Removal of Hamid Nouri's charges considering his position in Evin prison and history of betrayal of Mujahedin in Iran

Hamid Nouri was born on April 29, 1961 in Tehran and was a prison guard in one of Iran's penitentiaries. On November 9, 2019, Hamid Nouri was violently and illegally arrested by the police of Sweden upon entering the airport of Stockholm, Sweden, and was kept in conditions similar to being kidnapped for the first 8 months without any possibility of contact with his family or consular access. This Iranian citizen, who was arrested by Sweden, was sentenced to life imprisonment in a kangaroo court after holding 92 sessions without the right to a fair trial. The court in Sweden accused Nouri for his attendance in issuing the alleged death sentences for the criminals of the MEK terrorists who killed more than 13000 Iranians between 1979 to 1988 while he was just a prison guard and not a judge.

Sweden's judicial system arrested Hamid Nouri on the charge of being a prison guard or on the charge of executing Mujahedin in the 1980s and sentenced him to life imprisonment in an extrajudicial process after holding 92 court sessions on July 14 of last year. But did this court have enough reasons for this heavy condemnation? Was the procedure of trial and handling of Hamid Nouri's case completely legal and fair? Were the evidence, research, and reviews comprehensive and far from prejudice? Are the reports and documents presented in this court legal, or were they submitted by interested parties?

The plaintiffs and witnesses of this court in Sweden are all members of the MEK and interested parties. They have presented fake documents and studies in the court which were written one-sidedly and only from the point of view of the members of this cult. Those who have been away from Iran for many years and have a long-standing grudge and enmity with this country, report the issues and events of 30 years ago in the way they benefit and use them as effective tools against the Iranian government. The contradictory evidence presented in this court itself is a testimony to the fact that no reliable reports or documents have been presented in this court by the plaintiffs, who are often members of this group. For example, why has the exact number of people allegedly killed in Iran not been presented in any evidence or document? Why are their names, their number, the place and time of their trial, and even the duration of their trial not accurately reported by the plaintiffs? And why do the submitted documents not agree with each other?!

The various and updated lists and the documents provided are self-contradictory. Shouldn't the Court of Appeal request clear and accurate evidence to prove the accused's crime? Shouldn't the United Nations clarify the complexities and contradictions of this case? The claim of the plaintiffs of this case says that many were executed in the summer of 1988, but there are no accurate statistics to prove this claim! What does a large number mean? According to what criterion is the number declared high or low? Shouldn't there be a correct criterion for judging despite all these conflicts?

Hamid Nouri has been unfairly sentenced to life imprisonment, while the prosecutors of this court have not conducted any field visits or investigations in Iran. Visiting the Rajaeeshahr prison, the corridor which is named the corridor of death, the cells, the prison yard, the graves of the people who were allegedly killed unjustly, the history of these people, the plaintiffs of the cases, death certificates, etc. are cases that have not been investigated by the prosecutors of this court due to the existence of interested parties, and although the accused has been sentenced to life imprisonment, the main puzzles of this case have not yet been completed.

In the international arena, various courts have been established, such as the International Criminal Court of Rwanda, where the prosecutor has been able to present reliable and clear documents to the court by visiting the crime scene and conducting investigations, observations, and inspections. If there is an allegation of mass murder in Iran, doesn't the prosecutor have to provide strong and comprehensive documentation about the events of 33 years ago in Iran? The testimony of witnesses, in this case, has many contradictions. The duration of the activity of the group that MEK calls the Death Committee is not the same in the reports provided by the witnesses. Iraj Mesdaghi mentions the number of days of activity of this delegation as one number and Mahmoud Royaei mentions another number. This is despite the fact that the Mojahedin organization itself has announced this number for up to 20 days. The prosecutor must clarify the contradictions and ambiguities of this case.

The documents filed in the court against Hamid Nouri are all reports related to the events that happened 33 years ago in Iran and all of them are oral reports. The lack of official documents and lack of sufficient investigation and contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses question the verdict issued by the court. What kept Hamid Nouri in custody for months and led to his unjust sentence of life imprisonment is the charge of participating in the execution of members of the MEK in Iran in the summer of 1988. However, an important question that the courts of appeal must answer first of all is what position Hamid Nouri held in Iran's judicial system and in Evin or Rajaeeshahr's prison 33 years ago. Was he a high-ranking official? Or the judge? Or was he the main member of the death committee or the amnesty board? What was his position according to his charges?

