34th court session to investigate the charges of the MEK terrorists: Massoud Rajavi exposed the organization’s members to SAVAK in order to become president

 

 

According to Mizan News Agency, the 34th court session to investigate the charges of 104 members of the MEK and the nature of this organization as a legal entity was held in public on Tuesday (June 26) in the 11th branch of the Criminal Court of a province in Tehran, presided over by Judge Hojjatoleslam Walmoslemin Amirreza Dehghani and court advisors Morteza Turk and Amin Nasseri, in the presence of a minister representing the prosecutor, the families of the martyrs and their lawyers, as well as the lawyers of the defendants in the Imam Khomeini Judicial Complex.

Declaring the trial public, Judge Dehghani addressed the host countries of the defendants in this case, saying: In international documents, terrorist crimes are separated from the rules on extradition of criminals. In accordance with Article 11 of the UN Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, these charges are excluded from the number of political charges and, with regard to the extradition of the defendants, they do not enjoy the protection of the impossibility of extraditing political criminals. According to Article 11 of the UN Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, none of the crimes stipulated in Article 2 of this Convention can be considered as extraditable crimes or legal cooperation between the parties. In Articles 1 and 2 of the 1997 European Union Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, if the perpetrator is arrested, he shall be tried or extradited. Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings stipulates that the rules on extradition should not be drawn up in such a way that those accused of terrorist acts are exempted from the rules on extradition.

He added: This point is clearly stated in Article 5 of the European Union’s Convention on Combating Terrorism, and the rules of asylum for terrorists should not be abused to enter other countries.

Judge Dehghani stated: Today, a criminal judge in Shiraz was assassinated. The judicial community of the Islamic Republic of Iran has suffered the most martyrs in terrorist acts since the revolution. By offering condolences for the martyrdom of this criminal judge in Shiraz, we reiterate to Germany, France, and England and to Iranians residing in these countries that they should not participate in any of the meetings of the defendants in this case until the final determination of the charges. According to the laws of which these European countries themselves are members, European territory should not be at the disposal of terrorist defendants. Today, this organization and its core members are being tried as defendants in this court.

The judge said: The laws of Germany do not allow this country and its officials to receive and host the defendants. The supervisory and security institutions in our country have noted this point regarding Iranian individuals who are traveling in these countries. Attending meetings related to these defendants after this meeting and hearing the charges of the indictment of Criminal Branch 11 has provided the officials of European countries with criminal liability and the possibility of a complaint from the Iranian nation against them. The officials of Germany, France, and England cannot host the defendants of this indictment and the case being heard in Criminal Branch 11 of Tehran Province. Because it is considered against their established laws. This matter and the court’s emphasis on the need to extradite defendants for terrorist crimes and terrorist charges in order to discover justice and implement it and the truth is a matter that will be seriously pursued by this court with all legal means regarding the defendants, especially in the listed countries.

He added: It is reiterated that, based on the listed conventions, the officials who host the defendants in the case in Germany, France, and England must extradite the defendants only. Any action by the authorities of these countries other than extradition or facilitation of hosting the defendants in this case is considered a crime and a violation of their legal regulations. Therefore, we would like to remind the judicial and executive authorities of Germany, France, England, and the European Union that today the terrorist People’s Mojahedin Organization and its central cadre, Massoud Rajavi, Maryam Qajar Azdanlou, and Abrishamchi, and the rest of the defendants, as described in the information provided, are accused of terrorist acts, including bombings, and the legal obligation of these countries is extradition. Therefore, Iranians residing in Germany, France, and even England, and citizens of this country, should know that hosting these defendants, based on the relevant conventions, has created criminal liability for their officials and the possibility of complaints and proceedings for the Iranian nation and the suspects in this case.

The judge said: After the trial of the defendants, the principle of extradition is the legal obligation of European countries, and after this, based on the principle of extradition, there is no possibility of hosting them, and the court will follow up on this matter until the end.

Hojjatoleslam Masoud Maddah, the lawyer for the case, said: Following the terrorist and cowardly actions of the TERRORIST MKO terrorists, known as the People’s Mojahedin Organization, in previous meetings we raised issues regarding the examples of the terrorist TERRORIST MKO’s hijacking. I will first present a few points about the nature of the crime of hijacking. The definition of the crime of hijacking in international law states that it is an illegal act and illegal seizure of individuals accompanied by threats and the use of force and coercion against passengers, crew, and pilots, which is carried out with terrorist purposes.

He continued: Usually, the material elements of the crime of hijacking that lawyers have discussed are these examples that I will announce; Unauthorized entry into the aircraft, threats to the crew and passengers, such as declaring that the aircraft is bombed and similar issues, taking control of the aircraft and taking it to a destination other than the aircraft’s intended destination, or cutting off the aircraft’s communication with the center, threats to kill passengers, use of weapons, use of chemicals and also the motive behind this action by which terrorist groups.

The lawyer for the case said: “Most of the time, these hijackings are either motivated by terrorist groups to announce their existence, to present themselves in international forums and announce their existence, or to endanger security and spread fear among the people about their own group, or to save themselves. One of the examples of the TERRORIST MKO hijacking is the hijacking of a Boeing 707 by Massoud Rajavi, the second defendant in the case, who, together with Abolhassan Banisadr and Kolahi, the perpetrators of the explosion of the Republican Party office, hijacked the plane and eventually landed in France. The report on this matter is included on page 652 of the indictment.” He added: “I would like to make a few points about this hijacking. First, this hijacking was carried out by Behzad Moezzi, who one day fled the Shah from the country and the next day fled Massoud Rajavi, which indicates the Shah’s connection with the TERRORIST MKO.” Earlier in this meeting, I mentioned that Massoud Rajavi is a SAVAK member, and this statement has a document. This is a letter in which General Nasiri, the then head of SAVAK, announces Massoud Rajavi’s cooperation and his membership in SAVAK, which was not an ordinary cooperation, such that Massoud Rajavi betrayed all the members of the organization to SAVAK so that he could take over the leadership of this organization. Here we see that the same pilot who once helped the Shah flee the country is an option for helping Massoud Rajavi and Bani Sadr escape. Rajavi is a hijacker, abductor, and hostage-taker, whom Western governments, especially the French government, gave refuge and protection to a terrorist hijacker and hijacker, and this issue is mentioned in the Mujahid magazine, No. 162.

The judge said: Read the SAVAK document about Massoud Rajavi.

The plaintiff’s lawyer stated: This is the document that General Nasiri signed below. This document states that Massoud Rajavi, the son of Hussein, is one of the convicts of the Freedom Movement Organization and was sentenced to death by the Military Appeals Court. After his arrest, he cooperated fully during the investigation, and the information he provided was effective in identifying the aforementioned network. After the investigation was concluded, he cooperated sincerely with the officers, and therefore it seems that he deserves a reduction in punishment; that all members except Massoud Rajavi will be executed.

He said: Massoud Rajavi traveled to France during the time he was sentenced to imprisonment. Colonel Behzad Moezzi, who was the pilot of the Shah’s plane, hijacked the plane and helped Masoud Rajavi and Bani Sadr escape. Eftekhari, nicknamed Commander Fathullah, who was the commander of intelligence and special operations of the terrorist People’s Mojahedin Organization, stated in the 1988 issue of the Mujahid magazine, No. 162, page 3, that the command of the plane hijacking to help Rajavi and Bani Sadr escape was with Massoud Rajavi.

