[PROVISIONAL TRANSLATION FROM PERSIAN]

 

[Translator’s notes appear in square brackets]

[Personal information has been redacted.]

 

In the Name of God

Honourable Head of the Court of Appeal in the Province of Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad

 

Greetings! Respectfully, an appeal concerning case number 101K900284, reviewed by Branch 101 of the Public Criminal Court in the Dena City, which resulted in the issuance of the court order number 9009977422400432, dated 22 Mordad 1390 [13 August 2011], is hereby submitted within the legal time frame.

In its ruling, what the respected preliminary court relied on was the contract drafted by the Execution of Iman Khomeini’s Order (EIKO)[1] (PBUH) presented by the appellee, by which the contested land has been assigned to him. It must be noted however, that, to prove its claim of ownership, the Imam’s Army [Staff] merely relied on court order number 1658, dated 29 Farvardin 1373 [18 April 1994], issued by Branch 1 of the Islamic Revolutionary Court of Shiraz, pertaining to the confiscation of properties owned by the Baha’is in the village of Kata, in Yasuj. It must be further noted, however, that the above referenced court order was subsequently reversed through court order number 1013, dated 14 Mehr 1387 [5 October 2008], issued by Branch 21 of the Court of Appeal in the Province of Tehran, on the grounds of Article 29 of the By-laws pertaining to cases subject to Article 49 of the Constitution, ratified 28 Mehr 1380 [20 October 2001]. Accordingly, confiscation of the properties belonging to the Baha’is of Kata is presently null and void, and the Execution of Iman Khomeini’s Order (EIKO) does not have ownership of the land; hence, it cannot legally assign the said properties to others. Therefore, while the unlawful occupation [of the lands] by the complainant must be clear and documented, unfortunately, the complainant and the Execution of Iman Khomeini’s Order (EIKO) chose not to disclose all the previous verdicts in respect to the contested lands, and thus attempted to establish the rightful ownership of the lands to the preliminary court, irrespective of the fact that the verdict was subsequently reversed and nullified through court order number 1658.

In light of my rightful ownership, the history of occupation and ownership of the land, and the dismissal of the claim of ownership by the Execution of Iman Khomeini’s Order (EIKO), the complainant’s claim is groundless and unsubstantiated. I therefore ask that my appeal be granted and the verdict in favour of the complainant be reversed.

[Signature] Parviz Rastin

 

 

[1] [Division in Charge of Implementing the Imam’s Decree]