August 28, 2010
Ashtiani posts
Ms Ashtiani’s children/lawyer refused visitation
Here is a translated letter from Ms Ashtiani’s government appointed local lawyer, Houtan Kian to the Supreme Court of Iran. It doesn’t flow very well but it lists the obvious facts that Ms Ashtiani received her punishment for adultery even though no man has ever been charged or even named as her alleged sexual partner. He also states that it is against the law to punish someone twice for the same crime, which is what is being done.
Ms Ashtiani is being executed because of a judge’s knowledge. Period.
Letter follows
Summary Translation of Letter from Houtan Kian to the head of the Supreme Court, August 25, 2010
Released at press conference in Washington DC on August 26, 2010
[pdf]
Esteemed head of the Supreme Court,
It seems as if instead of reviewing the legal aspect of the matter in order to prevent the unlawful stoning of my client, a media affair has been made out of it by the Islamic Republic Broadcasting Service (sedaa va simaa), and the case has thus become a trump in the hand of those who, in their zeal to retaliate against the foreign media as well as authorities, have chosen to stand for the execution of the stoning sentence.
In the midst of all this the only thing that is not receiving any attention is the physical and emotional condition of my client inside prison and that of her innocent, unprotected children outside prison. After repeated calls on the Supreme Court, I have finally realized that the case is being deferred indefinitely and peculiarly.
Unfortunately, as I have stated in my appeal petitions, the charge of ‘adultery of married woman’ (zenaaye mohseneh), which will be explained in detail below, has been pushed to background by the sensationalism of the agitated feelings over the premeditated murder of my client’s husband, while she has had no role whatsoever in that crime. This fact has eventually made it impossible for this charge to be tried impartially.
On the felony of adultery:
Since the verdict has been handed down based on the knowledge of the judge, it is not based on conventional [ways of acquiring] knowledge.
Therefore, whereas:
a- neither the documents contained in the file nor the undocumented evidence provided in the indictment are not sufficient, under the present circumstances, to ascertain the perpetration of zenaaye mohseneh with absolute certainty;
b- the presence of doubt as well as the rules governing the [review of] appeal petitions, the issued verdict is in conflict with both Sharia and [civil] law, and eventually with Article 166 of the Constitution.
On the law suit itself:
A- As far as the form
The problem with a closed case: whereas the charge of zenaaye mohseneh in the present [reopened] case has already been tried by the criminal court of Oskoo [Sakenh’s native town] and has led to a sentence of 99 lashes which also been executed already; the same act cannot be tried under different Sharia and criminal-law titles without having been repeated; in this case the same act has been judged previously as ‘illegitimate relationship’, therefore, revisiting the case and issuing a second sentence for it lacks in both legal and doctrinal foundation.
Such a verdict is, therefore, flawed and wrong.
B- As far as the content
In the final judgment letter, where it says Sakineh Ashtiani has been sentenced to stoning, we do not see any man convicted of illegitimate relationship or of adultery. In other words, it remains an unsolved riddle as to why Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani should have had to receive such an agonizing, severe punishment as being stoned to death while it is not known who she has committed the alleged adultery with. The only thing this letter says is that she has had relationships with unrelated men. But no man has ever been convicted of adultery so that we may say there has existed a mutual relationship.
My client and her [late] husband had had marriage troubles and had been living their own separate, estranged, lives. The troubles had led to issuance of Certificate of Incompatibility for them in 2005 (File No. 1993, year 2005, issued by Tabriz court, photocopy is attached). Therefore even assuming that all Sharia law requirements, such as …, has been met, and assuming that the [judge’s] knowledge has been attained by conventional ways [and is therefore well-founded], still, because of the absence of the necessary conditions for adultery to occur the illegitimate act committed – again, assuming an illegitimate had been committed – may be called ‘illegitimate’ relationship of any kind but not of zenaaye mohseneh. Even this self-evident, yet significant, fact has not been considered in this case.
(In this connection, the Certificates of Incompatibility and the Certificate of Divorce have been submitted to the court and are there in the file.)
Thank you,
Hootan Kian
July 9, 2010