Hojjat al-Islam Masoud Maddah, the lawyer for the case, added: “The map of where the plane is located, as well as the infiltration plan regarding how long ago people with fake identities and military uniforms were stationed at the location and how and when the car carrying Massoud Rajavi and Bani Sadr arrived, and how they entered the runway, what time they left and what time they boarded the plane, and finally where they flew from and where their flight line would be, all of which explains all of these matters.” He stated: “On page 4 of issue 48 of the publication of the Union of Muslim Students’ Associations Abroad, affiliated with the Mujahedeen Organization, it is stated that the operation was personally commanded by the brother of the Mujahedeen Masoud Rajavi, and after Bani Sadr’s agreement, the organization’s final decision regarding the organization was made by Rajavi himself, which Behzad Moezzi’s statements also confirm this issue. I declare a crime for the escape of the accused, which was carried out by Behzad Moezzi, and is the subject of Articles 551, 553, and 554 of the Islamic Penal Code.” The judge said: The court will hear the complaint and conduct the necessary investigations regarding the new accusation raised by the plaintiff’s lawyer regarding the escape of the second defendant in the case (Masood Rajavi).

Hojjatoleslam wa al-Muslimeen Masoud Maddah said: Another issue related to Masoud Rajavi is that he is a hostage-taker and was in charge of this matter, and this is confirmed by two technical members of the airline. Fadlallah Qazi Asgar, as a flight crew member and technical engineer, and another person who was with him, were not aware of the hijacking of the plane and forcibly stopped them with weapons and took them inside the plane, effectively carrying out the hostage-taking. In his statements, Fazlollah Asgari testified that Massoud Rajavi, who had grown a beard unlike before, had a handgun like the gunman who had taken me prisoner, and with a delay in my arrival at the cabin, Mr. Vakili, the flight engineer, also came to the back of the plane to search for me, but he was also captured by the gunmen.

The plaintiff’s lawyer stated: “Given the flight safety instructions and the necessity of the flight engineer’s presence in the cabin, the gunmen told Mr. Vakili that he had to be inside the cabin. After coordinating with the flight pilot, Mr. Vakili was transferred to the cabin with one of the gunmen. According to Rahim Dehghan’s testimony, the people inside were lying down, and the gunman put his gun behind me and ordered me not to touch anything or make any movement, because the plane was completely bombed and any abnormal movement would lead to its explosion.”

He continued: “Given that Rajavi himself commanded this operation and that in addition to hijacking the plane, hostage-taking also took place, we can attribute this to Massoud Rajavi based on Article 621 of Book Five of the Islamic Penal Code, which stipulates that the person in charge of hostage-taking is also a hostage-taker and a facilitator. It is regrettable for the French government officials who shelter a mercenary hostage-taker who betrays the country, hijacks planes, and terrorizes ordinary people. I wish they had adhered to their own penal code.” Hojjatoleslam Masoud Maddah, the lawyer representing the case, said: “Article 224 of the French Penal Code states that any seizure and control of an airplane, ship, or any vehicle with people on board, using violence or the threat of violence, is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.” France and European countries have accepted anti-terrorist conventions, which are about 15 international conventions.

He added: It is surprising that hijackers are imprisoned for 3 years and they are sheltering a terrorist like Massoud Rajavi and not investigating any of these crimes. It is surprising that the French government is sheltering Abolhassan Banisadri, whose political incompetence and betrayal of the country have been proven by the legal representatives of the people. The international community must answer this question as to why they are sheltering Rajavi, a terrorist SAVAK who works for SAVAK one day, works for Saddam Hussein the next day, and receives his own protection from the United States the next day. The French government must answer this.

Hojjatoleslam Masoud Maddah, the lawyer for the case, said: I invite the legal representative of the Islamic Republic Army who is present in the session to announce their complaint.

The judge stated: You have now declared a charge a crime, and in the bill you submitted to the court, one is the second-degree charge of making the accused flee, and the second is the charge of hostage-taking. The court clerk shall record in the minutes that the plaintiff’s lawyer has two counts: the escape of the second-ranking defendant by the defendant, according to the lawyer’s complaint, Behzad Moezzi, who, according to the statements and documents provided by the air force and pilots, was considered a Pahlavi, and the second is the hostage-taking by Massoud Rajavi himself.

The legal representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s army took the stand and said: I am submitting my complaint to the court on behalf of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s army. As you are aware, the Air Force of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army was one of the forces whose members, with the victory of the Islamic Revolution, were the first group to pledge allegiance to Imam Khomeini, may God have mercy on him, and joined the ranks of the revolutionaries. You are well aware that the Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in order to fulfill its inherent duty of preserving the territorial integrity, independence, and safeguarding the sacred system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, used all its forces, operational technical capabilities, and manpower from the beginning of the invasion of the Iraqi Baath regime in 1970 until the end of the imposed war in 1988. By presenting more than 48,000 martyrs with the rosy shroud, it fulfilled its duty and mission well and did not even allow a single inch of the sacred soil of the Islamic Republic of Iran to be lost to foreigners.

He continued: “In the meantime, the terrorist People’s Mojahedin Organization, also known as the Hypocrites, which, after its evil intentions and sinister thoughts were exposed, did not spare any effort or action to harm the sacred system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, tried to achieve its inhuman goals by exerting influence and deceiving some self-soldier elements, all of whom were surviving officers from the deposed Shah’s regime, while weakening the country’s morale, combat capability, and defense strength during the war, destroying the image of the revolutionary and ideological army, and creating a sense of distrust and pessimism towards the employees of this sacred organization.” He added: In order to achieve its goals and in collusion with the Iraqi Baath regime, this organization carried out extensive measures, including espionage, disclosure and transfer of sensitive military information and leaking operations, assassination and martyrdom of commanders and fighters (the prominent martyr in this regard is Martyr Sayyad Shirazi), destruction of equipment, sabotage of military sites, wiretapping of conversations, psychological operations and attempts to discourage and demotivate fighters, and a variety of weapons, logistical, operational, intelligence and other support, which will be submitted separately at the discretion of the esteemed presidency of the relevant bill. The legal representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s army continued the complaint: However, in relation to the subject of this meeting, which is the discussion of hijacking, three cases of hijacking carried out by agents of this organization are mentioned; one of these cases was mentioned by the esteemed lawyer of the complaint, and in fact, they mentioned cases and details of this case, which I will try to factor in and mention in the following sections.

The judge said: You can file your complaint in any area that is necessary, because the axis that the lawyer filed is different from the complaint that you submitted to the court according to the bill, the full bill should be read. The army representative continued reading the complaint: One- Hijacking a Boeing 707 plane in order to flee Massoud Rajabi and Abolhassan Banisadr and the perpetrator of the explosion of the Islamic Republic of Iran Party to Paris; after the organization carried out terrorist acts on the orders of Massoud Rajavi from June 20, 1988 throughout the country, blowing up the office of the Islamic Republic of Iran Party and martyring a large number of high-ranking officials of the country, he considered the conditions of his presence in the country unsafe for him; therefore, he decided to flee the country and, with the cooperation of Mehdi Eftekhari, one of the most important intelligence figures and the designer of the organization’s complex and terrorist operations, made the necessary plans to hijack a plane in order to quickly and safely escape abroad. The escape plan was accepted by Colonel Behzad Moezzi, the pilot of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi on the flight of 17 January 2014, known as the Shah’s Escape, who was one of the organization’s agents in the army. He was the commander of the 707th Battalion, which is a passenger plane that entered the country’s air fleet through the army, and the Boeing 707 and the refueling plane that usually flies alongside this plane were chosen to carry out the operation due to the large amount of fuel and, as a result, the possibility of a long flight. He added: In the early morning of 25 August 1988, Abolhassan Banisadr and Massoud Rajavi took off on the said plane at the appointed time, taking security precautions, and finally landed in Paris, the capital of France. Based on the available evidence and documents, Mohammad Reza Kolahi, the perpetrator of the terrorist act of bombing the office of the Islamic Republic of Iran Party, was also on the said plane. The preparations for such a flight do not take place in an hour or two, but require that they be present at the location for several days, if not several hours, in advance, and make the necessary arrangements. Not everyone is allowed to enter the airport. In order to take Bani Sadr under a disguise that would not be recognized, as was also reported in the newspapers that he had used women’s clothing to escape in order to avoid being recognized. All of this requires preparations that strengthen the role of the terrorist People’s Mojahedin Organization, the TERRORIST MKO, in preparing this escape with the organization’s self-sold agent, namely Colonel Pilot Behzad Moezzi.

