Are the events in the past fair and legal justice?
Today in Tehran, a court hearing was in session for many of the charged reformists. The accused gave such confessions against their previous activities and experiences that the listeners were shocked. These accused, who were placed in solitary confinement for 40 days, suddenly realized that they had erroneous beliefs and they were going down the wrong path! We were all shocked as to how these solitary prison cells can create such miracles and what wonderful places they must be for the reflection of the days gone past and for the purification of the soul! But this isn’t the first time that we are witnessing such miracles and without a doubt, it will not be the last time. A few years prior another court hearing was taking place, and in that one, “Abbas Abdi” also .demonstrated a behaviour similar to today’s defendant
For the record in history, we will review one more time, the series of events of those times:
The main body or the margins of my court hearing
The untold story of Abbas Abdi and of the opinion poll files.
Are the events in the past fair and legal justice?
Some might think that what happened in my court hearing and the sentencing that was given is the main gist of the file and if there is any information in the margins, it is not relevant to the topic. But what is to continue shows that the main body of the file is being mentioned for the first time. I didn’t have the intention to reflect on these issues due to the current environment of the country, but now that against all moral, Islamic and legal laws, the country has nullified its pact with me, has become an obstacle to my freedom and has given a sentence that seems legal on the surface, I have no choice but to divulge the real substance of the file to some of those partial to the regime first. Of course there are many important matters regarding cell “D” or that obscure court that for now, for the sake of general public, I will disregard the details and I hope that the main issues become resolved and matters don’t get worse. I do this because unlike the orchestrators of the file, I do not want to hurt the interests of the people and the country, just to reach my own goals.
What is to proceed is what until now I have played in replayed in my mind tens of times since the time of my arrest and at opportunities that I had access to pen and paper, I have written down. I had tried very hard to even not make unconfirmed accusations and only describe the actual events, especially since the conspirators know that they have not heard any false statements from me and that I have spelled out the events for those involved in the file and even the conspirators in jail (some know the whole story, and a group know only parts of it), and if there are any inaccuracies, I have been confronted about them in a variety of fashions already.
On the morning of 13/8/81, while I was asleep, I was awoken with the knocking on the apartment door, where a number of officers with video cameras were there. I do not have any interest in delving in the details of that morning and there isn’t much importance to comparing that to what happened later. After collecting all items that the officers felt necessary, I was taken to Evin prison in the newly built solitary cells of 325, and I was sent there until noon. Before anything, I feel that it is my duty to site the humanitarian and good treatment and the hygienic situation, (although the rules are pretty strict about that) and I must thank the officers for the good environment of the prison. I have mentioned this before many times, that this prison, due to noncompliance with rules 56 and 153 of the prison code, is not independent and the prisoners’ rights are not respected in these two regards, obviously these are due to the decrees of the judge responsible for the file. Also, in the past months, the complete break of communication between the prisoner and society, in the view of the prisoner, if it is not worse than physical torture, it is at least equal. I have many times brought this directly to the attention of the respectable director of the prison and even Mr. Bakhtiari, the head of the prisons, but it is clear that there is no response. Even listening to the office news of the government TV and radio is not possible, let alone other rights such as access to a single wave radio, books, pen, paper, newspapers and……!!
After sunset I was summoned for interrogation, I don’t know how many interrogators there were, since I was blindfolded. But I estimated between 3 or 4 people and after trading some basic information, I quickly said that it is clear that I have not been brought here for legal reasons, but I suggest that between the civil rights and political levels, a complete separation be made. In regards to the politics, I will speak however you would like, but in regards to the civil rights, you must act in the framework of the law and I will not respond to any interrogations that are conducted against the law. Of course, any charges that you have, you can lay, but you have to interrogate within the framework of the law. The interrogators, who I believe were from a military branch, had a respectable and good interaction with me and to the end; the interrogation had more or less the same manner. Any straying from the law was acceptable and understandable and even the accusations were brought up with respectful and fair words and for that I am thankful to the gentlemen. Although, neither they, nor any other individuals should cross the framework of the law and morality, but I must say that I did not witness any wrongdoing.
The first night was just about political discussions, and I very candidly and frankly told my views (even more openly than outside of prison) in regards the reasons for the revolution, the time of the Imam, after his departure, the reasons for deviation and the attention of the officials to people in power in regards to the issues of the 2nd of Khordad (may) and etc…. The gentlemen listened without getting upset and anywhere that they felt necessary, they gave a response and after a few hours, I returned to my cell. The second day before noon, I was taken to court, so based on the book, I would be charged.
