Life Inside an Iranian Prison

---

Life Inside an Iranian Prison

 The New York Times / Room for Debate/ Link

Roozbeh Mirebrahimi is an Iranian journalist who lives in New York City.

 

I was arrested in fall 2004 because of my work as a political editor for several reformist newspapers in Iran, as well as my critical comments about the regime on my blog and on other Web sites.

I spent 60 days in solitary confinement, where I was released only three times a day to use a bathroom for two to three minutes under camera surveillance. I was interrogated and tortured for days on end. Security agents blindfolded me and beat me repeatedly, pushing my head into the wall and onto a desk. They asked me questions about my relations with other journalists, particularly women, and with Westerners, and they constantly insulted my family.

 

I felt alone and was afraid for my life. I had no contact with the outside world — not even a newspaper. The interrogators told me — convinced me — that my friends and colleagues had forgotten about me. While in prison, I was charged with eight different counts of “participation in societies,” “propagating against the state,” publication of lies, “insulting the leader” and public disturbance. I was given no opportunity to defend myself.

After 60 days, I was released on bail because of international pressure and help from government reformists. In November 2006, I secured a lectureship at Princeton University and left Iran. In February 2009, the court sentenced me to two years’ imprisonment and 84 lashes. Two other charges are still under review.

The most important thing for Roxana Saberi is continued international pressure. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s letter urging Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi, the chief prosecutor, to re-examine the case is a good sign, as is Mr. Shahroudi’s order for a review (note that this is not the same as an appeal). With Mr. Shahroudi’s order, I am very hopeful about Ms. Saberi’s case.

Iran is a country

A few weeks ago i went to the bank for some banking works. By the time when the customer service understood that I am an Iranian asked me ” Are you thinking that the president of America has to negotiate with the president of your country?”

 

I said why not? negotiation is not a bad thing but if you want the talks will reach a conclusion I must say that the President in my country is not exact position for the final decision about foreign policy and you should go to the right person.He said “you mean’s Supreme leader?”I said “Yes you know well…”!!!!

 

After the general political discussion with him i came out of the bank and i was thinking about that. It was interesting that Iran’s issue is the case for so many American citizens .

 

I remember just a few years ago that when i was saying to people “I am an Iranian”. They were saying “Oh you are from Iraq”!!! okay so it is a positive point that apparently the result of Ahmadinezhad speeches and American media attention to him that at least more people knows Iran as country now!!

Iran: Four Journalists Sentenced to Prison, Floggings

 

 

Four Years After Arrests, No Public Investigation of Abuse Allegations

 

(New York, February 10, 2009) – The sentencing of four Tehran bloggers by Iran’s Judiciary Court on February 3, 2009, to prison terms, fines and flogging, despite the head of the judiciary’s admission that they had been coerced into confessing, violates their right to a fair trial, Human Rights Watch and the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran said today. The four said shortly after their arrest in 2004 that they had been tortured during interrogation, but there has been no public investigation into these allegations despite a high-level promise to do so.

 

Authorities arrested Omid Memarian, Roozbeh Mirebrahimi, Shahram Rafizadeh, and Javad Gholamtamimi in September and October 2004, and detained them without charge. The four said that they were subjected in detention to physical and psychological abuse, as well as prolonged periods of solitary confinement in a secret detention center without access to counsel or family. Three of the men subsequently described the abuse at a meeting with Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi, the head of the judiciary. On April 20, 2005, a judiciary spokesman said that an official investigation confirmed that their confessions had been coerced. “The interrogators and prosecutors committed a series of negligent and careless acts in this case that led to the abuse of the detainees’ words and writings in producing confession letters,” the spokesman said.

 

“These sentences are shocking, given that the head of the judiciary himself admitted the evidence had been obtained by coercion” said Joe Stork, deputy director of the Middle East division at Human Rights Watch. “The judges should be investigating and prosecuting abusers, not their victims.”

 

Human Rights Watch and the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran called on the Tehran Appeals Court to overturn the sentences, and on the government to investigate the torture claims.

 

The four journalists were released on bail in late 2004. Memarian, Mirebrahimi, and Rafizadeh subsequently left Iran and are living abroad. Gholamtamimi resides in Iran.