The legal representative of the Islamic Republic Army said: One of the documents that we can present in this regard was an honorary report that the lawyer for the case also mentioned, under the title Commander Fathullah. They named this flight as such. Given the importance of this flight for maintaining the existence of this organization and considering the connection between the ousted president and that organization; in fact, they named the escape of these two people and their departure from the country as Fathullah.

The judge said: Did the plane have the capacity to take their children and spouses?

The legal representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army said: As I said, the 707 is a passenger plane and it was possible to transport them, but due to the requirements and conditions at that time and in order not to be too visible, since I studied the details, if I am not mistaken, there were 3 to 4 people on that flight, so that they would not attract attention, but from a technical and operational perspective, it was possible that their spouses and children were also on this flight. The pilot, Rajavi, Bani Sadr, and one or two other people were on this flight. The crew and the flight group are also separate.

He said: Another documentary is the interview with Behzad Moezzi, who was loyal to the imperial government and had collaborated with this regime in the field of flights since the time of Reza Shah and was a trusted element of theirs. Because in the selection process, a number of people were introduced and Rajavi chose Moezzi from among these people to take charge of this flight.

The judge said: Who made this introduction? Will Moezzi return and be in the unit after he lets these people escape?

The legal representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army replied: This person will not return after he lets them escape and will become a refugee. He had returned after the Shah fled and had started working. The Shah’s plane itself was a luxurious plane in its time, but after the Shah fled on January 16, when he was sure that there was no going back, I think that with the measures and consultations that were taken, that plane, called the Shahin, was returned and if I am not mistaken, this same Mr. Moezzi returned it as the pilot who took it. At the time he took this plane, he was among the personnel who were serving and, outwardly, as an armed force member and, inwardly, as an agent and officer of the terrorist People’s Mojahedin Organization.

The judge said: Do you mean that Moezzi had a connection with the first-degree defendant and was in contact with the terrorist People’s Mojahedin Organization?

The legal representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s army said: Yes, and he was present at their meetings. They did not let just anyone into their group. This was an important operation that they named Fathullah and they did not consider just anyone worthy of carrying out this operation. They did not give its management and command as a pilot to anyone other than Moezzi. Moezzi’s interview about how he became acquainted with and joined the organization and the operation he carried out in hijacking the plane and escaping Rajavi and Bani Sadr is in the publication of the Union of Muslim Student Associations Abroad, which is in the possession of the organization and is also available in issue 28 and pages 3, 39, and 48, and can be cited and referenced. In addition, the French government itself has also made preparations to welcome and accept these people, and on the same day or the day after these people arrived in France, they held a press interview and launched their propaganda and political show, and this shows their previous malicious intent that they had decided to escape these people. In the publication of the Union of Muslim Associations Abroad, there are statements by one of the organization’s members about how the plane was hijacked and Masoud Rajavi escaped, which confirms my words. In Mehdi Abrishemchi’s film, there is a decision by the organization’s central members about Masoud Rajavi’s escape, and Behzad Moezzi’s words about the escape plan also contain details about how the plane was hijacked and Masoud Rajavi and Bani Sadr escaped.

He said: The hijacking of an F-4 Phantom military plane by one of the organization’s members is destined for Canada. The main base for the F-4 is Bushehr, the Bushehr Air Base, and for this reason, this plane was taken from there to the countries bordering the Persian Gulf, which I will explain later.

He added: In February 1982, a member of the organization named Major Pilot Mohammad Hassan Mansouri, following Massoud Rajavi’s message to the military not to cooperate with the Islamic Republic of Iran during a planned training mission with a Phantom aircraft, that is, according to the Sine program they had, as a daily routine when they were collectively carrying out a mission to maintain readiness, this person separated from the flight group, left the flight group, and exited the country’s airspace at maximum speed. In order not to be detected by radars and not be hit, he flew at a low altitude so that he could easily exit and landed at an airport in Saudi Arabia, and after a short time left there for another country, and finally landed at Montreal Airport in Canada; because the F-4 aircraft had to refuel, it landed at airports in different countries, and these countries themselves made their airports available to this aircraft, especially since it was a warplane. This indicates a kind of tacit consent to being in the airspace of these countries.

The judge asked: Does that mean they were allowing warplanes to enter the airspace of countries without giving any warning?

The legal representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s army said: Is this a spur-of-the-moment decision or does it require prior coordination for a warplane to enter a country’s airspace? You gave a very firm and correct statement; now you see on a daily basis that even if a warplane violates a country’s airspace for, say, 5 seconds, 10 seconds, or a minute, especially if it is a plane from a neighboring country, it can be the source and cause of a major war. You have seen many cases where many political and military challenges arise in this regard; So this brings to mind the issue that if a pilot flies easily, refuels in several countries and continues his flight to his destination, this is not an impromptu and uncoordinated move, just as many countries do not allow another country’s military aircraft to land and they have this right, their territorial integrity, which includes the land and airspace of their country, allows them to do this, but allowing them to leave is itself an implicit implication of cooperation and prior consent.

The judge said: Can an individual do this or do the security and intelligence services usually do this?

The legal representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s army replied: Surely an individual cannot do this; how do you know who the person who owns the warplane is or where he came from and does not intend to attack that country? Suppose a military aircraft wants to cross Iranian airspace, if there is no coordination, not personally but organizationally and even organically.

The judge said: “Does that mean that the entire defense of a country must be ready to receive and take countermeasures against the aircraft?”

The legal representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army stated: “As soon as an aircraft or flying object enters the sky of a country, the radar system identifies it, and gives its code to the authorities responsible for the matter. If the radar system identifies the aircraft as an authorized aircraft, it does not take any action against it. However, if it determines that the aircraft is unauthorized, it first warns it to land or leave the airspace in accordance with international rules and regulations. Otherwise, it can even hit it as a hostile object that has entered the airspace. The set of these actions shows that when this reaction and this confrontation did not take place, that is, in advance and with the guidance and direction of a large group, which is the terrorist  People’s Mojahedin Organization, which provided the conditions and preparations, these flights were carried out, that is, they were not without preparation and without the provision of preparations.” The legal representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army said: Major Mohammad Hassan Mansouri, who was a pilot and was later assassinated in Turkey, states in his statements that he is requesting political asylum by declaring his support for the organization and providing the organization with secret wartime information related to his field of activity, and the organization is providing this information to Iraqi intelligence, both directly and even with magnification. One of the main points where Iraq inflicted blows on our country was in those places where the terrorist People’s Mojahedin Organization, like now playing the role of infantry in the issue of sanctions against Iran, also provided information to the Iraqi Baath regime as a worker at that time so that it could easily carry out attacks.

