The International League Against Arbitrary Detention urges the Islamic Republic of Iran to take all the necessary actions to implement the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinion No. 21/2023 concerning Saba Kord Afshari and Raheleh Ahmadi asking the Islamic Republic of Iran to immediately release Ms. Kord Afshari and Ms. Ahmadi, and to accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations in accordance with international law.
Read the full WGAD Opinion concerning Saba Kord Afshari and Raheleh Ahmadi (Islamic Republic of Iran): Opinion 21/2023
ARBITRARILY ARRESTED AND SUBJECTED TO ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE
Saba Kord Afshari and her mother, Raheleh Ahmadi, are both nationals of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Respectively born in 1998 and 1970, both Ms. Kord Afshari and Ms. Ahmadi worked and lived in Teheran, the former as an accounting assistant, the latter as a hairstylist. Both regularly participated in the “White Wednesdays” initiative, which encourages women protesting compulsory veiling laws to either wear white clothing or appear in public without a headscarf on Wednesdays. Ms. Kord Afshari has been an active defensor of women’s rights in Iran, notably by publishing on social media videos of herself without a hijab.
Ms. Kord Afshari was arrested on 1 June 2019 by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, following a video she published online to support a prominent women’s rights defender subjected to enforced disappearance since 10 April 2019. As of her mother Ms. Ahmadi, she was arrested on 10 July 2019, reportedly as a threat the Government agents used to attempt to coerce Ms. Kord Afshari into making a confession. Both have been detained ever since, though Ms. Ahmadi was released on bail for a few months. The Government has chosen not to contest these allegations, although having the opportunity to do so.
Unlike Ms. Ahmadi, Ms. Kord Afshari was arrested without an arrest warrant, which the Working Group found in violation of articles 3 and 9 of the UDHR and article 9(1) and 9(2) of the Covenant, rendering her arrest devoid of any legal basis. Ms. Kord Afshari was not brought promptly before a judge, but instead was detained in custody without any legal basis while waiting for her trial, which the Working Group found in violation of article 9(3) of the Covenant.
Immediately after her arrest, Ms. Kord Afshari was denied contact with the outside world, preventing her from challenging the legality of her detention, and her whereabouts were reportedly concealed from her family for 12 days. The Working Group found this situation as amounting to enforced disappearance in violation of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to incommunicado detention in violation of article 9(3) and 9(4) of the Covenant, to a violation of her right to an effective remedy under article 8 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and article 2(3) of the Covenant, and to a violation of her right to challenge the lawfulness of her detention under article 9(4) of the Covenant, and articles 3, 8 and 9 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
Notably, the Working Group recalled that incommunicado detention is an environment conducive to torture that may be used to coerce a detainee to admit guilt. In the present case, Ms. Kord Afshari was allegedly threatened with her mother’s arrest to confess.
Besides, both Ms. Kord Afshari and Ms. Ahmadi were detained based on articles 500, 610 and 639 of the Islamic Penal Code. The Working Group described the offences covered by these articles as vaguely formulated, contrary to the principle of legality, and as such incompatible with international human rights law. Thereby, the Working Group found the detention and prosecution of both Ms. Kord Afshari and Ms. Ahmadi based on those articles in violation to article 11(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9(1) and 15(1) of the Covenant.
Consequently, the Working Group found both Ms. Kord Afshari and Ms. Ahmadi’s arrests devoid of any legal basis, rendering their detention arbitrary under category I.
DETAINED FOR EXERCISING THEIR LEGITIMATE FREEDOMS WHILE DEFENDING WOMEN’S RIGHTS
Ms. Kord Afshari and Ms. Ahmadi’s arrests and detentions were reportedly due to their (peaceful) activities as women’s rights activists, especially for actively expressing their opinions against the compulsory wearing of the hijab in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The Working Group recalled that freedom of opinion and expression were essential for both the individuals and the society, and included the expression and receipt of communications of every form of idea and opinion, including political ones. In the present case, the Working Group established that social media posts criticizing government policy, such as the compulsory wearing of the hijab, fell within the right to freedom of expression. Though this freedom may be limited in certain circumstances, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran failed to demonstrate why it would hereby be the case.
