legal

توییت علی مجتهدزاده
Dear Mr. Ali Mojtahedzadeh, esteemed attorney at law; Hello

 I read your note and thank you for your concern regarding the detention of Toumaj Salehi and similar cases.

Regarding the lack of a clear mechanism for how harassment occurs in specific security and intelligence centers, it generally depends on the internal oversight body of that security organization and how much they are willing to cooperate with the judicial investigation and acknowledge and report any violations or crimes committed.

Overall, this relies on the legal, ethical, and responsible duties of the head and staff of the inspection center, as well as the personnel of the security information protection department of that organization.

Even if the investigating judge wishes to personally inspect the location of the complaint, there are many ways to circumvent the judge that may lead them to issue a ruling based on the request of the investigative authority, which I mentioned in another note.

The interaction between the investigative authority and the judicial authority is always present, and no one can prevent it with the various tools at their disposal.

Although recently operations of arrests and inspections of homes and locations are being filmed, and detention centers generally have surveillance cameras—except for places intentionally out of reach of oversight.

However, the detention facility differs from the interrogators, and no interrogator can personally visit the cell or room, or the general holding area of the suspect without coordination and oversight from a prison officer and the head of the detention center. These visits must be recorded with timestamps, and coordination with the security head is required. These records are noted in the so-called “prison logs.”

Thus, even if these cameras and logs are classified—which they are—the security protection of the agency has full access to them and can conduct a complete and thorough review regarding any potential judicial inquiries.

Additionally, the investigating judge or prosecutor who initiated the arrest is obligated, according to the detention center regulations, to periodically visit the detainees they have sent to these facilities.

It is clear that the detainee can express any complaints they have to the relevant judicial authority, and if the investigating judge or prosecutor does not attend to this important matter during their visits to detainees in the security detention center, they have committed an offense.

In the case of Mr. Toumaj Salehi’s complaint, the strange aspect is that the Judicial Authority’s media center has essentially denied the filing of the complaint.

Therefore, it is appropriate for esteemed legal expert Mr. Amir Reisi, Mr. Salehi’s attorney, to publicly disclose the date of the complaint submission, the referral date, the case number, and the adjudicating authority.

I hope that the investigating judge at the Government Employees Prosecution will correctly assess the case after listening to the supplementary statements of the complainant and their respected lawyer and will properly investigate and demand answers from the legal and judicial directorate of the Ministry of Intelligence’s protection department, which should then conduct a thorough and impartial investigation and report back to the judge.

For these reasons, I indicated in my previous note that we are facing a “hard test for the Judiciary, the Inspection Center, and the Ministry of Intelligence’s Protection Department.”

I emphasize the importance of utilizing all existing legal capacities to uphold the rights of citizens.

توییت احمد وحیدی
Mr. Minister of Interior, for the time being, regarding this claim and the gap you mention, it has not been clarified what you mean by "law"

For years, in the political and legal structure of the Islamic Republic, only the final resolutions of the parliament are referred to as "law."

In this case, as with many other extensive powers granted to you—powers that other interior ministers do not possess to such a degree—it suffices to prepare a procedural report and approve the matter according to Article 57 of the Constitution and to create a new task force to resolve the formal issue.

Alternatively, you could report the matter to the Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and request a meeting of the National Security Council, after which the final resolution can be approved, whether it involves granting renewed authority to the National Security Council or establishing another task force, emphasizing the mandatory nature of implementing its resolutions for the relevant entities.

However, if your intention is to deliberately create a legal gap, particularly regarding the parliament, we must consider how long it will take to prepare a draft in the Ministry of Interior, get it approved in the government committee, and then in the government session itself, before it is presented to the parliament, where it will undergo various revisions, amendments, and final approval. After that, it must pass through the Guardian Council and the Supreme Supervisory Board before it can become law and be issued for implementation.

Even if you instruct your deputy to negotiate with representatives to introduce it as a proposal, the process will still be lengthy, right?

Therefore, I think the first two options you typically pursue are easier, especially since they will be approved in classified form as well.

We should see what the current powerful Minister of Interior truly means by this public tweet.

توییت آذری جهرمی
The real powers of the National Security Council and the provincial and county security councils, and the continuation of the targeted security game with public opinion

For the information of those who claim that the resolutions of the National Security Council and the provincial and county security councils are "consultative" and not binding, and who are unaware of the existing realities and the powers and composition granted to the National Security Council in various periods according to the last part of Article 176 of the Constitution, which I have referred to multiple times in Abdul Media, as well as those who make targeted recommendations sometimes guided by specific leaders to the public opinion:

Please pay attention to the text and implication of Article 39 of the Penal Code for Military Crimes:

"Any military or police commanders or officials who, as applicable, fail to implement the resolutions of the National Security Council (National Security Council of the country, provincial or county security council) in cases where they are legally obliged to do so shall be sentenced to imprisonment for six months to two years unless they are subject to harsher punishments under other laws or are not subject to the punishment of mohareb."

Does this legal provision imply that the resolutions of the National Security Council and the provincial and county security councils are considered "consultative"?

I wish it were possible to publish the classified resolutions from various periods of the National Security Council regarding the structure, organization, and authority of these councils, which are sanctioned by Ayatollah Khamenei in accordance with the last part of Article 176 of the Constitution.

I will address the "Hijab and Chastity Headquarters" and its extensive powers led by Ahmad Vahidi later.

However, the Islamic Republic, especially the secretariat of the National Security Council, the secretariat of the provincial security councils, and especially the office of the deputy commander of the armed forces in the police (FARAJA), also intentionally and systematically have no desire to clarify public opinion and the media, even in a general sense, for larger objectives known to Abdul Media. They prefer to maintain the current false media environment and incomplete comments stemming from inaccurate information.

I reiterate:
Do not engage and deceive the people purposefully; present the essence of the matter. Do you have the capacity, or is it allowed to manage public opinion only within the framework of a security puzzle?