He continued: “As in the previous case, the documents that confirm my statements are the declaration of support for this pilot, which is included in issue 138, page 4 of the Mujahid magazine, and the Mojahid magazine makes all these cases public and exploits them politically, and presents them as an example of cutting people, officials and military personnel from the Islamic Republic system and joining the Mujahidin side. Another document is the holding of a press conference and interview of the said pilot with foreign media and the publication of his statements in issue 139 of the Mujahid magazine, which explains the entire issue in detail. The third piece of evidence is the hijacking of a military plane by a member of the organization to England, and this, due to the long distance and the passage through several airports and several countries, indicates that this hijacking was carried out through the necessary coordination at the level of various groups.” The legal representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army stated: The terrorist People’s Mojahedin Organization pursued several goals through such actions, one of which was that, since at the beginning of the revolution, a group led by the People’s Mojahedin had raised the issue of disbanding the army, which the Imam (may Allah have mercy on him) had smothered in its seed with his historic decree, this organization wanted to tell the people through hijacking the plane that this army was the same old army and could not be trusted, and in fact they were following the same line of disbanding the army. They also wanted to undermine the Imam’s (may Allah have mercy on him) decree regarding the army and weaken the country’s defense capabilities.

He added: “In the first two years of the war, before the popular forces and the Revolutionary Guards were formed, the army played the main role and disrupted the army’s focus, which should have been based on preventing the infiltration and aggression of the Iraqi Baath regime, and they conveyed the message that the method and policy of the terrorist People’s Mojahedin Organization was right, that a person who is a member of the military personnel of the Islamic Republic of Iran would turn his back on his country and steal very modern means of warfare.” The legal representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s army said: “Overall, the Mojahedin Organization wanted to weaken the combat capability of the armed forces with these actions. On the other hand, some people say in their analyses that Massoud Rajavi joined Iraq at the end of the war, which is not true, and Rajavi exchanged information with Iraq through his agents from the very beginning of the war, which prevented us from being able to carry out the necessary defense in some operations as we should have.” The judge continued: Given the pivotal role of the army’s air force in repelling the Baathist invasions of the homeland, did the organization have any infiltrators within the army?

The legal representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s army said: Yes. If you study Operation H3, it is still one of the most complex operations taught in universities. The MEK did not think that the air force would stop the Baath regime and allow it to infiltrate further with its research. In fact, the organization was taking revenge on the air force and began hijacking planes. Because hijacking planes had a great impact on the morale of the troops. In Operation H3, a number of Baath regime bases were destroyed, and Saddam put a reward for the commander of this operation.

He continued: After hijacking the plane, Hamid Zirakbash, the pilot of the plane, also gave the organization the information he had with him. One of the issues we are asking the court to consider is the issue of disclosing information to the enemy in wartime. Whenever the Baath regime was successful in operations, it was because of information leaks.

The judge said: In the bill sent to the court, in addition to hijacking the plane, you have filed a complaint against Hamid Zirakbash for selling classified information and espionage.

The legal representative of the Army Air Force said: Yes.

The judge asked the court clerk to register this complaint.

 

The army’s legal representative continued: “The series of measures taken to hijack the plane took place at a time when the air force was fighting and defending the country in an all-out manner. Considering that the hijacking of military planes was carried out by the Mujahedin Organization and caused serious harmful effects, we request an assessment of the damages incurred at current prices and inclusion of it in the issued verdict. I request the court to impose the most severe punishment on the Mujahedin Organization and its members and to compensate for material and moral damages.” Hojjatoleslam Masoud Maddah, the plaintiff’s lawyer in the case, continued: “According to their own statements, in the Mujahedin magazine, number 162, page 32, we see that these hijackings are completely organized and under the supervision and management of Massoud Rajavi himself. People like Mehdi Abrishamchi, Mohammad Ali Tohidi, these people play a significant role in this process. They themselves announce the information, news, and plan of this hijacking, including who, under what cover, at what time, and even at what point they will appear. They prepare an operational plan and provide it to their members.”

He added: “There is an important point that I want to address to those deceived by the hypocrisy movement and the Albanians, that Massoud Rajavi, who himself, according to the defected members, used to dress in women’s clothing in meetings to humiliate his own members, and to humiliate them, will one day dress in women’s clothing and expel Bani Sadr from this country.”

He stated: “Masoud Rajavi is a coward. If, according to one of the defected members who appeared on this very podium and said that a guerrilla should not live more than 6 months, he should be in the middle of the field, why does Rajavi flee the country as soon as he sees that the situation is bad and as soon as he feels that his security may be at risk? This person is a SAVAK, a coward, and a coward. I emphasize that Massoud Rajavi is a SAVAK because there are numerous documents that prove this person’s cooperation with SAVAK, which I have presented.”

The lawyer for the plaintiffs continued: “Now, regarding the second defendant, Mr. Rajavi, the tenth defendant, Mohammad Ali Tohidi, the 56th defendant, Behzad Moezzi, the fourth defendant, Mehdi Abrishemchi, in light of the point that was also mentioned in the previous court session. That these hijackings, these kidnappings, these assassinations were carried out in a completely organized, group, and coherent manner. Also, in a hijacking, there is a time when it is simply a hijacking of an airplane and a time when this hijacking is carried out in a way that may also have another criminal title, such as when in a Boeing 747 where passengers were present, the members draw weapons and scare people, such as this hijacking of an airplane where two members of the flight crew are taken hostage. And another point is that these hijackings are carried out in an organized and multiple manner, as stated in the complaint by the legal representative of the army. Couldn’t this be an example of corruption on earth? Couldn’t these be examples of war? I request the court to consider these as examples of corruption on earth and war crimes and to attribute them to the members of the organization’s central cadre because they all played a role in these crimes. A prepared clip of the statements of Mehdi Abrishemchi and Behzad Moezzi, who played a role in the hijacking of the plane.

The judge continued: Between September 1, 1980 and March 19, 1980, the Air Force presented nearly 106 martyred pilots to the system in the fight against Saddam’s invasion of the country. However, one of the pilots hijacked an airplane in these circumstances. The list of these martyrs will be included in the case file.

The plaintiff’s lawyer continued: The TERRORIST MKO proudly refers to their actions against the people and the hijacking of the plane in their own publication as Fath al-Futuh. On behalf of my clients, I ask the country of France how you have sheltered terrorists and are hosting them to this day. This action is raising the flag of the fight against the Iranian nation and the families of the martyrs.

The legal representative of the General Staff of the Armed Forces took the stand and filed his complaint against the pilots who attempted to hijack the planes and all the factors related to it. Then Farid Atalo, the legal representative of the Civil Aviation Organization, took the stand and said: On August 26, 1988, Bani Sadr and Massoud Rajavi went to France by plane led by Colonel Moezzi. This plane was a refueling plane and had been hijacked by TERRORIST MKO agents the night before the hijacking of the plane inspector. Considering that this hijacking has made the country’s air routes unsafe and in order to prevent dangers, in accordance with the Civil Aviation Law, in addition to announcing the Civil Aviation Organization’s complaint, I request the court to investigate and issue the most severe punishment for the organization’s central cadre.

