[PROVISIONAL TRANSLATION FROM PERSIAN]

 

[Translator’s notes appear in square brackets]

[Personal information has been redacted.]

 

[Emblem]

Judiciary of Fars Province

“Do not follow (your) base desires, lest you deviate”

Branch 17 of the Court of Appeal in the Province of Fars

 

Court Order

Court Order Number: 9909977121100770

Date of Issuance: 25 Tir 1399 [15 July 2020]

File Number: 9709987117001121

Branch Archival Reference: 9900351

 

In the Name of God

Case Reference: 17T9900351

File Number: 9909977121100770

Date of Review: 22 Tir 1399 [12 July 2020]

Administrative Court: Branch 17 of the Court of Appeal in the Province of Fars

 

Judicial Board: Messrs. Jamshid Kashkouli, head; and Fardin Fathi, court advisor

Appellants:

1. Navid Bazmandegan Yazdi, son of Ghodratollah, represented by Mr. Masoud Ahmadian, Tehran [address] and Mrs. Negin Hoseinpour, Shiraz [address]

2. Bahareh Ghaderi Yazdi, daughter of Bahman, represented by Mrs. Negin Hosseinpour, Shiraz [address] and Mr. Mahmoud Taravatruy, Shiraz [address]

3. Soudabeh Haghighat, daughter of Shahrokh, represented by Mr. Mohammad Hadi Erfanian, Tehran [address] and Mr. Mahmoud Taravatroy, Shiraz [address]

4. Niloufar Hakimi, daughter of Shamim, represented by Mr. Mohammad Hadi Erfanian, Tehran [address]

5. Noura Pour-Moradian, daughter of Saied, represented by Messrs. Mohammad Hadi Erfanian, Tehran [address] and Mahmoud Taravatroy, Shiraz [address]

6. Elaheh Samizadeh, daughter of Tarazollah, represented by Mr. Mohammad Hadi Erfanian, Tehran [address] and Mrs. Maryam Azadehnamin Shiraz [address]

7. Ehsanollah Mahboub Rah Vafa, son of Jamaloddin, represented by Mrs. Negin Hosseinpour, Shiraz [address]

Respondent: Against court order number 9909977118100294, issued by Branch 1 of the Revolutionary Court of Shiraz

 

Procedural synopsis: On the above-mentioned date, an extraordinary session of Branch 17 of the Court of Appeal in the Province of Fars, presided over by the undersigned, is convened and the above referenced case is under review. Subsequent to reviewing the file records, the court concludes the hearing, and, in reliance on the Almighty and its own conscience and honour, renders a decision as follows.

Court Decision

This concerns the appeal of [1.] Navid Bazmandegan Yazdi, son of Ghodratollah, represented by Mrs. Narges [Negin] Hosseinpour and Mr. Masoud Ahmadian; 2. Bahareh Ghaderi Yazdi, daughter of Bahman, represented by Mrs. Negin Hosseinpour and Mr. Mahmoud Taravatroy; 3. Soudabeh Haghighat, daughter of Shahrokh, represented by Messrs. Mohammad Hadi Erfanian and Mahmoud Taravatroy; 4. Niloufar Hakimi, daughter of Shamim, represented by Mr. Mohammad Hadi Erfanian; 5. Noura Pour-Moradian, daughter of Saied, represented by Messrs. Mahmoud Taravatroy and Mohammad Hadi Erfanian; 6. Elaheh Samizadeh, daughter of Tarazollah, represented by Mr. Mohammad Hadi Erfanian, and [Mrs.] Maryam Azadehnamin; 7. Ehsanollah Mahboub Rah Vafa, son of Jamaloddin, represented by Mrs. Negin Hosseinpour, against court order number 9909977118100294, dated 23 Ordibehesht 1399 [12 May 2020], issued by Branch 1 of the Islamic Revolutionary Court of Shiraz, whereby the appellants listed under numbers one to six, inclusive, were each sentenced to five years’ imprisonment under ta‘zir law[1] for membership in groups in opposition to the regime with intent to disturb national security, and each to one year of imprisonment under ta‘zir law for propaganda activities against the regime (all perverse books and publications have been destroyed); the appellant number seven was sentenced to one year of imprisonment under ta‘zir law for propaganda activities against the regime, and, in addition, Niloufar Hakimi was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment under ta‘zir law for uttering insult to the supreme leader. The highest level of punishment being stressed in regard to appellants one to six, inclusive. The appeal has been submitted within the allotted legal time.

In reviewing this case: the content of their statements of appeal; the manner in which they have made their statements; their defence during the initial procedures and in this court; the content of their statements of appeals and defence put forth by their lawyers; and in some instances the way they were arrested; the content of the report from the Sepah-i-Fajr Intelligence in Fars and evidence [against] the appellants gathered by the Sepah-i-Fajr Intelligence Bureau in Fars (concerning the nature of the activities and criminal actions of the appellants), in 14 boxes, each box containing many volumes; as well as the content of the writ of prosecution and indictment issued by the Public and Revolutionary Prosecutor’s Office of Shiraz and other documents in the file, all reveal the connection of the appellants with dissidents and the perverse Baha’i sect’s organization within the country and abroad, and in some cases trips to India and participation in training programmes in the [Ma]shriq’ul-Adhkar [House of Worship], infiltration in children’s educational centres and consultative centres for Muslims in Shiraz and providing training to them without revealing their sectarian identity, and also their active presence on Telegram channels as well as other websites under the supervision of Baha’i organization and dissidents of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and their penetration in environmental organizations, all towards the execution of the goals of the House of Justice, with intent to attract Muslims to the perverse Baha’i sect, and in some cases connection with news networks abroad, such as Manoto, BBC [Persian], Baha’i [World] News Service, Facebook, and dissident news services associated with the Taslimi Foundation, with intent to incite people against the Islamic regime and engage in propaganda activities against the regime.

From the perspective of the judicial board, the appealed court order has been issued in accordance with legal standards, and the appellants have not produced any substantive evidence or reasoning to taint it. As such, pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Article 455 of the Criminal Code of Procedure, ratified in 1392 [2013], while the court dismisses the appeal of the appellants, pursuant to Article 457 of the said Code, and with respect to the Note of Article 2 and Paragraph ‘b’ of Article 12 of the amended Islamic Penal Code, ratified 1399 [2020], the sentence to one year of imprisonment under ta‘zir law for Ehsanollah Mahboub Rah Vafa is commuted to three months’ imprisonment under ta‘zir law, and, pursuant to the Note of Article 37 of the amended law of the said Code, a 10,000,000 rial monetary fine to the benefit of the government fund. The five-year imprisonment under ta‘zir law for appellants numbers one to six, inclusive, are each changed to two years and one month and 16 days’ imprisonment under ta‘zir law, and the one-year imprisonment for each of the appellants numbers one to six, inclusive, is commuted to seven months and 16 days’ imprisonment under ta‘zir law. Moreover, regarding the sentence of two years’ imprisonment for Niloufar Hakimi for insult to the supreme leader, this court has no jurisdiction, given that the lowest level of punishment stipulated by law has been determined. While endorsing the enforcement of the highest penalty for the accused numbers one to six, and with calculating their pre-trial days in custody, the original court order, after the implementation of these amendments, is upheld. This court order is final and binding.

Head of Branch 17 of the Court of Appeal in the Province of Fars

Jamshid Kashkouli

 

Court Advisor of Branch 17 of the Court of Appeal in the Province of Fars

Fardin Fathi

 

 

[1] [Ta‘zir (discretionary punishment):  Punishment with maximum and minimum limits determined by law and judge, respectively.]