The members of the amnesty board and the officials involved in the 1988 executions were all high-ranking officials in the system. Hamid Nouri's name is not found in any of the documents that refer to the people present in that delegation. The people present in that meeting are all powerful people in Iran. For example, Ebrahim Raisi, one of the members of this committee, is now the president of Iran. But Hamid Nouri was only a prison guard in 1988. Both at that time and in recent years, he was neither the owner of power nor had an influential position in Iran's judicial or governmental system. The people present in this delegation were Hossein Ali Nayeri, Morteza Eshraghi, Ebrahim Raisi, Davoud Lashgari, Mohammad Moqiseh, and Mostafa Pourmohammadi, all of whom were and still are people of power in Iran. But the question is, has a prison guard been in a position to issue a death sentence? Did he have the conditions and position to kill the prisoners or commit murder? Has his name been announced in the list of people who were present in this delegation?

He was only a prison guard who had the most contact with the prisoners at that time, and since the reports presented to the court are often oral, witnesses have reported what they saw but behind the scenes of issuing a death sentence, there is not a prison guard who is responsible for the prison affairs. Rather, the judicial and legal system, the court, and in this particular case, the amnesty board, have made a decision regarding these prisoners, and Hamid Nouri had no role in this decision or its implementation. He did the routine work of a prison guard and had the most interaction with the prisoners, for example, he accompanied them to the bathroom. He did not have a high academic degree and did not study even a single line of the law, so he was no different from other prison guards.

It is natural that a prisoner who is under surveillance only sees the faces of prisoners and prison guards and has no idea about administrative affairs and administrative and judicial infrastructures, especially because of the type of crime and charges they meet few people in prison. In Sweden, prison guards read sentences to prisoners, but does this mean that the person who reads the sentence had a role in issuing the sentence? The role of the prison guard is to open the door of the cells, close it, accompany the prisoners, and help them in prison affairs and life in the prison, and he has no other duties. How can it be that a prisoner's understanding is that my prison guard has a role in deciding my life and death or the orders issued and their execution?

If the prison guard gives the order to do something or says “follow me” or do a certain thing, it does not mean that the prison guard has the right to make a decision, but someone has made a decision before him in the judicial system and he only has the command to execute the orders and in the area of a prison guard's powers, the responsibilities are limited and clear.

No security or prison guard can and has no power to decide on the entry and exit of people to prison, their death, and life, pardon and forgiveness, or punishment and execution. These decisions have already been made in the amnesty committee by powerful people, and the guards have no position and power to make such decisions. For example, in Sweden, if a person is imprisoned in solitary confinement and subjected to mental torture, can the prison officers or those who do not let them out of prison be held responsible for this type of punishment, or can they be criticized for such torture, or the judiciary system should be responsible for such a punishment? If a prosecutor or judge does something wrong, he is responsible, not his subordinates.

Our minimum expectation in this court is that everyone's responsibilities and duties are clear and decisions are made based on that. Hamid Nouri was only a prison guard and he acted as he was given orders and missions, and he only did the things that were within the authority of a prison guard, to transfer prisoners, accompany them, and do other orders that are necessary for the role of a prison guard. Even if, according to the plaintiffs, we consider his case to be complicit in this execution and say that he also had the influence and power to create sentences, but at the time of the execution orders, Nouri had a child and on July 29, 1988, according to the birth documents of his child and according to the law of Iran, he was not present at the place of executions and was with his family.

These are all deficiencies and contradictions, and without addressing them, it is not possible to issue the sentence for Hamid Nouri and it is open to criticism. If we are talking about genocide, it is better for the Court of Appeal, like other international courts, with official documents and in-person visits and field investigations and interviews to find the truth of the story, considering the long time that has passed, the exact role Hamid Nouri and his area of authority will be examined and then issue the necessary verdict. If we are talking about murder, then why should a court in Sweden punish an Iranian who has committed a crime against other Iranians in Iran and deal with his crime according to the laws and conditions of Sweden?