Haj Mohammadi, the lawyer for the defendants in the case, stated regarding his objection to the testimony of the witnesses: “In my opinion, there is a flaw in the testimony of the witnesses and the main accusations leveled against my clients are leadership, which is the subject of Article 130 of the Islamic Penal Code, meaning that according to the indictment and the explanations of the esteemed prosecutor, these individuals were in charge of the leadership of the criminal group that committed a crime under Article 130 and should be punished as leaders. Many of the witnesses are members of the terrorist People’s Mojahedin Organization who have committed numerous crimes, and these individuals cannot testify as witnesses because, in my opinion, they are among the defendants themselves.” The lawyer for the defendants in the case added: “In fact, the witnesses committed the same crimes as stated in the indictment. For example, in the indictment, which includes the charges against almost all 104 defendants in the case, it is either membership or participation in running an organization against the security of the country, and these individuals are also charged simply because they are present in this group, and they committed crimes during their membership and have even confessed to them.” However, how can the court establish their justice and accept their testimony? My argument is that these witnesses themselves are accomplices in the crime. The presence of these people in the group in question is a rebellion or a person who says that he has carried out military operations against the people and since 1978, these accusations have been attributed to these people, and therefore a person who is an accomplice in the crime cannot be considered a witness. Regarding the issue of the witnesses’ repentance, Haj Mohammadi stated: Even if they have repented, they still cannot be considered witnesses, and repentance is not accepted by claim according to Article 116 of the Islamic Penal Code, and repentance must be established by the court judge. In other words, the crime of the witnesses has already been investigated, and after issuing an indictment and proving the crime, the accused’s claim of repentance is examined by the court judge. In fact, repentance is realized after the crime is proven, and if there is no crime, repentance is not relevant, then the crime must be established first and the prosecution cannot establish the crime, and that is why the word judge has been used. If the crime is proven, the person should be convicted and then proceed to prove their repentance and practice it. Haj Mohammadi, the lawyer for the defendants in the case, said: In the cases that we have heard during this time, the cases in which both the prosecutor’s representative and the plaintiff’s lawyer or witnesses came and gave their opinions, almost all of those who appeared as witnesses were either handed over to the security forces through the Iraqi Red Cross or arrested, like Khodabandeh and other people, so they cannot have a case, or they themselves surrendered to the security forces; it seems that there are no exceptions to these three cases; they have a case and we must see whether their case has been investigated or not. There are several possible cases regarding this issue; one is that it has been investigated and convicted, and if it has been investigated and convicted, then the issue of their repentance or testimony is ruled out because they committed a crime that the court has convicted them of, and now the charge against these defendants is of leadership, which is the same as their crime, so they are the ones who are the perpetrators of the crime and cannot be witnesses. He said: Secondly, you may say that it has not been processed yet; the story’s representative said in his indictment that according to Article 102 of the Islamic Penal Code, all the present charges were considered security crimes, so they are not subject to the statute of limitations. If they are not subject to the statute of limitations, then the claim still remains and these are the criminals and the same issue in the present case is that their handlers are not present, so their investigation should be simultaneous and they should be investigated as criminals, not as witnesses.

The defendants’ lawyer continued: In the matter of repentance, as you are aware, in addition to being irrelevant at all, meaning that even if repentance is accepted, the crime is not dismissed and a person who is guilty, as a rule, does not have justice. In any case, our argument is that these are handlers and cannot be considered as witnesses.

He stated: In repentance, the legislator has applied his opinion; repentance in some instances is not acceptable at all, repentance in Ta’zir matters according to Article 114 of the Islamic Penal Code only includes crimes of the 6th, 7th, and 8th degree and does not include other degrees. Therefore, in the Ta’ziri process, only light crimes such as crimes of the 6th, 7th, and 8th degree are accepted for repentance, and in the Hadith crimes, Articles 144 and 116 of the Penal Code exclude crimes that are subject to retribution and the Hadith of Qazf and Moharebeh from repentance.

The defendants’ lawyer said: “Well, now, someone who has declared that he participated in military operations and was a tank driver, and when the indictment says that anyone who participated in military operations is considered to be Moharebeh, how can someone whose own crime is Moharebeh, a crime that the legislator has excluded from repentance and will not be accepted, and who is also a facilitator who is now trying the leaders for the same crime, be a witness. We have this objection and we demand that it be recorded and that witnesses who have been in the organization as separated members for any length of time, even for one day, are facilitators of the crime.”

The judge said: “Your argument is that if a person was a criminal, he cannot testify against his accomplices, and this is prohibited by law?”

The defendants’ lawyer said: “A person who is a defendant in the case cannot testify.”

The judge said: Not all of these people are accused and the court witness had previously been tried and acquitted.

The court judge said to the plaintiff’s lawyer: Part of the accusation that the defendant’s lawyer has against you is that basically, since their repentance has not been verified by a judicial authority and their guilt has not been pardoned by repentance, it is not possible to testify. Do you have a defense?

Hojjat al-Islam Masoud Maddah, the plaintiff’s lawyer in the case, said: The first issue is that it seems that the defendant’s lawyer has made a confusion regarding repentance, which is mentioned in the law as a mitigating quality for reducing punishment, and repentance that is for achieving justice; there is a confusion between these two issues. Articles 114 to 119 of the Islamic Penal Code approved in 1992 speak of repentance that is a mitigating and terminating punishment, for which the legislator has set a specific procedure.

The plaintiff’s lawyer stated: There is a difference between someone’s repentance before the accusation, after the accusation, and before the crime is proven. What should be the proof of it? Should it be by confession or by evidence? After proof, through confession, all of these are different assumptions of the issue.

He said: The term repentance with special formalities has been mentioned in the law, in short, for the purpose of reducing and abolishing the punishment, but I ask the question of justice, which is stated in Article 177 of the Islamic Penal Code and the judge establishes this for the witnesses. Is this what is meant here by the legal abbreviation of repentance, or the legal mitigating factor with observance of formalities, or is it the repentance that the person has between himself and God to achieve justice, that is, the repentance that looks to the future, meaning that this person no longer insists on the sin and regrets the previous sin. Is this or the repentance that has been definitely proven, which seems to be the case that the repentance that achieves justice is simply that the person has repented between himself and God, has not insisted on the previous sin and has not insisted on the future, has not returned to the same criminal group or to the things he did.

The plaintiff’s lawyer continued: The second case is this; repentance before arrest, repentance before proof and repentance after proof, repentance after confession, repentance before confession, repentance after turning to the judge and repentance turning to the judge; all of these are different from each other both in jurisprudence and law.

He said: In short, it is not the case that the defendants’ lawyer has said that the hadd punishment is not a hadd punishment. My first question is about the text of the law to the defendants’ lawyer. In Article 114, the legislator states that in crimes that give rise to hadd, with the exception of slander and war, if the defendant repents before the crime is proven and his remorse and reformation are proven to the judge, the hadd punishment is waived from him.

The plaintiff’s lawyer continued: Pay attention here to the word waived, and in the note, the legislator states that the repentance of the warlord before arrest or control over him causes the hadd punishment to be waived. Is waived different from hadd or not? If we say that there is no difference, we must believe that the note is unnecessary, because it is here that the judge should prove it before the proof, if the judge was supposed to prove it before the accusation and before the proof, then why did the note come and use the word fall?

The plaintiff’s lawyer stated: In the Arabic language, where the legislator also used religious terms here, the difference between fall as a subject noun and fall as an infinitive is the same; falling means that someone causes this fall, which is the judge here. The person has been accused and is in the investigation stage, and here before proof or after proof and whether its proof is by evidence or by confession, here the determination of this issue is with the judge and the ruler, who as the Imam has said in some cases that, for example, if it is proven by confession, the Imam has the choice between pardon, that is, between dropping the punishment and between carrying out the hadd. But what about fall? When a person has not yet been accused, before being accused, before this crime is investigated, the person repented; For example, someone drank alcohol 20 years ago and repented of this sin. Today, he addresses people who drink alcohol and says, “I drank alcohol. This is a very bad thing to do. Don’t do this.” Witnessing is one of the religious duties, and giving testimony is an objective obligation.