Mr. Mortazavi started threatening me verbally, and the worst of his threats came when he included and accused members of my family of events of “Ayandeh” organization.
He accused my wife to be responsible for satiric comment made on one of the official governmental letters addressed to Ayandeh organization that I found out later on that it was fabricated lie and it was not even an accusation or another example was that somebody modified the pictures in the calendar, Later on it was proved that the event was related to somebody else and my wife didn’t even have a calendar and obviously Mr. Mortazavi was aware of these facts but nevertheless he brought them up. Also that my daughter was under investigation for these felonies and although she was not even present at that time, but he didn’t accept my efforts and evidences to disprove it. From that moment I Understood that matters will develop differently.
During the interrogation and after some questions we got to the page 9 of the interrogation documents and he told me that: “in security surveillance and observations came to our attention that sometimes ago a diplomatic car belonging to Ukrainian embassy visited the journalist union, four individuals entered the union just before you arrived there. What was your relationship with them?”
I replied that they came to visit the president of the union and I was there for board meeting and besides, those Ukrainian people were president of Ukrainian journalist and guest of ministry of guidance (Ershad).
In his next question He asked me to explain my relation and my role in a pre-revolution publication called “Iran Novin”.
I knew immediately they made a mistake and those people who are working on my case have very little political and publication knowledge.
First I wanted to play along and act like I had anything to do with that publication but then because I knew that they would immediately will announce that and embarrass themselves, and I didn’t want to have any of that so I explained to them that I don’t know anything about that publication and I am sure that you’re mistaking me with somebody that is at least 15 to 20 years older and working( or used to work) in publication business and that Keyhan air and daily Keyhan made the same mistake and had to redraw their claims.
[It is worth noticing that apparently there was another Mr. Abbas Abdi , because once the good/kind interrogator told me that somebody asked him if he doesn’t mind the stench of my cigarettes and he replied that He never saw me smoking and I told him that I never smoked so find the real guilty one.]
Mr. Mortazavi interrupted me while answering the questions and said that he will get rid of page number 9 and there is no need to keep it ( meaning the last 2 questions) and he asked me to convert page number 10 to number 9 and I did that in a way that will show.
After couple of more questions, he started to charge me with the accusation(s) and to test him by referring to the penal law book that what is he is doing against the law due the fact that it took them longer than 24 hours to charge me (from the time of their arrival at my house 8 hours and from the time of arrival to the prison 4 hours later than the legal 24 hours) but mr mortazavi in one of cases that really acted honestly moved the penal law book aside and said that penal laws won’t work on him and from that moment I understood where this will lead to.
I knew that our fundamental problem is the lawlessness so I was not surprised or even upset because this is the structure of our political environment, and I got upset because of other mistakes and felonies that I will explain later.
Mr. Mortazavi made sure the prison accommodate the necessity (meaning: food) to welcome Ramezan but I replied that there is no time to do so and from tonight we have to start fasting. It was kind of him.
At the end due the time strain I asked if I could pray (Namaz) there, because it would be dawn and too late to pray when we are back in Evin, he accepted and said: “glad you mentioned it, because I didn’t pray either” but some minutes later he called his driver to prepare his car and hastily took his briefcase and rushed to his another belated meeting (if I am not mistaking it would be at ministry of foreign affairs).
They took me back to my prison cell after my prayer and gave me a copy of Quran and Mafatih.
Second night similar to the first night it was around political issues and they were truly receptive and even in one case that one of them got angry the others tried to cover up/defuse the situation.
It was obvious that they didn’t know the results of afternoon interrogation with Mr. Mortazavi because that mister that got angry mentioned in a satirical way collaborating with publication of Iran Novin.
During this night we talked about issues in a transparent and direct way and after that I returned to my 4 meter prison cell.
The day after I thought a lot and based on the political situation and my perspective of it and also my personal, family and general situation of the country decided to engage in a serious negotiation with my interrogators, and therefore I prepared a concept and I mentioned it to them during my next investigation but they didn’t welcome it and told me “we start the investigations and there is time to talk about any other concept “so I obviously got ready for the interrogation.
First question was about my political activities before revolution and before university etc. that I refused to answer based on the fact that it was irrelevant to charges that was brought up against me, they explained to me in a pleasant way that due the nature of the charges (national security) I have to answer the question otherwise the interrogation will only take longer, but we don’t force you to answer.