As such, the Working Group found that Ms. Kord Afshari and Ms. Ahmadi’s detentions resulted from their legitimate exercise of freedom of opinion, expression and assembly, thus violating articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant and articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Working Group further expressed its concerns concerning the consistent use of vague and overly broad laws in the Islamic Republic of Iran to criminalize the exercise of legitimate freedoms.
In addition, as women’s rights activists, both Ms. Kord Afshari and Ms. Ahmadi were engaged in a gender-specific type of protest. Considering that women expressing their opposition to the compulsory wearing of the hijab have often been targeted in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Working Group found that Ms. Kord Afshari and Ms. Ahmadi were deprived of their liberty on discriminatory grounds. Notably, on the basis of their gender, political or other opinions concerning the compulsory wearing of the hijab. The Working Group found this in violation with articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2(1) and 26 of the Covenant.
Thereby, the Working Group found that Ms. Kord Afshari and Ms. Ahmadi’s detentions resulted from the legitimate exercise of their freedom of opinion, expression and assembly, rendering it arbitrary under category II, and were based on discriminatory grounds, making them arbitrary under category V.
SENTENCED TO 15 YEARS IN PRISON IN VIOLATION OF THEIR RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
Based on the arbitrary character of their arrest, the Working Group emphasised that Ms. Kord Afshari and Ms. Ahmadi should not have been tried. However, both were, leading Ms. Kord Afshari to be sentenced to 15 years in prison, and Ms. Ahmadi to a 31-month sentence.
The Working Group noted the inconsistent way in which Ms. Kord Afshari was sentenced, notably related to the issues arising from trials conducted by revolutionary courts, and the way in which she was presented to the court, blindfolded and handcuffed. Considering this, the Working Group found Ms. Kord Afshari was denied a hearing before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law, violating article 14(1) of the Covenant.
On a similar note, both Ms. Kord Afshari and Ms. Ahmadi’s access to legal counsel were deliberately restricted throughout their trials, sentencing and detention, which the Working Group found to have affected seriously their ability to prepare their defence, violating article 14(3)(b) and 14(3)(d) of the Covenant. The Working Group considered that the present case was representative of a systemic failure to provide access to counsel during criminal proceedings in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Besides, the Working Group was concerned with the solitary confinement to which Ms. Kord Afshari was subjected during her pretrial detention; the health issues of both Ms. Kord Afshari and Ms. Ahmadi, to an extent related to the conditions of their detention; the attacks Ms. Kord Afshari has regularly been subjected to by prison guards and inmates; as well as with her detention alongside violent offenders. Among others, the Working Group recalled that denial of medical care could constitute a form of torture, based on article 10(1) of the Covenant.
Altogether, the Working Group thus found that the violations of Ms. Kord Afshari and Ms. Ahmadi’s rights to a fair trial and due process were of such gravity that it rendered their detention arbitrary under category III.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE UN WORKING GROUP AGAINST ARBITRARY DETENTION
In light of the foregoing, the UN Working Group Against Arbitrary Detention considered that the detentions of Ms. Kord Afshari and Ms. Ahmadi were arbitrary and fell under categories I, II, III and V because their deprivations of liberty were in contravention of articles 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 19, and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9, 14, 19, 21, 22 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Working Group considered that Ms. Kord Afshari and Ms. Ahmadi should have never been subjected to any form of deprivation of liberty and criminal punishment for their peaceful activities. The Working Group requested the Government to remedy the situation of Ms. Kord Afshari and Ms. Ahmadi without delay, to investigate the circumstances of the violations of their rights and take appropriate measures against those responsible for them. The Working Group considered that, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Ms. Kord Afshari and Ms. Ahmadi immediately and accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law.
Eventually, considering the number of similar recent cases in the Islamic Republic of Iran brought before its body, the Working Group expressed its concerns that the present case would be indicative of widespread or systemic arbitrary detentions in the country. Besides, the Working Group also called Iranian authorities to heed the legitimate and decades’ old demands of women’s rights activists, notably concerning the compulsory hijab rules.
Comments