[PROVISIONAL TRANSLATION FROM PERSIAN]
[Translator’s notes appear in square brackets]
[Personal information has been redacted.]
Islamic Republic of Iran
Do not follow (your) low desires, lest you deviate
Branch 1 of the Public Courts, Kiasar Division
Court Order Number: 9009971992100377
File Number: 9009981992100155
Branch Archival Number: 900160
Date of Issuance: 20 Tir 1390 [11 July 2011]
Case Reference 9009981992100155, Branch 1 of the Public Courts in Kiasar Division,
Court Order Number 9009971992100377
Plaintiffs: 1- Mr. Elyas Sadeghi; 2- Mrs. Gelin Movaffaghi; 3- Mrs. Mehraneh Hoseini; 4- Mr. Ali Piri; 5- Mr. Ali Ahmadi; 6- Mr. Nasiroddin Nowbakht; 7- Mr. Hosein Sabetian; 8- Mr. Azizollah Movaffaghi Iveli all at [address]; 9- Mr. Shahab Sabetian; 10- Mr. Ali Jazbani; 11- Mr. Faramarz Rowhani; 12- Mr. Farajollah Naeimi; 13- Mr. Riazollah Sabetian; 14- Mr. Ataollah Movaffaghi; 15- Rouhollah Rowhani; 16- Mr. Avaz-Ali Abari [Akbari]; 17- Mr. Jahanbakhsh Movaffaghi; 18- Mr. Ghavamoddin Sabetian; 19- Mr Nejatollah Laghaie; 20- Mr. Asadollah Naeimi; 21- Mr. Jamal Movaffaghi; 22- Mr. Toli [Natoli] Derakhshan; 23- Mr. Seyyed Ali Sadeghi Iveli; 24- Mr. Daryoush Movaffaghi; 25- Mr. Saadat Rowhani; 26- Mr. Parviz Jazbani; 27- Mr. Rouhol-Amin Ali; 28- Mrs. Afsaneh Movaffaghi––represented by Mr. Hosein Seddigh Tonekaboni [address] and Mr. Tavakkol Farajpour [address]––29- Mr. Mohammad Derakhshan [redacted]; 30- Mr. Kamaloddin Akbari––represented by Mr. Tavakkol Farajpour [address].
Accused: 1. Mr. Safar-Ali Esmaili; 2- Mr. Seyyed Javad Derakhshan [both residents of Chahardangeh Division in the village of Ivel]; 3- Mr. Mansour Layali; 4- Mr. Feizollah Esmaili; 5- Mr. Nad-Ali Fallahpour all at [address]; 6- Mr. Esmail Emadi; 7- Mr. Ghaffar Ahangari; 8- Mr. Mojtaba Derakhshan; 9- Mr. Seyyed Jalal Mousavi [mentioned below as Seyyed-Jalal Mousavi Tarkani]; 10- Mr. Hadi Sheikhani; 11- Mr. Asghar Ahangari all residing all at [address].
Charges: Demolition of 28 residential properties
File information indicates that Mr. Mohammad Piri, son of Ẓohouro[llah]; Ali Piri, son of Zohouro[llah]; Seyyed Mohammad Derakhshan, son of Seyyed Ibrahim; Ihsan Muvaffagh, son of Aziz; Ali-Asghar Muvaffagh Iveli, son of Mohammad; Seyyed Ali Sadeghian, son of Seyyed Mehdi; Ali Ahmadi, son of Yousef-Ali; Riazo[llah] Sabetian, son of Ziao[llah]; Faramarz Rowhani and Farideh Rowhani, children of Seyyed Mohammad; and Farziyyeh Alishah, daughter of Mohammad-Nabi, have filed a complaint against Mr. Momen Esmaili and Seyyed Javad Derakhshan pertaining to the demolition of residential properties belonging to the plaintiffs.