He said: In some cases, a person, by coming to testify and saying that he was aware of these events, says yes, I was a member of the organization. Does this mean that we should arrest this person and impose the hadd punishment, this person who has repented? Based on Article 167 and Article 220 of the Islamic Penal Code and Article 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, I would like to cite reliable jurisprudential books and a clear verse of the Quran regarding corruption on earth and the punishment of warring, Surah Al-Ma’idah, verses 33 and 34, which after God Almighty explains the punishment of warring and the discussion of corruption, says: Except those who repented before you could gain power over them, that is, they repented before arresting them. The plaintiff’s lawyer stated: A person who was a warring person, has no private complainant, has repented of this sin, and now we should try this person today? I will read to you a few narrations that the jurists testified to; There is a narration from Imam Sadiq (a.s.); the Imam says: A person who drank alcohol, stole, and, God forbid, committed adultery, but no one knew that this person had done these things, was not arrested, was not accused, and did not appear in court until he repented and reformed, the hadd punishment will not be imposed on this person.

He continued: Another narration, Sahih Abdullah Ibn Salam from Imam Sadiq (a.s.) says; A thief who has a hadd punishment in our law, if he repents from himself, before his own God, repents and between himself and Allah, and returns the stolen property to its owner, the hadd punishment will not be imposed on this person.

Hajj Mohammadi, the lawyer for the defendants in the case, said: The plaintiff’s lawyer is presenting hadiths without mentioning any legal documents that have no legal status according to the stipulation of the law.

The judge asked the defendant’s lawyer: Can you point to the legal text in the Islamic Penal Code that prohibits the testimony of an accomplice or accomplice against an accomplice? Please provide the legal text that prohibits the testimony of an accomplice against an accomplice. I specifically want to ask what the legal text says about the testimony of an accomplice or members of an organized group against their accomplices in the Islamic Penal Code or the Code of Criminal Procedure. Is there such a text in the Islamic Penal Code and Criminal Procedure that states that the testimony of an accomplice is not accepted against an accomplice? Is there such a text? Perhaps there is no such text.

The defendants’ lawyer said: Maybe there is not, but some things are obvious. I must investigate this issue.

The judge continued: So according to your order and information that you have been saying up to this point, there is no such legal text. Now, based on the legal articles, please provide evidence, which of the legal articles states such a prohibition?

The defendants’ lawyer said: Without mentioning the legal document, he divided repentance into before arrest, after arrest, and the cases he mentioned. However, if you look at Article 114 and the other articles, it is clearly stated that in crimes that require hadd, with the exception of slander and war, if the accused repents before the crime is proven, the hadd will be waived from him. Also, if his reformation is proven to the judge, the hadd will be waived from him. We are now talking about crimes and accusations. The issues are based on the laws. The legislator said and this is the clarity of the law that if a defendant commits a charge and repents before being arrested, the judge must investigate this. Who is the judge? You want me to read the theory to you again. This theory says that an indictment must be issued. The investigator, the court, and the prosecutor’s office are not called judges. The problem is; can the prosecutor’s office close this case just because of repentance and a few knowledgeable people? Or the legislator says that he cannot close and the judge must definitely investigate, issue a verdict, and convict, because if he does not convict, repentance is irrelevant, repentance is after the crime is proven.

He continued, the next issue is that he says that repentance is subject to, for example, all the limits, and this is also against the text of the law; in Article 114, before this note, he excludes usurpation and war, and in Article 116, which is after it, meaning it is later than it, meaning it is the last opinion of the legislator, he says this again. I mentioned the cases where repentance does not include retribution, the limit of murder, and war, and it will not be one of the cases where the punishment is reduced or dropped. A person who is himself an accomplice to a crime cannot testify. The titles are clear. What does a witness mean? A witness is someone who saw the crime occur, not that he himself is a criminal. A person is both an accomplice and a witness in a crime that he has committed, but this does not happen. You are now saying that he is an observer of the leader, but this also applies to the individual himself.

The judge said: Considering that the defendants’ lawyers had submitted their bills in the previous session in protest against the cross-examination of witnesses at the end of the session, and considering that it was again noted at the beginning of the session that the cross-examination statements submitted in the previous session according to the bill must be presented in this session, the court entered the cross-examination and I will present the court’s position; In my opinion and that of my colleagues, repentance has two uses and two terms: one, repentance is as a mitigating institution, like what is proposed in the reduction of punishments, the mitigating institution must be applied by the judge in compliance with the formalities, so what is stated as the legal institutions of reducing punishment or removing punishment in the law seems to be that we must go through the formalities. But repentance also has another meaning; Repentance means that if a person commits a sin or crime and then refrains from committing it and takes a break for years, meaning that this person will no longer commit that sin, ultimately this is the interpretation, because nowhere in the Islamic Penal Code or the Criminal Procedure Code is it forbidden for accomplices or facilitators to testify against each other.

He said: “It is at best vague and vague that requires the existence of reliable sources; now the court’s request here is this, we have a new institution of mitigation and conciliation in the penal code called the institution of repentance, like many other institutions that require the hand of the judge or the ruling hand. We have a matter of personal repentance between the individual and his God, now the question is, justice, which is one of the Sharia conditions of witness testimony, says that if a person committed a sin, he must have the institution of conciliation, and now if the institution of conciliation does not exist, then his repentance is not repentance at all, he is not considered just? This is definitely not the intention, because the fatwa does not say so, this is a very subtle and precise point from the perspective of the head of this court; there is a difference between the institution of conciliation newly established in the penal code for the remission or cancellation of the punishment for the criminal and the accused, and between the repentance of the person with himself and his God in his privacy. The second is the law of procedure for the accused and the criminal; That is, the person must have been accused, convicted, and then we will see whether this mitigating institution has been applied to him or not. The judge or ruler in the mitigating institution established by the Penal Code seeks to reduce or abolish the punishment, which is different from the individual’s repentance between himself and God.

Judge Dehghani continued: No text of the law prohibits the testimony of a subordinate or an accomplice against an accomplice. Ultimately, individuals do not have justice. This institution basically means the reduction of punishments. The issue of this institution is not whether a person is just or not. Considering that the witnesses were introduced to the court by the plaintiff’s lawyer’s bill, the necessary inquiries have been made regarding their affiliation with the organization.

He continued: Even if the witness does not meet the conditions for religious testimony, his statements are still heard, and this is according to the law. The determination of whether the witness is just is up to the judge. What has been taken from the witnesses so far shows that the witnesses have no connection with the organization and have been pardoned. The law does not require individuals to have a witness’s confession signed by a judge.

The judge said: “There have been trials regarding the lack of support for some of these former members of the People’s Mojahedin Organization, and according to those trials, pardons and reductions have been made. If you have any objections to any of these individuals during the explanation of the charges, you can state your points based on the testimony of each witness. The court will hear your appeal.”

Hossein Tanhay, the lawyer for the defendants in the case, said: “In court, since the testimony of witnesses is given under oath, we assume that you have accepted this testimony?”

The judge replied: “There are inquiries regarding the witnesses and confessions have been taken, which you can review in the case file and then state whether this confession is useful in your opinion or not. From now on, the court will hold separate hearings for the appeals so that we can hear the appeals before the court hearings, and then the testimony of the witnesses will be heard in court so that full equality is observed among the individuals.”

The brother of martyr Kazem Hovezawi took the stand and stated about the manner of his brother’s martyrdom: At 5:30 in the morning, there was a knock on our door and my mother opened the door and two people in disguised IRGC uniforms said that they were dealing with my brother Kazem and my brother was performing ablution for the morning prayer and my mother told him that two people from the IRGC were dealing with you. When my brother came to the door, they caught him and beat him up. Unfortunately, he did not even make it to the hospital and was martyred in front of the house. They even beat my mother, who, thank God, survived. But from then on, for about twenty years, she sat at the door of the house every day and stared at the place where my brother was martyred and eventually died of lung cancer. Also, our second brother was also exposed to chemical weapons during the siege of Abadan and died, and my father also died a week after my second brother died. All of this was the result of seeing the scene of the martyrdom of the first brother at 5 in the morning.

