[PROVISIONAL TRANSLATION FROM PERSIAN]
[Translator’s notes appear in square brackets]
[Personal information has been redacted.]
Date: 15 Tir 1364 [6 July 1985]
Judiciary of the Islamic Republic of Iran
In the Name of God
Mrs. Mahin Mohebbi Arani
With greetings, a copy of court order number 75/64, issued by the Disciplinary High Court of Religious Judges, regarding your complaint against the Central Islamic Revolutionary Court, is hereby sent for your information.
Disciplinary High Court of Religious Judges Administrative Office
[Stamp of the court]
“So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be just” [Qur’an – An-Nisa 4:135]
In the Name of God
Judiciary of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Date: 8 Tir 1364 [29 June 1985]
Case Reference: 855–18/62
Court Order number: 75/24
Administrative Court: Disciplinary High Court of Religious Judges, presided over by the undersigned and in consultation with Mr. Ghasem [illegible]
Disciplinary appellants: 1. Mrs. Mahin Mohebbi Arani, daughter of Mohammad, [and] 2. Ataollah Haghighi Najafabadi, residents of [redacted]
Respondent: Islamic Revolutionary Prosecutor’s Office of Tehran (Executive Affairs Department) Shahid Ghoddousi Square – and Sharia judge of Branch 7 of the Islamic Revolutionary Court of Tehran
Disciplinary appellants’ grievance: Request for the revocation of the order for confiscation of the automobile [with licence plate number] 97334 Tehran GH, evacuation of the second floor apartment and rent increase of the third floor.
Procedural synopsis: In the claim dated 27 Dey 1361 [17 January 1983] [illegible] of the Court of Administrative Justice, the disciplinary plaintiffs convey that they, together with one of their children, are the joint owners of a three-storey apartment building at their residential address. They have rented the third floor to one family for 40,000 rials per month, the second floor to two families for 25,000 rials, and they live together on the first floor of the subject apartment building.
In Shahrivar of 1360 [August/September 1981], a number of guards, together with Mr. Shaykh Mostafa Rahnama, entered their home, occupied the second floor apartment, the tenants of which were on a trip, and confiscated their furniture. They [ignored] their objections, and even the complaints [the appellants] have filed with the nation’s competent authorities have not had any results. In brief, a few individuals had been residing in the second-floor apartment with the permission of the Execution [Department] of the Islamic Republic’s Prosecutor’s Office of Tehran, located at Shahid Ghoddousi Square. In addition, the above mentioned authority has told the third floor tenant to reduce the rent to 28,000 rials, pay half of the rent to the property owner and the other half to the Execution [Department’s] account and to pay the seven-months-delayed rent to the Execution [Department], as well. In addition to the above-mentioned actions, on 18 Mehr 1361 [10 October 1982], without the plaintiffs’ knowledge, they removed from the parking [lot] and took the automobile [with license plate number] 97334 Tehran GH, the key to which they had taken on 30 Ordibehesht 1361 [20 May 1982], and no one paid attention to [the appellants] when they objected to this action of theirs.
At any rate, after mentioning the above matters, the plaintiffs have asked the Court of Administrative Justice to investigate and adjudicate based on Items 5 and 6 of the eight-article order of Imam Khomeini. They have added that, as witnessed by the local residents, they have been residing in this building for 11 years and all the locals bear witness to their good manners and morals. In order to prove the truth of what has been said above, they have enclosed copies of their documents, including the ownership deeds of the building and the automobile.
The Court of Administrative Justice investigated their complaint, and ultimately, based on court order number 703 - 1 Azar 1362 [22 November 1983], commented on its lack of competency based on the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary High Court of Religious Judges, and sent the case in its entirety to this court for necessary action. After the receipt and registration of the status of the case from the Islamic Revolutionary Court of Tehran and a request for the photo, we have inquired about the opinions of the Revolutionary Court and the Higher Court of Qom.
Sending a copy of court order number 1590 – D – M G, dated 19 Tir 1362 [10 July 1983], Branch 7 of Tehran’s Islamic Revolutionary Court, and a copy of court order number 219/A’– dated 21 Azar 1362 [12 December 1983] of the Higher Court of Qom, the judicial deputy of Tehran’s Islamic Republic Prosecutor’s Office has announced that Mr. Ataollah Haghighi is a Zionist spy and a Baha’i, has been identified together with some traitors to Islam at an espionage nest in the City of Karaj, and is subject to prosecution by the Islamic Revolutionary Court. However, he has managed to escape through coordination with certain elements.
The above-named has given power of attorney to his wife. The Court gave some time to the mentioned woman to turn over her husband, but she has refused to do so, and since she has two small children, she has been permitted to live on the first floor until the final decision is announced for the case. Moreover, in order to prevent holding secret meetings and to protect the location, the third floor was handed to Brother Mousavi. Also, the car has been confiscated and is being kept at the parking lot of the Islamic Revolutionary Prosecutor’s Office in Tehran.
