Bodström: With the case of Hamid Nouri, you lost Sweden's reputation

In 2018, the Swedish illegally arrested Hamid Nouri at the same time as he entered the airport in Stockholm, and he was kept like a kidnapped person for months without any information or the possibility of contacting his family or any consular access. Finally, after 8 months without news, he was able to inform his family that he was alive with a short call. Sweden's judicial system arrested Hamid Nouri on the charge of being a prison guard or on the charge of executing Mujahedin-e Khalq (the terrorist group of MEK) in the 1980s and sentenced him to life imprisonment in an extrajudicial process after holding 92 court sessions on July 14 of last year.

At the end of the Court of Appeal, in the past few days, Hamid Nouri's lawyers, after carefully examining the accusations and the process of dealing with Swedish jurisdiction, have repeatedly announced: "With this case, you have damaged the reputation of Sweden and the Swedish judicial system." These lawyers gave numerous pieces of evidence to the court that the case was filed under the influence of terrorist groups, the claim of these terrorist groups to the court was contrary to the truth. The Swedish judicial system has not been independent and impartial in the proceedings. Hamid Nouri's lawyer Bodstrom believes that Hamid Nouri's case is "unique" and "forms a part of our legal history". In his opinion, this case "has no similarity (in terms of independence and sophistication) with previous cases." Considering that the prosecutor, in this case, did not bother to conduct an investigation and sufficed to the claims and statements of the plaintiffs and witnesses as evidence, therefore, "the work of the defense lawyers in defending their client, conducting investigations and presenting evidence became difficult." On the other hand, "it has become easy for the prosecutors to say whatever they want without proof." The decision of the preliminary hearing court clearly confirmed these statements of Bodstrom. For this reason, "it was easy for the court of first instance." What hurts Bodström as a professional lawyer is not the conviction of his client, but the disregard of the fundamental principles of the trial and the rights of the accused, which were clearly violated by the prosecutors and the police, and because of this, Bodström says, "the reputation of the Swedish justice system is at stake." Moreover, he feels worried about the credibility of his country's judicial system.

Bodstrom says that contrary to the basic principles of the trial, "the burden of proof has been removed from the shoulders of the prosecutors and placed on the lawyers’." He refers to this fundamental principle that in criminal cases, the principle is on the acquittal of the suspect or the accused, and it is the prosecutor who must prove the occurrence of the crime and its attribution to the accused without any reasonable doubt. Despite this, in Hamid Nouri's case, this fundamental principle was ignored at the preliminary stage. At the appeal stage, the prosecutor shifted his task to the lawyers. This was very difficult and disturbing for Bodstrom. For this reason, he stood in front of the prosecutors in various appeal sessions. He is also offended by the approach and behavior of the trial court in Hamid Nouri's case and says, "The trial court took the evidence lightly. ”This is the only case in Swedish judicial history in which the court did not take the evidence seriously. In a criminal case, the evidence must be convincing and strong.” According to Bodstrom, "When we read the 200-page preliminary ruling and see that it did not explain how Nouri committed the crime and that the accusations were never proven," this question is seriously and decisively raised in our minds. "How did the trial court accept this?" To put it more precisely, when we see that a court in Sweden has behaved in this way, “I get goosebumps."

It is even more unfortunate that the prosecutor changed the description of the crime only a few days before giving his last statement. The prosecutors spent more than two years writing the description of the crime committed but suddenly they changed it a few days before their last statement. It is natural that in response to this action of the prosecutor, the defense lawyers need more time. "If we ask for more time, they will say that the judicial process has been obstructed," says Bodstrom. Meanwhile, the defense lawyers must have enough time to defend their client against this change in the description of the crime. "The prosecutor tells the defense lawyers that you endangered judicial security with your words. Don't say these things; these words would ruin the image of Sweden." Defense lawyers have a clear mission: defending the rights of the accused. One should ask, what do the defense lawyers say? The lawyers say that the prosecutor changed the description of the crime at the last minute, so the lawyers should be given enough time to defend their client. In addition, lawyers say that the prosecutor must be impartial. Neutrality is not just in words, it must be in action. Another thing that the lawyers firmly put forward is that: "A policeman has entered the case and conducted a preliminary investigation, which shows he had a personal interest. In the Swedish judicial system, especially in the detention center, Hamid Nouri has been treated extremely badly. Hamid Nouri's defense, which was prepared in several hundred pages, was destroyed. "Hamid Nouri is in a worse situation than the plaintiffs and witnesses who were imprisoned in Iran in the 1980s." These positions and criticisms of the defense lawyers towards the prosecutor and the police have caused them to be "angered" by the prosecutor and the police. "Prosecutors and police lost the judicial compass," says Thomas Bodström. Although the prosecutor accuses Hamid Nouri's defense lawyers of "being unprofessional, ruining the Swedish judicial system, lying, threatening judicial security and lacking honor", Bodstrom says, "a gentleman is never impolite and in response, he reacts politely to rudeness." In his opinion, "global attention has been drawn to this case. We are now like an elephant in a dark room; we do not know what we are doing. The defects of the prosecutors and the police should not be ignored. We are supposed to be an example for the world. If a self-interested policeman come into the case would make it better? Should lawyers be silent? What does the world say? How long are we going to sweep the dust under the carpet?”

By paying close attention to the professional and principled statements of Thomas Bodstrom, we can conclude that Hamid Nouri's case is not only politicized, but also the actions of the prosecutors and the police are unethical, unprofessional, and inhumane. Thomas Bodstrom should be given the right to worry about the credibility and dignity of his country's judicial system, which presents itself as a model of justice and human rights in international forums. The case of Hamid Nouri is a good benchmark to measure the quality of the Swedish judicial system. Can the appeals court restore the reputation of the Swedish judicial system that was ruined by the preliminary hearing court? Can the appeals court resolve the concerns of the former minister of justice of this country regarding the dignity of the judicial system of his country? It is not known how long the Swedish government is going to " sweep the dust under the carpet ".