I knew that I didn’t have to answer those questions, and that they would only prolong the interrogations. I said I was willing to answer those questions in the form of memoirs and outside the interrogation framework. Give me paper, I have nothing to do in the cell, I’ll write numerous pages of memoirs, on one condition, and that is to give me a copy of my memoirs, ‘cause I don’t have time to write memoirs when I leave. But I will not respond to interrogations. At the time of these discussions their behaviour was such that I got the impression that they were respectable and trustworthy individuals. My previous experience of a prison interrogator in 1983 was different; other prisoners’ experiences gave a different impression too. Eventually, I didn’t answer the question since I had already said that I would not respond to irrelevant interrogation. After an hour-long discussion the gentlemen said we should talk about our propositions. I explained my proposition, and even documented it that very night, and after a few days they agreed with the generalities of the proposition. So it was compiled in four pages, edited and presented to them, and was meant to be the basis of our agreement. I hereby request that they release the full text to the public, since I was not allowed to keep any paper for long. My proposition consisted of an oratory introduction, that I was aware of my rights, and also of my behaviour. Officially, I should not be sentenced for even a single day, and this matter was clear during my interrogations too, that I had nothing to hide that at least a handful of my friends and acquaintances were not aware of. Complete arrest or absolute freedom would have made no difference in the results of my interrogations. I’d already stated that if I’d be sentenced in a righteous court-and away from political issues, that I would gladly bear prison and my sentence. But based on my impressions of Iran, I believe that I’ll be incarcerated one way or the other, and in fact it has already been decided, and if I weren’t to be incarcerated, I wouldn’t have been arrested in the first place. With this in mind, if being incarcerated is in the interests of the state, I have no objection, interrogate me, try me in court, and I will only defend myself once, and naturally go to the public prison afterwards. But if my imprisonment is not in the state’s interest, I can act on the basis of my proposition, and gain my freedom in return. The interrogators said that if the proposition was acceptable, naturally my imprisonment would not be in the state’s interest. And that they would welcome my proposition and pass it on to their authorities. At that time, and later on in further investigations I would ask who I was dealing with, with ‘them’ or the ‘system’. They would unanimously say that I was dealing with the system, and that they would not enter negotiations without their consent or consultation. There were four of them, one who was in charge of those who wouldn’t enter the documented phase of interrogations and was a senior member of the intelligence system (who went by the alias ‘Mr. Mahdavi’). I called the other two by the names of ‘Hasan’ and ‘Hosain’, and Mr. Davoudi who was in fact their general and executive assistant. The main negotiations would be held with Mr. Mahdavi. I met Hosain and Mr. Davoudi without the blindfold, but I failed to visit Mr. Hasan as he was on a Haj trip. They asked me about my incentives. I told them my initial incentive was political, and that it’d been two years that I’d given it to my friends in documented form, that I didn’t think the current situation should continue. My next incentive was family, and at the time I had to do whatever I could to be with them (I’ll spare the details). In short, the proposition is as follows:
Continuance of the current situation of the country is neither possible nor beneficial, and no-one will benefit from it. The country is in serious crisis, two of which I will point out here. Domestically there is unemployment, and internationally setting political relations with other countries are dependent on the new conditions. If the current situation continues, people born in the early years following the revolution (who are mostly educated) will enter the scene in the next five years, and the unemployment rate may even reach 20-25%, a figure no society can tolerate and that will eventually lead to its dissolution. This is aside the fact that today’s youth has several demands that the current society will not be able to fulfill. On the international front too, setting political ties with other countries will soon become problematic. America will undoubtedly attack Iraq and soon take full control (I wrote this analysis on 6th Nov 2002). This way Iran will be directly and indirectly flanked on four sides by their close by forces and additional pressure will be exerted on Iran. On the other hand, every government is founded on three pillars of domestic legitimacy, international acceptance, and self-efficacy. Domestic legitimacy I believe is deteriorating [I think Tehran’s City Council Elections that were completely political proved this fact very well]. The new circumstances in the region and absence of a positive change in the other two components will weaken international acceptance too. The system’s efficacy will also be gradually weakened as a result of violations and irresolvable differences and methods used against other forces. This it-self will further weaken the other two components.