If this incident had happened in Iran and a Swedish man was accused and punished for a murder committed in Sweden according to Iran's laws, without clear and reliable documents, wouldn't the international community have criticized and protested against Iran? This ruling will have wide repercussions not only in Iran and Sweden but also in the whole world. People who have been sentenced to death in other countries and have not been properly tried and no sentence issued for them, if they enter Sweden, they will be arrested and then imprisoned and then sentenced to life imprisonment? In these circumstances would people like to have a trip to Sweden?

More than 30 years have passed since this incident, and the issuance of a verdict for such a case requires clarifying all the complexities and contradictions in the evidence presented and referring to official documents not oral reports from people who are not interested in this case.

Before the revolution, the Mojahedin-e Khalq group was trying to overthrow the Pahlavi government and expel the Shah from Iran. Mohammad Reza Shah was among those who tortured and executed the opponents and protestors of his government in prisons or even in the streets, and he started many massacres all over Iran and finally, he was forced to flee from Iran. No one accused him and his family for the mass killing of Iranian people abroad and did not even challenge him. However, the MEK thought that after the departure of the Shah and the establishment of the new government, they would definitely have a hand in power and become office bearers. But what happened at the request of the Iranian people was the return of Ayatollah Khomeini from exile and his election as the great leader of the Iranian revolution. The leader who before returning to Iran was never in agreement with the Mojahedin group and considered their approach and actions to be hypocritical and based on non-Islamic principles. Therefore, after a short period after Ayatollah Khomeini's government came to power in Iran and the beginning of Islamic rule, this group started to fight against it and carry out armed actions. The relations of the Islamic Republic with various groups that sought power were very complicated, but what made it impossible to continue interactions with the People's Mojahedin Khalq group was that they wanted to participate in power, but they did not recognize the Islamic Republic.

The People's Mojahedin Organization did not hand over its weapons after the Islamic Revolution and remained an armed group. Meanwhile, the Supreme Prosecutor of Iran, Ali Qudousi, announced on April 8, 1981, that the pre-revolutionary political groups that used weapons should hand over their weapons immediately, otherwise they would be illegal groups. This order coincided with the Iran-Iraq war, and the People's Mojahedin Organization refused to hand over its weapons and started an armed struggle against Iran in 1981, targeting people who were in the service of the government. This open and hidden conflict with the Islamic Republic went to the extent that politicians and important and of course popular people of the country such as 74 people who served in the government, including the head of the Supreme Court of Iran, Ayatollah Beheshti, the prime minister and the president Iran, 10 ministers and 20 members of parliament were brutally assassinated by this group. The story did not end there and ordinary people were also the targets of this organization's terrors and evils, and little by little, the open cruelty and terrorist nature of this organization was proven to the people, and made the popularity of this organization among them decrease more and more.

But doesn't the Swedish court have a ruling or an opinion or a simple reaction regarding these open and public crimes of this organization, the assassination of many senior officials of a society and innocent people, which can be verified with official documents? While sheltering these people with this black record in their country and even handling their complaints, is it in a position to demand justice and fight against terrorism or be a flag bearer of human rights?

Iran arrested and sentenced to death those criminals who were involved in heinous crimes and had become a source of fear and insecurity for the people in the country. It is better for the courts of appeal to be familiar with the real nature of the MEK and their long and dark history and even the current conditions of the people present in this group and then issue a verdict. In addition, considering what happened before and considering the history of violence and assassination of this group, the lives of Hamid Nouri's defense lawyers should be protected, because it is feared that if the result of the court is against their will, they plan to physically eliminate the defense lawyers in order to turn the game in their favor.

This court has issued a verdict about Hamid Nouri with only the evidence and documents that the plaintiffs and witnesses presented, their books and articles, and researches all belong to a group that has a long history of terror, murder, and torture. Apart from the history of these people, should the court only consider one-sided research related to the issue that has been going on for more than 30 years and issue a verdict?

There are as many theories as there are researchers, and this indicates the existence of different opinions, so you cannot equate only one research with provable evidence because there are as many authors and researchers whose opinions and documents are the opposite of evidence and the appellate court should not simply accept only one point of view.