 

Judiciary authorities informed lawyers for the four on February 4 that Branch 1059 of Tehran’s Judiciary Court sentenced them each to prison terms of up to three years and three months, and to be flogged. Memarian was also fined 500,000 tomans (US$520). The known charges against them include “participating in the establishment of illegal organizations,” “membership in illegal organizations,” “propaganda against the state,” “disseminating lies,” and “disturbing public order.” Gholamtamimi was also charged with treason.

 

The lawyers for the four include the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Shirin Ebadi, who told Human Rights Watch and the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran that they would “definitely appeal” the sentences.

 

Memarian, Mirebrahimi, and Rafizadeh met with Ayatollah Shahroudi on January 10, 2005, and described physical and psychological torture at the hands of a specific interrogator, whom they said identified himself as “Keshavarz” (farmer). They said the magistrate in charge was known as “Mehdipour.”

 

“We trusted Shahroudi,” said Mirebrahimi, who worked as a consultant with Human Rights Watch in 2008. “He told us, ‘Don’t tell anyone what happened to you in prison and I promise I will solve the problem.’”

 

The apparent purpose of the abuse was to extract confessions that implicate reformist politicians and civil society activists in activities such as spying and violating national security laws (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/12/19/iran-judiciary-uses-coercion-cover-torture ). According to the three men, both the interrogator and the magistrate repeatedly delivered messages and threats to the detainees on behalf of the chief prosecutor of Tehran. Shahroudi’s spokesman announced on January 12, 2005 that, “Shahroudi has issued a special order to investigate and probe these [detentions]. If any of the detainees’ allegations, at any level, are true then we will prosecute the violators.” To date, the government has not made the full findings of any investigation public, nor has it announced any penalties or prosecution for the abuse.

 

“Either the Iranian judges are not listening to Ayatollah Shahroudi, or he has reneged on his promise to investigate the torturers and not the bloggers,” said Hadi Ghaemi, coordinator of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran. “These brave journalists stood up for their rights. It’s high time the Iranian judiciary stood up for justice.”

 

Human Rights Watch and the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran have documented extensive patterns of forced confessions, arbitrary detentions, and prison torture against opposition political activists, journalists, and anyone perceived as a critic. (http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2008/01/06/you-can-detain-anyone-anything-0 )

 

To read the Iran country chapter of Human Rights Watch’s World Report 2009, please visit:

http://www.hrw.org/en/node/79223

 

For more of Human Rights Watch’s work on Iran, please visit:

http://www.hrw.org/en/middle-eastn-africa/iran

 

For more of the work of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, please visit:

http://www.iranhumanrights.org/

 

 

8.5 Years Prison, 124 Lashes!‎

Interview with Convicted Bloggers – 2009.02.09

Roozonline: 

A criminal court in Tehran sentenced 4 bloggers to a total of 8.5 years of prison terms ‎and 124 lashes. Bloggers Javad Gholam Tamimi, Shahram Rafizadeh, Roozbeh Mir ‎Ebrahimi and Omid Memarian received the sentences four years after their release on ‎bail.‎

 

MirEbrahimi, who has already spent several months in solitary confinement received a 2 year ‎and 2 day prison sentence plus 84 lashes. “We will appeal the verdict within the ‎designated time period one hundred percent and reveal necessary facts about this case. ‎This verdict has no merit and is based only on previous confessions which were extracted ‎under torture and in solitary confinement,” he told Rooz.‎

 

When asked whether he expected such a harsh sentence four years after meeting with the ‎head of Iran’s judiciary Ayatollah Shahroudi and his promise to rebuke guilty officers ‎and judges in the case Ebrahimi responded, “We have till today not announced the full ‎details of this case and our meetings with officials, thinking we could trust the promise of ‎an official of Ayatollah Shahroudi’s stature. But the sentence that we heard today was ‎completely contrary to what we believed.” Mir Ebrahimi added, “Developments in this case ‎in the past four years, especially replacing four judges in the case pointed to deviations in ‎the process of examining the case.” ‎

 