There are a few ways out of this crisis; one, to pass Mr. Khatami’s two bills – here I was told that these two bills were out of the question when it came to this system, and this option should be removed [although now I believe that even the passage of these two bills will not solve any problem, the reasons of which are manifold]. Therefore three options remain; one is to continue the current situation, which will bring nothing but harm. The next option is the extensive and rapid exit from governance and power; this will weaken the first two components, but it can help bring about a homogenous power with adequate efficacy that will gradually help these two components. However, since this option may confront the society with certain problems, its implementation may drain the government’s power and eventually lead to its collapse. The third option is to withdraw from power and politics gradually and restrictively. This will inflict little damage to the first two components i.e. domestic legitimacy and international acceptance. This however will theoretically allow the reconstruction of an efficacious government that will attempt to solve the two aforementioned problems. And I am ready to contribute to the accomplishment of the third option.
I start from myself. I resigned from the press and political activities and still encourage others to do so. After several days, and consulting their high rank managers, interrogators accepted the generality of the issue but suggested that it is the same as leaving the circle of power. I told them that it is the most I could do and in the current state of the country I do not want to enter into another struggle which can add to the fire of the civil unrest. Eventually, they accepted my idea but modified my sentences and the agreement was drawn in my handwriting and signature which can be obtained from these people. To stand on the safe side, I asked someone from the Judicial Force to endorse the whole issues. I asked Mr. Mohseni Ezhei who is a political figure and I can trust him to some extent. In doing so, during a night in Ramadan he sent someone on his behalf (I did not see him because I was blindfolded and he had a thick Esfahani accent) along with the interrogators and told me that Mr. Ezhei could not come for personal reasons so he sent me and whatever you agree with the interrogators is acceptable for him as well. Due to his position as the Head of the Judicial Force, I could trust him. Later, I heard that the man was his office secretary, yet I was not sure of it. I mentioned the fact to the interrogators that they should rethink their approach with the political detainees whom they accepted and claimed that they were not involved in that method of interrogation and criticized it. They started the interrogations legally from the fourth night. The accusations were about these issues: recent polls, some documents, interview with Rozan at UNESCO Headquarter, Cyprus conferences, my own articles and my speeches in Iran. The whole process went on smoothly and was over in a few weeks and routinely I was asked about the interrogators and the prison and in response I mentioned the three elements of judges, interrogators and prison separately and I praised the latter two elements and left the judge item unspoken yet mentioned it orally. For some reasons I did not put the date under my signature since I expected them to change their process. Another reason was that I defended myself against the accusations logically and did not face with any unruly stipulation from the interrogators. However every now and then Mr. Mortazavi showed up and interrogated me orally and in writing with the presence of his assistant and interrogators and the problems emerged from this point since he was aware that his accusations bore no legal acceptance so he started his pressure from the first night. He insisted that i need to change my attorney instead of Mr. Nikbakht yet i did not accept it but after too much pressure I accepted to have another lawyer in presence of Mr. Nikbakht. They asked me to sign it but I did not need it at all.
Mr. Mortazavi meddled with the interrogations and modified the questions and even threatened me to arrest my family including my little child! Finally I once asked him what it all had to do with my family. If you accuse me of the polls, they were carried out before my wife’s presence at the office and if they mean the documents, each one has an owner and my wife is not even the legal head of the institute since it has not been registered and the presence of some documents in my private office bears no legal obligation for the Head of the institute. Unfortunately these pressures continued and I never expected them to act in this manner. Those who read this text can compare this pressure with the situation during the Shah Dynasty and decide if there were such pressures then or not. These are the methods Mr. Mortazavi uses a norms. These matters were never mentioned by the interrogators and the reason was obvious to me since they were the revolutionists and unlike Mr. Mortazavi they did not justify any means to achieve their evil goals.
One night, Mr. Mortazavi came and started threatening me. I told him that these methods cannot help him. He said “yes, we have new measures and the beginning is the execution of Mr. Aghajari”. He said that so happily like it was very good news. He also told me that I had the same attorney and to avoid the same outcome i had better change him! He told me that he was happy to hear the news of Mr. Aghajari’s execution. The other night he came and ordered the interrogators to finish their job immediately, so that he could hold the court in the cell in the next 2,3 days. He said that they would bring my attorney blindfolded and give my verdict immediately and if we objected, they would send the case to Mr. Ameri or Salimi in the Supreme Court to get the approval as soon as possible and execute the verdict there in the cell! Another night he came and let me talk to my wife, mother and daughter in a shameful manner that the next day the interrogators let me call them properly to alleviate the pain of Mr. Mortazavi’s visits. I cannot mention his treatment here. The other night he showed me some photos of some people whom I did not know obviously and accused me of some things I cannot mention here. I was shocked. His accusations were so baseless that the interrogator left the room and after Mr. Mortazavi’s departure returned. I asked him; who was an honourable man that the other night he had told the guide off who had brought me barefoot to the interrogation room which was not important at all but remained silent before Mr. Mortazavi. He told me that he left the room for that reason and had a quarrel with Mr. Mahdavi (Head of the interrogation team) and left the prison. The other night Mr. Mortazavi came and told me that my attorney and mother have come to see me because they had let rumours go around that i had a heart attack. He was exalted and asked me to say nothing but my health and during the few minutes of meeting, Mr. Mortazavi and his assistant Mr. Nabavi were present so that i would not tell anything about the prison.