In its report, dated 5 Tir 1389 [26 June 2010], subsequent to investigations made concerning the [properties] in question, the local police have confirmed the destruction of [a number of] homes by unknown individuals, using bulldozers and loader trucks. During the inquiry, the persons charged denied having any knowledge in this regard. Furthermore, Mr. Seddigh Tonekaboni and Mr. Tavakkol Farajpour submitted a power of attorney on behalf of the following individuals: 1- Atao[llah] Movaffaghi, son of Karimo[llah]; 2- Rowshan Movaffaghi, son of Mohammad-Hosein; 3- Azizo[llah] Movaffaghi Iveli, son of Zabih; 4- Seyyed Serro[llah] Hoseini, son of Seyyed Zaker; 5- Nasiroddin Nowbakht, son of Sab; 6- Ali Ahmadi, son of Yousef-Ali; 7- Ali Piri, son of Zohouro[llah]; 8- Hosein Sabetian Iveli, son of Nosrato[llah]; 9- Avad-Ali Akbari, son of Ali-Asghar; 10- Rouhol-Amin Ali, son of Mohammad; 11- Saadat Rowhani, son of Zekro[llah]; 12- Seyyed Ali Sadeghi Iveli, son of Seyyed Mehdi; 13- Toli [Natoli] Derakhshan; 14- Faramarz Moghaddasi Rowhani, son of Rahmato[llah]; 15- Atao[llah] Movaffaghi, son of Ghodrat; 15- [number 15 is repeated] Farajo[llah] Naeimi; 16- Serro[llah] Naeimi; 17- Afsaneh Movaffaghi, daughter of Mohammad-Hosein; 18- Shahab Sabetian, son of Masiho[llah]; 19- Rouho[llah] Rowhani, son of Vajiho[llah]; 20- Parviz Jazbani, son of Mohammad; 21- Jahanbakhsh Movaffaghi, son of Eyno[llah]; 22- Ghavamoddin Sabetian, son of Fazlo[llah]; 23- Riazo[llah] Sabetian, son of Ziao[llah]; 24- Nejato[llah] Laghaie, son of Hosein; 25- Ali Jazbani, son of Mohammad-Mehdi; 26- Jamal Movaffaghi, son of Mohammad; 27- Kamaloddin Akbari, son of Abdol-Ali, pertaining to their complaint about the demolition of over 50 residential units and setting fire to trees, to wit: walnut trees; against persons responsible, including drivers of the loader trucks and compressors––Mojtaba Derakhshan Iveli; Ghaffar Kiasari; Asghar Ahangari; Seyyed Jalal Mousavi; Hadi Hoseini, and Seyyed Esmail Emadi––whom the plaintiffs claim to have recognized. Moreover, the plaintiffs have added the names of Seyyed Javad Derakhshan, Safar-Ali Esmaili, Mansour Layali, Nad-Ali Fallahpur, and Rahim Layali, claiming that they [the accused] have maliciously occupied and have forced them [the plaintiffs] to sell their properties. The plaintiffs, therefore, have made their claims pursuant to Article 690 of the Islamic Penal Code.
In its further inquiry on 26 Mordad 1389 [17 August 2010], the police confirmed the destruction of a few buildings, but said that there was no occupation and/or rebuilding [of the properties in question.] Furthermore, the police [interviewed] the following witnesses regarding the grievance: Jafar-Gholi Mehrnia, Farz-Ali Asghari; Zolf-Ali Ahmadi; Shaban Telma; Ezzat Yazdani; Valiollah Fakhreie; Gol-Mahmoud Kohansal; Zein-Ali Verdipour; Mohammad-Saleh Jafari; Seyyed Abdol-Karim and Seyyed Hasan Mirshafiie; Seyyed Shoja Shojaie. [The witnesses indicated that] a group of [the plaintiffs] had been residing in the village of Ivel prior to the Revolution, but were sent away shortly after the Revolution. As to who destroyed the houses, however, [the witnesses] had no information. Furthermore, [it was reported that] a number of the individuals who had complained went back to the location in order to cultivate the farmlands while the agents were present, and encountered opposition and resistance when they were using tractors in order to plough the ground. The court issued an order for further investigation and asked for the submission of documents to the police by 18 Aban 1389 [9 November 2010] with respect to the proof of ownership and/or being the beneficiary of the lands in question. Furthermore, the court inquired of Mr. Seyyed Jalal Mousavi Tarkani regarding the loader truck(s) and the demolition, which he denied and said that he had no information. Zolfaghar Kohansal, son of Akbar (driver) was questioned; he defended himself and said that he had no information and unequivocally denied [the activity]. Mr. Fallahpur was also questioned; like the others, he said that he had no information and/or involvement. Other defendants responded similarly.
In its final report of 3514/2/506/24-15 Azar 1389 [6 December 2010], the police department indicated that the houses had been empty for over 30 years and were demolished on 3 Tir 1389 [24 June 2010]. The grievance was rejected [by the accused], who denied that they were motivated by greed [to take over] the lands owned by the plaintiffs. Moreover, the inquiries did not result in identifying the driver or drivers of the loader truck(s) and bulldozers, and the main individuals responsible for the destruction remained unidentified. Further into the proceedings, subsequent to counsels’ arguing the case on behalf of their clients against Mr. Mansour Layali, son of Ali; Javad Derakhshan, son of Seyyed Mahmoud, Safar-Ali Esmaili, son of Yado[llah]; Feizo[llah] Esmaili, son of Yado[llah], and Nad-Ali Fallahpur, defendants, their bail was set. As for other accused, i.e., truck, compressor and loader drivers, owing to lack of sufficient evidence, the court did not deem it necessary to summon them to court. Accordingly, the case is ready for the issuance of a final decision.
