to the increased power of intelligence and police forces post-elections. Show trials, extraction of forced confessions as evidence to convict political prisoners against whom there is no crime evidence, sentences which are disproportionate with the crimes, and outrageous bail amounts for political prisoners are all results of the influence of court officers and their complete infiltration of the judicial system. Though authorities such as Mr. Younesi or Jafari Dolatabadi have expressed the importance of the Judiciary’s independence from intelligence operations, the concept has unfortunately never been implemented.