I told my mother about the fake rumour of my heart attack which apparently she wasn’t aware of and while she was shocked Mr.Mortazavi did not mind it.
Another night he came alone, then I realized he left to reach me breaking his agreement with the rest of interrogators because when I told them they got surprised. But later it turned out why he did it, since he discussed about a document that very night which because of vital interest of the country I won`t confide its details for now. During this period I realized that the whole case was a fake and he had obtained the confidential intelligence from another source and even attached it to my case without letting me see that. The worst was that they revealed the case and informed another prisoner to put him under pressure. I reminded him about his wrongdoing and he confessed it undeliberately in front me once (goofed). He said it was his fault on that matter. Doubtlessly, I am ready to prove whatever I said and provide essential evidence and documents. I hope one cares for the country and investigates my claims (not to vindicate my rights but to defend our country) by which I will demonstrate the extend of high treason never happened to any nation.
Interrogation was over and my clarifications were completed (concerning News and informational materials) and analytically matched with my own opinions. For sure I’ve been asked a last question. All these procedures done by the end of first session of the tribunal of guilty person in the case. By the end of second trial (Mr.Ghazian tribunal), because the bill of indictment was not complete, at night before the session a number of interrogators asked to exclude a document ( the document I already mentioned and is unseen to me as yet).Although I written down an affirmation clarifying lack of knowledge respecting the document, they told me not to interview about the prison condition and interrogation processes after court session, or otherwise the document will be no more available. I told them, personally, to be or not to be of that particular document is not a question but divulging it, would be harmful for the country. Mortazavi`s assertion about a number of details (definitely no facts), made me claim they`re regime`s concerns but not mine, yet ,because issues to offer for my interview were rational and carried no lies, I agreed in order to help myself and to show my good intensions( not to drop the agreement )as well. But under my conditions there would be no interview with national TV broadcast (I.R.I.B) and had to be limited to the press and joining the I.R.I.B is not my problem. A detailed Agreement was written down. By the end of the trial I was told to start the interview. I refused because there were no agencies but I.R.I.B and the rest were not allowed to come in. Complaining about this, I was told that IRNA agency is out there, (Mortazavi said).I replied where? He pointed at a cameraman and introduced him IRNA reporter. I knew the guy from my arrest at home, he was recording the moment. In general IRNA reporter wouldn’t be a cameraman. However, I agreed to interview to avoid any other inferences, but I tried to convey hints about the mutual agreement by pointing at Mortazavi during my talks. So the coming day he came to prison and told me they inferred a sort of mutual agreement out of what you said (which was a fact).
The trial was over and as a routine my court case should have started as soon as possible (not later than a week) and during which I should have met my lawyer….but never happened .The court had adjourned the next session for two weeks, it was the very point the main issue came out.
Several nights after the second trial, they took me to interrogation room while the interrogation was over. I supposed it was due to inform me about the indictment or discuss minor details of our agreement by which I would be released in forthcoming days after the end of trials. Instead, they showed me confessions of the case`s number one guilty about the documents which has found my family guilty in this case. They knew the document were mine. they explain that Mortazavi called on your wife`s arrest, but for now didn`t proceed and told him she wasn`t at home when we arrived. Why my innocent family should endure injustice? I retorted. They wanted me whether to change the interrogation course or my family would be detained. I told them if there were any evidence I would be in charge but I couldn`t realize a change of course; I had honestly answered all kind of questions. Overall I understood that they wanted me an analytic change. For sure I wasn`t comfortable with the offer not for then not now.