On the other hand, journalist and blogger Omid Memarian, who is sentenced to 2.5 years ‎behind bars and 10 lashes, told Rooz, “I was shocked to hear about the sentence because ‎after our meeting at the Constitutional Oversight Committee and explaining the events ‎that transpired during our detention in a meeting we had with Ayatollah Shahroudi, the ‎chief judge promised us to close the case and that he would rebuke individuals who had ‎committed illegal and in certain cases perverted actions during our detention.” ‎

 

According to Memarian, “Mr. Shahroudi asked us to refrain revealing to the media the ‎details of what had transpired during our detention and that he would resolve the case. ‎Apparently though Mr. Shahroudi lacks the power to implement his orders and our trust ‎in him was unwarranted.”‎

 

Recalling tortures and psychological pressures imposed on him by detention officers, ‎Memarian said, “The officers who interrogated me and extracted the confessions that ‎they wanted while I was held in solitary confinement under all kinds of physical and ‎psychological pressures were sexual and mental abusers.”‎

 

Memarian emphasized, “I told Mr. Shahroudi that not just in my case, but in no one’s ‎case should these individuals be left alone in the room with anyone, because they are ‎mentally unstable and capable of doing things that no mentally sane and stable person is ‎able to do. After two months of being subjected to torture in solitary confinement, our ‎lives have never returned to its initial condition because of that dark time’s psychological ‎pressures.” ‎

 

Details of the Sentence

 

The sentence, signed by “Judge Hosseini” and forwarded to some of the attorneys of the ‎bloggers and journalists, provides that defendants in the bloggers case are charged with ‎‎“authoring and publishing articles in counter-revolutionary blogs and websites.”‎

 

The verdict refers to defense arguments put forward by Shirin Ebadi, Mohammad ‎Seifzadeh, Nasreen Sotudeh and Nemat Ahmadi (who represented the four bloggers ‎individually) as “unconvincing defense by attorneys” and announces that in accordance ‎with “defendants’ confessions” and “evidence presented in the case” the following ‎verdicts are issued for the four defendants: first defendant Javad Gholam Tamimi is ‎sentenced to 3 years and 3 months in prison and 10 lashes for “membership in illegal ‎groups,” “treason against country,” “propaganda against regime” and “spreading lies;” ‎second defendant Shahram Rafizadeh is sentenced to 9 months in prison and 20 lashes for ‎‎“membership in illegal groups,” “propaganda against regime,” “spreading lies” and ‎‎“disrupting public order;” third defendant Roozbeh Mir Ebrahimi is sentenced to 2 years ‎and 2 days in prison and 84 lashes for “membership in illegal groups,” “propaganda ‎against regime,” “insulting supreme leader,” “spreading lies” and “disrupting public ‎order;” and fourth defendant Omid Memarian is sentenced to 2.5 years in prison, 10 ‎lashes and 500 thousand Tomans in fines for “membership in illegal groups,” ‎‎“participation in illegal groups,” “propaganda against regime,” “spreading lies” and ‎‎“possession of playing cards,” which the judge refers to as “gambling tools.” ‎

 

Case History

 

Shahram Rafizdeh, Roozbeh Mir Ebrahimi, Omid Memarian and Javad Gholam Tamimi ‎were arrested in September 2004 along with 17 other individuals and spent several ‎months in secret detention facilities in solitary confinement and forced to confess under ‎pressure by Tehran’s Prosecutor General Saeed Mortazavi.‎

 

Following their temporary release, brought about by widespread protests from the ‎Association of Iranian journalists, international human rights organizations and the-then ‎president Mohammad Khatami, the bloggers revealed the account of their tortures and ‎met with the head of judiciary on October 6, 2004.‎

 

The details of that meeting have not yet been published but Mohammad Khatami’s ‎deputy, Mohammad Ali Abtahi, wrote on his blog at the time that, after hearing the ‎details of tortures the bloggers were subjected to and threats received by their families, ‎Ayatollah Shahroudi was visibly shaken and ordered for officers in charge of the case to ‎be prosecuted.‎

 

A day after the meeting, Jamal Karimi-Rad, former judiciary spokesperson said that ‎Ayatollah Shahroudi has ordered the case to be taken away from Tehran’s Prosecutor ‎General and appointed a 3-man committee to investigate the matter.‎

 

The next month, the head of Tehran’s court system, Abasali Alizadeh, told ISNA and ‎IRNA, “Certain officers and judiciary’s officials committed violations throughout the ‎case, including in extracting confessions from defendants.”‎

 

Two years imprisonment and 84 lashes

On Wednesday February 4 , 2009 a division of court in Tehran (# 1059) sentenced four journalists and bloggers to eight and a half years imprisonment and 124 lashes.