Administrative Court: Branch 1 of the Public Courts of Chahardangeh (Kiasar) Division
((Decision of the Court))
Concerning the grievance made by Mr. Seddighi [Seddigh] Tonekaboni and Tavakkol Farajpour on behalf of 28 clients and complainants against Mr. Nad-Ali Fallahpur, son of Mohammad; Feiz[llah] Esmaili, son of Yado[llah]; Mr. Safar-Ali Esmaili, son of Yado[llah]; Mr. Javad Derakhshan, son of Seyyed Mahmoud; Mr. Mansour Layali, son of Ali, all residents of Ivel, pertaining to the demolition of 28 residential units, and Mr. Mojtaba Derakhshan, Mr. Ghaffar Kiasari [possibly means Mr. Ghaffar Ahangari, mentioned as #7 accused], Mr. Asghar Ahangari, Mr. Seyyed Jalal Mousavi, Hadi Sheikhani, Mr. Esmail Emadi, the drivers of loader trucks and compressors, similarly pertaining to the demolition of the complainants’ properties, notwithstanding the judiciary’s policies and required judicial process, none of the complainants has submitted legal documentation to prove their ownership of the lands in question and define the parameters of their alleged properties. Therefore, essentially, these individuals do not qualify as “complainants” as the term is defined in Article 9 of the Hearing Procedures Act. For the sake of argument, [we can say that] the premeditated destruction might have caused financial loss to those who would otherwise have gained profit from such properties; however, they [the complainants] have not submitted any official or unofficial documents to prove the alleged ownership of the lands in question. Let us imagine the impossible situation where some of the complainants resided in these homes prior to the revolution; considering the situation and the aftermath, none of the provisions of Article 140 of the Civil Law would pertain to the complainants, either by Shariah, or the law in general. [Let us] assume that they attempted to recover right of residency of the abandoned properties, (which has not been proven, as they have abandoned these properties), i.e., if they had been present and had not abandoned them, they could have prevented the alleged demolition and clearly identified the mobs. Furthermore, file documents and existing evidence indicate that a number of former residents of the village in question have left the country and are no longer under the protection of the Islamic Republic, and the location and boundaries of their alleged lands and homes in the village are unclear. The properties that were taken over before [the plaintiffs] left the country are situated in the same village where the plaintiffs claim [to own them]; they have not made clear the boundaries of their alleged properties or the properties of those who have fled or emigrated to other countries; therefore, the actual ownership and the boundaries of the properties in question are not [established] based on proper deeds and documentation. Concerning the grievance, no evidence has been submitted by the complainants to connect the act of demolition to the above-mentioned defendants. They [the complaints] neither witnessed it themselves, nor produced others as eyewitnesses. Moreover, the result of the police investigation does not prove the alleged activities by the defendants, or that there has been any occupation of the properties. The mere notion of possible prior disputes, or suspicions and assumptions cannot be proof of a claim. On the other hand, the villagers adamantly denied the matter; those who would naturally have known about such an occurrence denied any involvement or any knowledge about [the incident.] The mere ownership and/or operation of loader trucks and compressors does not substantiate committal of crime. The lack of evidence and reasoning is such that the court considers that further investigation and calling of witnesses would be a breach of Article 124 of the Hearing Procedures Act. There is no evidence of any prior or existing hostility, animosity, land dispute, forceful occupation, and/or seizure of property by the defendants. The local residents and witnesses questioned by the disciplinary forces have denied any knowledge of the incident. No evidence or motive, which typically exist when such an offence is committed, i.e., the activities of which the defendants are accused, have been identified in the inquiry and/or substantiated in the statement of defence, by either the lawyers or the complainants. The court does not deem it necessary or possible to investigate the case any further; therefore, pursuant to subsection (a) of Article 177 of the Hearing Procedures Act, and Article 37 of the Constitution, [the court] withdraws the charges against the defendants and issues an acquittal order with regard to the alleged charges. This order was issued in the presence of the parties and can be appealed to the Court of Appeal in the Province of Mazandaran within 20 days. In keeping with legal duty as set in the executive by-laws of Article 49 of the Constitution, as presented in the respected court in Mazandaran concerning investigation on personal properties of those who have left the country and are no longer under the protection of the Islamic Republic, the court will proceed accordingly.
Prosecutor of Branch 1 of the Public Court in Chahardangeh (Kiasar) Division
30 Mordad 1390 [21 August 2011]
[Official Stamp in the middle of page 1]