When I read the other convicted confessions, turned some pages over and find the interrogators` questions. He was Mortazavi himself ( I recognized his handwriting) and with a same experience I was certain that these answers were dictated since I already knew Mr.Ghazian diction. However we had the argument until 1:30 in the morning. While I was refusing the offer I heard Mr.Mahdavi`s cellphone rang at 1:30 a.m .it turned out Mortazavi had called and started to give orders about me. Mahdavi draw the cellphone near my ears so that I could listen to him while Mortazavi wasn`t aware( probably a planned action, God just knows). He articulated whatever he liked, blaming me and threatening my family that he is about to issue an arrest at that moment and so on. I didn`t come to a point why should a guilty man change his analysis?, and if he is innocent why should he compel the others ? Later, Mortazavi issued the arrest and after a while pondering about the case I decided to cooperate and save my family,
I didn’t make any welfare for my family and I had less possibility of getting services to them and this is out of morality that I get them in trouble because of myself. After this they made an definite agreement that with a new way and after trial you will be out of jail after 3 days and there’s no specific future for judged sentence and we even agreed on amount of guaranty and it arranged to start inspection from analytic aspect by next day again and it was from this time that I wrote date under my answers and signature till it specifies that my inspections have recorded generally 40 days after my arresting. The general goal of investigations was that it said the body of accusations was with a goal of extermination and voting was fraud and … and because it wasn’t acceptable for me I wrote them with conditional words and they even stopped the investigations and it has been went back to previous way and with this way I saved my innocent family from cruelties of the society and this was the least work that I could do for my family. This investigation lost about ten days in order that it arranged the trial opens on Wednesday (12/25/2002). Among these Mr. Mortazavi notified me defend in a way that you go home from court directly and clear meaning of that was you have to do according to your agreement with inspector although how should I know what did he mean from advocacy type.
Especially according to the procedure inspectors were under control of the judge and I even asked from Mr. Nabavi who is assistant of Mr. Mortazavi after second trial what is idea of Mr. Mortazavi about agreements with Mr. Mahdavi that he said he completely accepts this because level of Mr. Mahdavi is so high and they are coordinated. Of course I didn’t talk about it with Mr. Mortazavi till trial day because agreement with judge has a bad meaning according to juridical. Two days before, I met my attorney but what meeting, in fact it was a meeting of my attorney and I with Mr. Mortazavi and possibility of meeting with my attorney didn’t prepare according to the law and because I thought I’ll be free after three days (all of these mentioned in vicarious of the regime) so I said I write a light and purely juridical reply and attorney prepares his reply.
Investigations finished and they asked the last question again “my Idea about jail and investigation” that I answered like last time and I stayed silent about judge. After that I waited at cell for my accusations to write agreements details, unfortunately none of inspectors came to me till Tuesday night (12/24/2002). They came at 11pm finally. They informed me that trial is tomorrow and you write your reply I said I didn’t see accusations and they said your accusations are same as investigations (voting, activities against regime, being out of Sovereignty, twosome Sovereignty, referendum …) and then they continued that accusations will prepare in a few hours later. Anyway after talking with Mr. Mahdavi for some minutes inspector said you have to interview after trial and same contexts of the court should be repeat till it be a freedom guaranty and they promise newspapers will be there.
They brought accusations at 1:30am of Wednesday, Mr. Mahdavi dissevered some pages and told me I dissevered them from your accusations (that it wasn’t important for me but I didn’t say anything) after about three to four hours I read them (it was about 120 pages) I saw some appointive words that they didn’t discussed in investigations and it was strict false primarily and I was so confused that they promised do not mention it in court and they didn’t but it remained in indictment. But I didn’t have time to take a quick look at the accusations and I purely wrote a reply according to their mentioned subjects (whereas if I wanted to defend myself completely I wrote a reply in about 100 pages). This continued till 2:30am of Wednesday, whereas accusations must be impart to culprit at least 3 days before trial. Anyway after they saw my reply they said this is 1 percent of what is acceptable for us and it have to change and you have to write what’s mentioned in investigations. I said investigations subjects should be mentioned by director of public prosecutions, I should defend myself, not speak instead of director of public prosecutions. They said if you want to recite this tomorrow trial will cancel and another way (arresting family) will continue again and trial won’t be aboveboard and this meant that my advocacy won’t be heard and probably according to “D” paragraph justification related to documents, they took me in court. After a palaver I accepted to change some parts till problems don’t happen mentioned and I did this work after two hours sending and giving back the reply (it just handle name of a reply). I mentioned two things here first this is not my advocacy and my complete advocacy is another thing, after going out of jail that is utmost on (12/28/2002) I wrote complete advocacy and add it to document, Mr. Mahdavi accepted it clearly that the last advocacy is your right and do this work and there is no problem for you and you’ll be free utmost three days after trial and you have opportunity to write any advocacy you want. I added another point that no one accepts it out of there and certainly everyone will say he wrote this under pressure and other things and this is not good for court and juridical organization. They said this refers to us. Of course I did it with a political and family reason and under pressure that I’ll say the political reason in future. All of these works finished till 5am and after taking shower and razing my face and praying I went to court without sleeping last night even for a minute and I presented at court without reading indictment and I even didn’t have any law book with myself that these works weren’t so exclamatory after initial facing with Mr. Mortazavi.