He added: “Thank God, the attackers were caught two weeks later and were planning to bomb the place where the Kumail prayer was held in Kianpars, when they were arrested there. One of them was from Shirazi and the other from Tehran. A year had passed since my brother’s death when we learned that he was a student and a religious activist, and together with the IRGC forces in the Lashkar Abad region, they made a great effort to destroy the houses of the team that the TERRORIST MKO had tired of the likes of my brother and assassinated him.”

The martyr’s brother said: My brother was a fruit seller and used to go to the store with my father, but later we found out that he was a student fighter. Our life turned into sorrow and grief after my brother’s martyrdom, and the memories of that day are always before our eyes. Even before this, my father had been threatened by the TERRORIST MKO, and during the Shah’s time, my father was also arrested by SAVAK for having a picture of the Imam (may Allah have mercy on him). Our house had been identified by the TERRORIST MKO several times, and they had even painted it red once, and they even knew the exact hours of the family members’ comings and goings through the neighbors who came and went to our house, and they were sure that they could only martyr my brother at the door.

Regarding whether they were threatened again after the assassination, he said: After that time, we were protected by the Basij base in a city district, and the TERRORIST MKO no longer dared to threaten us, and the Basij brothers came and went to our house, and my mother even baked bread for them for breakfast. Because the Basij base was located in the Lashkar Abad area, the TERRORIST MKO did not dare to go there and were quickly identified, and finally the two attackers were arrested and executed.

Hojjatoleslam Walmuslimin Dehghani said: Considering that the hearings before the announcement of the complaint were held by 200 people from the complaints against the defendants in the case, especially the first-tier defendant, this court has registered the complaints based on Article 341 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and as you are aware, these complaints are new complaints received by the court, and the head of the court hereby announces to the honorable people of Iran that those who have any complaints and any points regarding the actions of these defendants against them, the first-tier defendant to the 104th-tier defendant, can file them according to the law and submit them to the 11th Criminal Branch of a province or the prosecutor’s offices in their places of residence.

He added: They will proceed with the complaint according to the law. These complaints are among the complaints that were not in the indictment and according to the bill, they are among the new complaints against the defendants in the case, especially the first defendant in the case.

The wife of the martyr Manouchehr Pourhoshiari continued: My husband was serving in the Islamic Revolution Committee. Since 1988, when the hypocrites had formed team houses in Ahvaz, he, as the commander of the group, was able to surround many team houses and on June 16, with 16-17 people and about 3 patrols, they arrested 3 team houses where 30 to 40 members of the hypocrites were there. The women in these team houses had hidden shotgun grenades under their clothes and when they got into the car, these grenades went off and my wife was sitting in the front of the car and was martyred.

The judge said to him: Do you have a complaint? Do you also demand compensation or retribution and blood money?

The wife of the martyr Manouchehr Pourhoshiari said: Yes, 100 percent. Because I was mentally and materially harmed. I have a child who is injured and deaf from the war and I am involved in his treatment.

The judge said: What was your husband’s job? Are his parents alive? Do they have any demands for blood money or retribution?

The wife of the martyr Manouchehr Pourhoshiari said: My husband was an official guard of the committee. My husband’s mother is alive, but she has a physical disability and was unable to appear in court. We ask you to definitely look into this case because we were very hurt and received many threats.

The judge said: Did you receive threats before your husband’s martyrdom?

The wife of the martyr Manouchehr Pourhoshiari said: Before my husband’s martyrdom, they threatened him, because they were responsible for the team houses, warning and threatening him.

The judge said: Did you receive threats after your husband’s assassination?

The wife of the martyr said: Yes, for about 6 months, they took us to the city to be with our family until late 2013 and early 2014, when the team houses were gathered.

Hojjatoleslam Walmuslimin Maddah, the lawyer for the plaintiff, stated: Martyr Sobhani had a home appliance store, and members of the TERRORIST MKO, who are terrorizing ordinary people and unarmed people, caused his martyrdom by attacking his store. All the assassinations of ordinary people and operations are attributed to all the defendants in this case.

Then, Zahra Sobhani, the daughter of Martyr Sobhani, appeared on the stand and said: I am the daughter of Martyr Javad Sobhani, the sister of Martyr Hassan Sobhani, and the sister of the missing Ali Sobhani. My father was an ordinary citizen who was unjustly killed. At that time, my brothers and I had no idea about the concept of terror. We lived with the terror that terrorists created for years.

She added: We expected this trial to be held sooner. Terror is a nightmare that we have been dealing with for years. My father’s assassination affected all of our lives. I still feel the loss of my father. My father was martyred on charges of capitalism, while we had a respectable and ordinary life and only had a home appliance store. His crime was helping people.

Martyr Sobhani’s daughter said: My father was a religious person and was actively present in all the events of Khordad 15, and his most important crime in the eyes of the hypocrites was working for Islam. We had two bedrooms in our house, one of which was a center for distributing Imam Khomeini’s (RA) proclamations until the morning, and this was before the victory of the revolution.

Zahra Sobhani, the daughter of martyr Javad Sobhani, said: My father was martyred in his shop. The hypocrite who assassinated him was arrested. During the time of Martyr Lajavardi, he invited the families of the martyrs to a meeting and confronted them with the murderers of their loved ones, and we were also invited. We saw that my father’s murderer was an 18-year-old who was extremely scared and crying. Instead of grudges, we felt sorry for him when my mother told him that we are complaining about the person who deceived you.

He added: We asked him about the assassination of my father, he said that we were ordered to assassinate him. We came to the shop and saw that there was an 8-year-old child next to the martyr, who was doing homework, and we came once or twice and did not want to kill him. His name was Mohsen Attardi. The attacker told us that we called the head of our team and said that the child was with the person who ordered us to kill both of them together. When they returned to assassinate him, they saw that the child was not in the shop. This brother of mine, who was with my father at that time, went to the Western Front during the war and was martyred by the Komala party.

Zahra Sobhani, the daughter of martyr Javad Sobhani, said: They carried out this terrorist operation on January 12, 1988. But they had also carried out terrorist acts against our family several times before this act. About 12 to 15 years ago, we had an information dump and they had called the old place where my parents lived and had taken my home phone number from my brother who lived in that house. They had deceived my child and had taken information from him about me and his father. They should face the consequences of their actions, which are crimes, and be disgraced in international courts. The youth do not know what crimes they committed.

Hojjatoleslam Walmuslimin Maddah stated: Martyr Mohammad Ibrahim Rawani (Sorush Mehr) had a shop selling bags and shoes, and I will read parts of the statements of his killer, who was a member of a terrorist group.

He added: Hamid Naeimi states in his statements that I became a member of a special assassination team called the Ahmad Rezai Group under the command of Saeed Jabani and participated in several terrorist operations. One of our team’s terrorist operations was the assassination and martyrdom of the owner of the Pajhwok shoe store located on Daneshgah Street, not far from the Doctor’s Crossroads. My commander Saeed Jabani gave me a copy of the location to examine. So I stood in front of his store from 8:00 PM on September 28, 1981, to follow him to his house after he closed and give him the address and copy of the store to be assassinated by other team members.

Hojatoleslam Walmuslimin Maddah said: The assassination was supposed to be carried out at night and when the subject returned home, but I did not notice the exact time the shop closed and the subject disappeared, so I did not get any results. So when I reported it to my commander Saeed, he said that we will kill him in the shop the next day. A few days later, he gave the mission to Hamid Hosseinzadeh and Hossein Bahari, known as Asghar, to carry out this assassination. One day at 10 am, while Asghar was driving a motorcycle, they went to the Pajhwok shoe shop. Hamid Hosseinzadeh entered the shop and took a pair of shoes from the shop owner under the pretext of buying them and shot him several times with his handgun.