Four years ago these four bloggers- Shahram Rafizadeh, Roozbeh Mirebrahimi, Omid Memarian and Javad Gholamtamimi were arrested , interrogated and detained , each for several months. These case in Iran known as ” Blog writers ” case.

Among the four bloggers , Javad Gholamtamimi is still in Iran – Shahram is in Canada, Ruzbeh and Omid are in US.

Shahram Rafizadeh was allegedly accused of ” participation in illegal socities”, ” propagating against the state “, ” publication of lies” and “public disturbance” . He was sentenced to 9 months prison term and 20 lashes. His two other charges is still under review.

Roozbeh Mirebrahimi was allegedly accused of ” participation in illegal socities”, ” propagating against the state “, ” publication of lies” , “insulting the leader “and “public disturbance”. He was sentenced to two years and two days imprisonment and 84 lashes . His two other charges is still under review.

Omid Memarian was allegedly accused of ” participation in forming illegal societies”, ” membership in illegal socities” , ” propagating against the state “, ” publication of lies”, ” keeping gambling tools” . He was sentenced to two years and six months imprisonment , 10 lashes and 500,000 “Tuman” ( equal to $500 cnd ) fine. His two other charges is still under review.

Javad Gholamtamimi was allegedly accused of ” participation in forming illegal societies”, ” , ” propagating against the state “, ” publication of lies”, “public disturbance”. and ” trason to country. He was sentenced to three years and three months imprisonment and 10 lashes.

Link

IRAN From a Window

I made this electronic book by Myebook.com. You can downloade and read most of the my interviews during past 6 years.

Here is book’s link.

Generation Tehran

If you want to see different face of Iran you can watch these movies.

 

Link for part 1 

 

 

 

Link for part 2 

 

 

 

Link for part 3

 

Obama: What does his election mean to the futures of Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan?

Event:

Wednesday, November

12

Obama: What does his election mean to the futures of Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan?

6-7:30 p.m. in Room 308

A roundtable discussion with reporters from the region on expectations for an Obama presidency in countries deeply affected by the previous administration.

With Iranian journalist Roozbeh Mirebrahimi, Iraqi journalist Alaa Majeed, Jordanian journalist Rana Sweis, and Afghani journalist Farida Nekzad. Moderated by Scotti Williston, senior producer in residence at the CUNY J-School.

For information or to RSVP, contact Amy Dunkin at 646-758-7826.

From this link.

Obama & Khatami

Cartoon from Iranian Cartoonist : Nikahang Kowsar   This link 

Q&A: Iran’s Islamic Revolution Had Western Blessing

From IPS:

Interview with Iranian journalist and author Roozbeh Mirebrahimi

Roozbeh Mirebrahimi (left) and Abbas Amir-Entezam.

NEW YORK, Jul 26 (IPS) – In his new book on the covert history of Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, award-winning journalist Roozbeh Mirebrahimi says that Western powers, including the United States, accelerated events by recognising and supporting religious revolutionary forces, forcing the shah to leave the country and averting a coup by Iran’s army.

In 1953, the United States had deposed the popular government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq and his cabinet via a CIA-backed coup d’état. Anti-communist civilians and army officers supported the coup.

Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s second departure from Iran, almost a month before the victory of the revolution in February 1979, had dramatically raised concerns among the leaders of the revolution that Washington would try to stage another coup to bring back the shah, who had fled to the United States. However, diplomats who were at the centre of events say that an accommodation was reached between Western countries and Iran’s Islamic clergy.

In an interview with IPS correspondent Omid Memarian, Mirebrahimi said that the role of the West in facilitating the revolution has been largely ignored, particularly by the Iranian government itself. His Farsi-language book, “Untold Aspects of the Iranian Revolution” (Khazaran, 2008) is based on an extensive interview with Abbas Amir-Entezam, the spokesman and deputy prime minister in the interim cabinet of Mehdi Bazargan in 1979.