Before trial I told Mr. Mortazavi about agreement and I also will tell to my family that I’ll be free utmost on Saturday.I was informed of the text of the Bill of indictment in the Court while it was being read and when I was reading the so called Reply I realized that basically, the emersion from the sovereignty and Referendum and the like were not among the Bill of indictment; that’s why I hesitated and finally I said these were mentioned in the investigation and each wise person could understand that this text has nothing to do with that Bill of indictment [and even I mentioned the issue when I was signing the Sentence of the Court]; and especially those who have read my Objection Bill will realize this bizarre discrepancy, it is an interesting point that in the middle of the Court session one of the investigators handed a copy of my Reply to Mr. Mortazavi so that he will be informed of its contents. After the Court session Mr. Mortazavi told me in the interview indicate to some issues which can somehow frustrate the external problems and the worldwide publicity (based on the content of what he said) and I had no problems. Of course, I notified a point in my interview, which apparently they did not noticed, because when they asked me Mr. Khatami has said you are not in a normal condition, what do you say yourself? I indicated to my prison clothing as my normal condition. After the Court session ended I met my family and at the presence of one of the investigators and Mr. Mortazavi’s assistant I mentioned that I have resolved the issue in the Court in your favour and I will be freed till Saturday at its uttermost, and the men who were present heard that. Also, my daughter said that after the Court session some has said this Reply meant the emersion from sovereignty, at that point, I told to the investigator this is the issue I had predicted last night. The meeting was over however, and Mr. Mortazavi told me go to jail and tonight or tomorrow I would come to hold the Article? D? And other processes will be done (based on the contents of what he said), when I came back to jail nothing happened till late at night. Apparently, they had gone to rest after a sleepless night in my company. Mr. Mortazavi did not come too, he did not come on Thursday as well, as a result I got so angry that I sent a message via the prison officials, finally, Mr. Mahdavi and his colleagues came in the afternoon of Friday, 06.10.1381, and after discussing and analyzing the Court session they evaluated it as positive and accepted to let me inform my family to prepare the necessary documents for the Security so that on Saturday they tell them where to bring the documents, and I contacted my family. On Saturday I waited but nobody came and the Court session and the article? D? Were not held, at last, they came late at night, and when I objected to their breaking of their promise, they said for sure the problem will be solved tomorrow. The first issue that Mr. Mortazavi mentioned was the Final Reply, I said I would write it later, he said until you have not written the Final Reply the Court sessions would not be ended and I cannot redeem your Security (Of course all of these claims are illegal and there are no problems for the redemption of the Security), immediately I realized that they have another intention, so I asked what is the relevance? He said you must write your Final Reply in order to put an end to the Court sessions and the Final Reply is a part of the Court!! I said if it is so I will dispense with the final Reply and basically I do not want to defend, he said you cannot do so, you must read the Bill of the indictment and reply point by point (actually he meant I had to attack myself), for outside the court they have said what Abdi meant by his Reply was that he has not maintained the Court as true; I said tell this to the investigators, I have predicted this, but you forced me to do so, he said I wish you have defended yourself like Ganji!
However, I did not accept to write the Final Reply, in the end because of the insistence of one of the investigators who believed the job is going to be finished and asked me to lower my note, I said I will write only one sentence about each of the accusation titles, and Mortazavi said I will order a sheet which would beas long as the room so that you can write one sentence for each title of accusation, and in a moment I decided to accept this to show the ridiculousness of that suggestion. At last, due to the insistence of the investigators, I wrote a six-page Reply, but after reading it Mr. Mortazavi said these are not useful to me, I said I do not know what your problem is and I am not in charge of solving it, I should write something which is useful to myself and what I have written is not as valuable as a Reply, by the way he crossed out some parts of it by his green-colour fine liner and added some points to it and ordered me to correct, I asked is it my Reply or your Bill of indictment? Once more the investigator mediated and took the Final Reply or the Bill of indictment, but then he came and told me write the Reply you made in the Court in another way, and to prove that this text is bogus and to show this is an stupid task done under pressure, in the Final reply I repeated the same subjects and the same sentences, that even a person with a low IQ will realize the text of this Reply is not written on my own will. In the middle, I decided to take out the primary text which Mr. Mortazavi had written marginal notes on and had crossed out some parts of, but it was almost impossible to emit it. After this stage, they handed me a twenty -page Bill of indictment about Article D, for which I quickly wrote a three-page Reply and that was done, but to show my protest, I refused to eat my dinner, and when they insisted I said if only Mr. Mahdavi asks me to eat I will eat, but after some moments Mr. Mortazavi came and said whether you mean that I am not as important as Mr. Mahdavi, and I replied if you too promise to end the job tomorrow, I will consent, finally, I ate the dinner and went to the cell.
