RojNews interviewed the lawyer of Kurdish prisoner Ramin Hossein Panahi, sentenced to death in Iran.

The lawyer, Ehmedi Niyaz, said that Panahi is victim of a vicious propaganda and is being charged with “fighting against the Islamic government, the tribunal and the imams”.  

The lawyer underlined some points important to know when reading the sentence.

First, Ramin is accused of fighting against the Islamic government and not against one or more people.

Second, if Ramin is charged with fighting against the ruling government, then he should be tried for political crimes.

Third, in this case, the complainant is the government. Clearly fighting against a government implies that an equal force or army is the opponent party. Clearly, this is not the case.

Fourth, the 34th article of the Iranian Constitution states that the judicial process and punishment is a justice process. However, in Ramin’s case, army officers as well as members of the intelligence, are present in the revolutionary court. A person, weighting 70 kilos, such as Ramin is facing this power and his voice is never heard. That’s why Ramin’s judicial process lacks justice.

Lawyer Hisên Ehmedi Niyaz also noted that in all his statements Ramin rejected the guilt of ‘fighting against the Iranian government’. 

The lawyer added: “Ramin has said in each and every one of his statements that he has never been involved in a war with arms. When he was captured, he was already wounded and unconscious. Someone who is unconscious cannot use a gun or fight. Ramin also stated that he went to Kurdistan to visit his parents. He cannot be sentenced to death with these little or no evidences. According to the evidences, Ramin can only be sentenced to one year in prison”.

Ramin stated, during the hearing of 14 February, that he had been tortured. However, the court has not ordered any investigation on this issue so far.

Ramin’s lawyer said that: “Article 38 of the Constitution rejects all kinds of torture. That’s why the report handed in to the court has no legal validity”.

Leave a Reply