Amir-Entezam, now Iran’s longest-serving political prisoner, was an ambassador to Scandinavian countries during the hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy. He was accused of spying for the U.S., arrested and sentenced to death in 1981. This was later reduced to life in prison without possibility of parole. Critics suggest the charges were retaliation against his early opposition to theocratic government in Iran.

IPS: There are rumours of a meeting between the French president’s representative and Ayatollah Khomeini in Paris, prior to the revolution. What was the significance of this meeting?

RM: While Khomeini was in exile in Neauphle-le-Chateau near Paris and leading the revolution, he was asked by the current world powers to meet and to have a dialogue. He raised some demands, including the shah’s removal from Iran and help in avoiding a coup d’état by the Iranian Army. On the other side of the table, the western powers had certain demands too. They were worried about the Soviet Union’s empowerment and penetration and a disruption in Iran’s oil supply to the west. Khomeini gave the necessary guarantees. These meetings and contacts were taking place in January of 1979, just a few days before the Islamic Revolution in February 1979.

IPS: What made these same western countries turn against Khomeini and others just months after 1979 Revolution?

RM: Western powers had been monitoring the political and social changes inside Iran for a long time. They had been trying to understand the internal changes in Iran through the forces they had in Iran or the people they would send to Iran, such as [former U.S. attorney general] Ramsey Clark. They had realised that Iranian society was on the verge of a fundamental change. They chose to accommodate this change. After recognising the opposition groups, they facilitated them with opportunities such as media coverage. Through this action, changes accelerated with an unexpected speed. In the next stage, in order to prevent the Soviet Union from taking advantage of these changes, amongst all existing opposition groups they chose the religious forces to stand against communism, which was anti-religion by nature.

IPS: But why after the revolution did they turn against them?

RM: I would say because of the revolutionary atmosphere inside Iran and actions of the empowered radicals, this relationship faced challenges.

IPS: Why did U.S. officials trust Ayatollah Khomeini enough to negotiate with him?

RM: [William H.] Sullivan, the U.S. ambassador to Iran, was keeping a very close watch over Iran’s internal affairs and analysing all the developments. All the army and military affairs, all the macro-level decisions and reactions by the Shah’s regime, all the activities of the religious forces, activities of the communists, and all other revolutionary forces were monitored by him. According to documents and books published in the United States and other western countries, around September 1978, four months before the revolution, it was clear that the shah could no longer stay, and that they should be looking for a way to reach an agreement with the opposition. All the contacts and dialogues picked up pace during this time. The religious forces that were surrounding Khomeini at the time were people like Yazdi, Bazargan, Bani sadr, Ghotbzadeh or among the clergy, people like Beheshti and Motahhari… They were educated and relatively technocratic and the west felt that they could rely on them. After the revolution, this trust and relationship remained intact until the invasion of the U.S. Embassy.

IPS: Why did the hostage-taking occur at a time when the new government under Ayatollah Khomeini had a normal relationship with the U.S.?

RM: Ayatollah Khomeini was opposed to radical actions such as invading the U.S. Embassy. For example, this was not the first time the U.S. Embassy was occupied. Right around those early days of the revolution, during the first 10 days, the U.S. Embassy was occupied for the first time by the leftist forces such as Khalgh and other parallel forces, but this received a very strong reaction from Ayatollah Khomeini who sent Ebrahim Yazdi to the embassy to get the revolutionary occupiers out of there. During the second incident, Khomeini was caught off-guard after the incident had already taken place. Pressure by the radicals at that time caused Khomeini to react by standing behind it. That incident caused Prime Minister Bazargan to resign. Prior to this incident, the relationship of the new government with the west was still quite normal. We should not forget that exactly one day after the revolution, the United States officially recognised the new government.

IPS: So what kind of an impact did all this have on the Islamic Revolution?

RM: This book has several features. First, it reexamines the Islamic Republic’s portrayal of the history of the revolution, which is a red line in today’s Iran. Secondly, Amir Entezam himself has always been a red line for the regime, which has tried so hard to erase his name from all official records. Thirdly, a person from the new generation, born in the year of the revolution, has done all of this research. And I’m very happy that after five years of all kinds of bans and obstacles, this book is getting published.

(END/2008)