The day after, near the noon, came Mr. Mortazavi and one of the investigators, and after making a fair copy of the Reply of the Article D, they prepared me to send me to the Courthouse without the prisoners’ clothing. While this Court session was going to be unpublicized, it was agreed to hold this session in the jail, anyway, it was not an important case, after eating the launch we set off to the court and the head of that section of the jail told me goodbye and saw me off, because it was agreed to free me at that day and he would not meet me anymore, when I went to the court I waited much, but I did not see the investigator, later I came to know that he had been annoyed and left the place, because he had seen the televising equipments there, while it was not part of the investigators’ program. Near the sunset, Mr. Mortazavi did my Trial on the article? D? And I presented the Reply which I had made previously and the process-verbal of the Court was signed and it was ended up.
My respectable Attorney came too, but we were not allowed to have a dialogue in private. Afterwards, in the presence of Mr. Tashakkori , the representative of the Public Prosecutor, Mr. Mortazavi asked me to have an interview with the Television, because previously I had an interview wearing the prisoners’ clothing and it had some negative effects, but this time I had worn my own cloth. Moreover, he asked me to mention three points, first, the unpublicized Court session, second the presentation of the Final Reply in seven pages, and most important of all to say that these Replies were not made under pressure,
My honourable lawyer also came, but was not given permission to talk with me privately. Then, in the presence of Mr. Tashakkori, representative to the Prosecutor General, Mr. Mortezavi asked me to have a televised interview since I had previously been interviewed in a prison uniform and it did not leave a good impression and I was now wearing my own clothes. In addition, he wanted me to address three points: First, the holding of a non-public trial, second the presentation of the final defence (on page 7), and third, most importantly, that I say that this defence was not submitted under pressure, [p. 15] since it is claimed that Mr. Qavami, honourable representative of the Majlis, said that Abdi made this defence under pressure. I agreed to make statements on the first two matters, but as for the third, I said that I would not lie. He appointed Mr. Tashakkori to intervene, but I did not agree, and the interview was held in which, on the third question, I said, “God willing, the problem will be solved.” (Quoted from what was said), which signified an affirmation of pressure. I later understood that Mr. Mortezavi took the original of the film from the independent Seda o Sima reporter (he said it himself) and ordered that I be sent back to prison, while even the officials in charge of transferring me were surprised because it had been agreed that I be freed. That night, Mr. Mortezavi made another suggestion that I meet with my family in a few sessions and have dinner so that he could review and see what subjects I would raise there. If I did not say anything, they would free me. I believed that even this was a violation of a previous agreement and did not accept it.
I returned to my cell very upset. After eating lunch that day, I refrained from eating anymore and would only drink tea. The next night, Mr. Mortezavi came and began to mock one of the previous prisoners’ not eating and … and said, “I have to make five hundred pages of your declarations to once more conform to the accusation.” He said this while I, and even he, knew that such a thing was impossible and that this claim was a pure lie! In any case, I answered him with complete iciness and he left and I continued my strike. The next night, Messrs. Interrogators came. Although they were completely satisfied with the court and the agreements made, they apologized that the agreements had not been implemented. This assuaged me and, after lengthy discussions, it was agreed that I would break my hunger strike in exchange for them settling the matter definitively within three days (two days later) and free me. Since I had nothing else in mind but to settle the problem, I ultimately accepted.
by Javane Farda نسخه فارسی(http://javanfarda.com/News.aspx?ID=941)
Translated by:
Narges Safavi
Sousan P.
Baharak Ghahraman
Green Wave
Arman B. Fard
Azadeh
Vladimir
Evan Siegel
Kasra Sh.
Nahal
Comments on this entry are closed.