[PROVISIONAL TRANSLATION FROM PERSIAN]
[Translator’s notes appear in square brackets.]
[Personal information has been redacted.]
[The excerpt below is from the section of the article that pertains to the Baha’i Faith]
[Date:] 28 Tir 1335 [19 July 1956]
[Issue No.:] 1686
What Happened In Criminal Court
One of the defence attorneys said there were hands involved in a frame-up―the main defendants are free, while the innocent are imprisoned…
He said… under interrogation, 29 defendants, who were more suspicious and were more likely involved in the incident, were released, but they have removed from their homes those who had not the slightest evidence of guilt, for a whole year. The deputy investigator has released the person who had described his masterpieces [the killings] about involvement in the incident, but he found the person who listened to him guilty.
In this case, there is a defendant who has been detained three times due to lack of [a reason] for their detention, and now they are again among the defendants. The deputy investigator, in cases where he could not gather evidence ... he himself [recognized] the fingerprinting and considered the fingerprints to be similar. He has found him guilty, at his discretion, on the grounds that [the defendant’s] fingerprint matched the one at the bottom of the complaint. He was then sent to a criminal court under Article 170.
The speaker said that in this case, they have [accused] people [of being] instigators who have served the people of Poshtkuh in Yazd for many years, and their only guilt is that they have been an obstacle to the progress of Baha’is … He cited, for example, one of the plaintiffs who said that a man had cut his father’s throat. He then asked where in this case the beheadings were mentioned in the minutes of the forensic examination of the victims … A person who introduced himself as a witness and observer of the incident immediately said, at the end of the interrogation, that he had heard [about these beheadings]. The deputy investigator believed that the plaintiff did not pay proper attention; otherwise his first statement [would have been] correct. Or vice versa; someone who says, “I arrived after the end of the incident” and then names the people and determines the type of their weapons … He considered the biggest reason for innocence to be the most important evidence of crime…
He then gave a general account of the incident and said, contrary to what the prosecutor claimed (that there was no attack), and the same unknown defendants who were not arrested or were acquitted and released for some reason are subject to the title of dispute. He described the situation in the area and compared it with the report of the officers. He said, “When there are many stones on the second floor of the house, and one of the bodies was still holding a stick, common sense dictates that these people were killed during a fierce battle”. He described the mental characteristics of one of the victims who was responsible for propaganda, especially in the last few days. He [said he] had gone to Hormozak to propagate and expand the faith and that it was the same person who considered all the complaints to be false and that he was the one in whose house several guns were discovered. Such a man obviously encourages others to resist and engages in conflict; otherwise, what has happened that some people have been able to escape and save themselves from death? …