After the completion of the case at Branch 7 of Tehran’s Islamic Revolutionary Court on 15 Tir 1362 [6 July 1983], the charges against the above-mentioned will be investigated and with due attention to available evidence—establishing the fact that the accused is a member of the Region 3 Local Spiritual Council; is a member of Feast 228 of Region 2 in Tehran; has provided great assistance to the Baha’i administration (based on available evidence; and is currently an escapee who has left [illegible] Islamic Republic of Iran—an order was issued to confiscate his belongings [property] in favour of the Government of the Islamic Republic. The case was later sent to the Higher Court of Qom, and according to court order number 4/219, dated 21 Azar 1362 [12 December 1983], the Islamic Republic’s Higher Court of Qom has made the following judgment:
(It is understood from the contents of the case file that the accused [appellant] is an active enemy from the perverse Baha’ist sect and based on some evidence, it is clear that he has also had relations with the Taghut [Pahlawi] Regime. Therefore, the opinion to confiscate the property of the mentioned individual, [who] is [illegible] outside the Islamic Republic, in favour of the government is not contrary to judicial standards and is approved. However, the order to confiscate the share of his wife and children is not approved, even though they are members of the perverse sect, owing to the fact that their activity against the Islamic Regime is not reflected in the file, and their willingness to hate the Baha’ist sect is documented as seen in the report in sheet 25.)
The Disciplinary High Court of Religious Judges addressed the matter in a special meeting, held on 26 Aban 1363 [17 November 1984]. Based on the decision made in that meeting, it has decided to inquire according to which fatwa of the supreme leader, ratified law of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, or legal instructions issued by the competent authorities, the order to confiscate Ataollah’s property has been issued.
The current Sharia judge of Branch 7 of Tehran’s Islamic Revolutionary Court has conveyed that the previous judgment was issued by Mr. Bahrami, the former Sharia judge of this court. He has also added that the subject judgment has been approved by the Islamic Republic’s Higher Court of Qom. In addition, since its conception in this country, this sect has committed all sorts of crimes against the deprived nation of this land, and the Islamic jurisprudence views them as apostates or infidels deserving to be fought. They are not covered by the contents of Problem 1, page 501 and Problem 8, page 503 of volume two of the Imam’s [book], Tahrirol-vasileh. The Supreme Disciplinary Court of Sharia Judges investigated and studied the case again in a special meeting in Tir 1362 [June/July 1983]. The Disciplinary High Court of Religious Judges consulted, and now issues the following judgment while announcing the end of court hearings, with due attention to all the contents of the disciplinary file, the evidence presented, the disciplinary plaintiffs, contemplation and reflection on the contents of the judgments described above and the contents of recent letters exchanged between it and the authority which issued the judgment:
Judgment of the Court
Considering the above issues, even though the 19 Azar 1363 [10 December 1984] response to this court of the Sharia judge of Branch 7 of the Islamic Republic Court of Tehran, located at Shahid Ghoddousi A’lami Square, is not justified or acceptable, because “ertedad-e fetri” [the apostasy of an individual with Muslim parents], once confirmed, results in a transfer of [his] property to his Muslim heirs, and [if there are no Muslim heirs, will be transferred] to his non-Muslim heirs. In case of “ertedad-e melli” [national apostasy], the property of the apostate will remain in his possession and following his death it will go to his Muslim heir, and if there is no Muslim heir, it will go to the non-Muslim heir. At any rate, apostasy does not cause the confiscation of property in favour of the Public Treasury. The property of the infidel who deserves to be fought against is recognized as his property based on Sharia law and legally. The ultimate situation is that, according to the fatwa [religious decree] of the supreme leader of Muslims, at his discretion, [he] can repossess amwal-e harbi [property of infidels confiscated during war] or grant permission for its possession to an individual Muslim. Prior to the repossession, the property remains in possession of the kafar-e harbi [militant infidel] and it is not counted as the property of the public or the Public Treasury. Therefore, repossession and confiscation of the property of a combatant infidel, even if it is to benefit the Public Treasury, has no religious basis without prior permission from outstanding ecclesiastical authorities, and is against religious and legal regulations.
However, considering the background of Mr. Ataollah Haghighi Najafabadi in serving the perverse Baha’ist sect, his connection to the Taghuti [Pahlawi] Regime, and his relationship with international Zionism and the aggressor government of Israel, all of which can harm Muslims and the Islamic government, the judgment to confiscate the above-mentioned person’s private property and his share from the three-storey apartment building located at [redacted] can be [considered as being] in accordance with retaliation for loss and predicated by judicial opinion. For this reason, no evidence of violation is established based on Sharia standards, and a judgment is issued to acquit the authority which issued the subject judgment, as well as the executive affairs of Tehran’s Islamic Republic Prosecutor’s Office, from the violations announced by the disciplinary plaintiff. Considering the above matters, and with due attention to the contents of Addendum 2 of Article 11 of the regulations for Revolutionary Public Prosecutor’s Offices and courts, the request of the disciplinary plaintiff regarding the reversal of the issued judgment and instructions to return the confiscated private properties and shared properties of Ataollah Haghighi lacks legal credibility and is declared invalid.
Head of the Disciplinary High Court of Religious Judges
Seyyed Jafar Karimi
[Handwritten number at the bottom of all pages]
K.M.- 8 Shahrivar 1366 [30 August 1987]