He said: I emphasize that these teams and groups were managed under a command and a central headquarters. Each of them is a member of a group, and each group is a member of a group that has a commander. Therefore, all these charges are against all the defendants in the case and I demand an investigation.

The son of martyr Mohammad Ibrahim Rawani (Sorush Mehr) said about the assassination of people by the TERRORIST MKO: Many people were assassinated for being religious and helping social and religious activities, and there was even a cloth seller in the market who burned his son and his shop by setting fire to the shop and burning flammable fabrics, and no one could help them. Another case is the family of martyr Nawab Safavi, who was attacked by the TERRORIST MKO and threw incendiary materials into the yard of his house, but no one was injured.

He said about the manner of his father’s martyrdom: I was 12 years old at the time of my father’s martyrdom, and due to the repeated threats that the TERRORIST MKO made, the martyr himself and his friends were ordered to be less present in the neighborhood and would leave the work to their partners. Other friends were the same and tried to work in other places and go to the front. Because of the threat they had made to the family, it was thought that the first step of the TERRORIST MKO would be to hunt down the children living in the house, and my father had told my mother that before they harmed me, they might harm the children, and we were prepared for this, and my mother took care of the children.

The martyr’s son continued: One of the things the martyr did was that in 2016 he took us on a trip and we entered Mashhad on September 15. My father took the children to school to register and they were busy with the registration work, and according to the reports received, the TERRORIST MKO did not succeed in terrorizing that day, and the next day, which was the 16th, at around 5:00 PM, the martyr went to the store and someone came to buy something and they occupied the martyr, and the attacker killed him using a pistol. The two people who carried out the assassination run away and the people around think that the light bulb of the shop has burst and later they realize that the martyr is bleeding and they follow the assailants who are fleeing on a motorbike. About three years later, the provincial security forces announced that they had arrested the assailant and we went to see them. He said: One of the assailants stated that I was in charge of the operation and not the assailant and in response to the question why you assassinated him, he said, we acted according to the explicit and direct order of Massoud Rajavi that was issued from Paris and it was stated that my father was disrupting the activities of the organization in Mashhad and should be assassinated. About 15 years later, we received a letter again from the judicial system that the main assailant had been caught and that he had been leaving the eastern borders and his family came to us saying that this person is married and has two children and please have mercy on him and we said that if we forgive him, the law will not pass due to the crime of Moharebeh and will execute him.

 

 

 

Regarding the demand for retribution or blood money, the martyr’s son said: “My presence in this meeting is mainly because we want to re-examine these events for the people, the younger generation, and future generations about what happened. Perhaps the martyr’s mother is no longer alive, and the martyrs’ children have grown up and are not at all seeking material benefits and consider it more of a religious duty and obligation, but we expect a proper judicial response to be taken against the factors that have oppressed 17,000 families in this country.” Hojjatoleslam Walmuslemin Masoud Maddah, the lawyer representing the case, said: “The people of Iran see that Rajavi Savaki, who is a coward, did not fight against the Shah, America, or oppression. He only fought against the people and nation of Iran. The hypocrites deceived our elementary school children to torture and assassinate people, and today they have taken refuge in European countries.” He added: Addressing the European countries and those deceived by the MEK and on behalf of my clients, I say that if anyone in history wants to stand up to the people, kill people, and create prosperity for themselves with the blood of the people, they will inevitably face destruction and decline. The members of the MEK should leave this evil organization while there is still time.

The lawyer for the case continued: The MEK taught its members how to use weapons and receive military training and intended to confront the system, and their goal was to confront the people and assassinate ordinary people. The assassination of martyr Loyimi took place in 1979, and this is contrary to the claims of the leaders of this group that they began military operations in 1980. In other words, the MEK began their struggle with the Iranian nation in the very first days after the victory of the revolution.

Then Mansoura Loyimi, the sister of martyr Mansoor Loyimi, appeared on the stand and stated: Today coincides with the birthday of my martyred brother. My brother was born on the 6th of Khordad 1336 in a religious family. Most of his activities were in high school and were under the supervision of SAVAK. He was imprisoned by SAVAK before the victory of the revolution and released from prison after the victory of the revolution.

He added: He was once assassinated on the Maroon-Mahshahr road and was eventually assassinated by the TERRORIST MKO. More than 45 years have passed since this incident, but my mother still sheds tears at his loss. Later, we learned that there were four of his murderers who were later punished for their actions. I request the honorable court to punish the perpetrators and overseers of my brother’s martyrdom to the utmost punishment.

Iraj Salehi, a defected member of the People’s Mojahedin Organization, also stated: Mehdi Eftekhari had become like a madman; his clothes were like those of a sloppy person and half of his shirt was hanging from his pants, they had beaten him to death. He had done something that made the new kids contradict themselves when they heard his name, that he was Mehdi Eftekhari. They said behind his back that he was crazy and had a mental problem, when he didn’t have a mental problem, that he had problems with Rajavi and his lines and arguments, and finally he died in 2011 due to the heavy pressure they put on him.

He continued: “Everything in the organization is in Rajavi’s hands, even Maryam Rajavi cannot function without his permission. The organization’s system is a complete pyramid and all lines come from the top and no one can function without his permission. In 2015, in order to say that I alone am versatile, he announced that I am the ideological leader and in addition to that, the political bureau was dissolved and he announced that no one would share with me in decision-making. Only from then on, he created an institution called the Executive Center, which was responsible for implementation.

Salehi said: Another person with the pseudonym Iraj, who was one of Rajavi’s bodyguards, also mentioned the same hijacking in his remarks in the Mujahid magazine (the organization’s official organ) on the anniversary of this incident.

 

 

He continued: “This was exactly according to Rajavi’s own plan and plan, and in 1973 he admitted to this in meetings he attended, and again in 1980 in meetings at the Bagherzadeh camp near Abu Ghraib, Maryam Rajavi and Mehdi Abrishamchi said that Mehdi Eftekhari was useless, that Rajavi was the one who did everything. He determined the entire plan and plan, what should or should not be done, and Mehdi Eftekhari’s connection was direct with Rajavi himself.”

In response to the question whether he had financial support, training, or other facilities that you are aware of, Salehi said: “About the plane?”

The judge said: “Yes.”

Salehi continued: At that time, I was not present and I was in the West, but in general, Rajavi himself, in the conversations he had with the head of the Iraqi Intelligence and Security Department after the overthrow of Saddam, said that we did a series of things and the West did not tell us anything, which meant the bombings of Tir 7 and Shahrivar 8, etc. This could not have been without coordination. As I explained, a plane enters a foreign territory and the pilot Behzad Moezzi says that we went to Turkey, from Turkey to Greece and from there to Italy and then to Paris. After that, there were several other hijackings. In particular, another team that they called the resistance core was taking a plane from Shiraz to the Paris airport and there they said that our commander was Massoud Rajavi. However, the French cooperated with them and took Rajavi to the airport, and he ordered them to hand over the plane.

He emphasized: “I am sure from the evidence and knowledge I have of these people that it is not possible for them to do this without prior coordination, and there was certainly prior coordination with France.” In response to another question about whether you heard statements from these people themselves regarding the cooperation of the French government and French government services, Salehi also acknowledged: “What I heard was that they had bases in France where there were several hundred telephone lines through which they were in contact with different parts of Iran. After the numerous blows they suffered in Iran and their backs were broken, they first had the strategy of martyring the leaders of the regime with bombings. In the next stage, they followed the strategy of breaking the spell by hitting the regime’s fingertips. In this strategy of assassinating military and civilian individuals, there was no difference, and they only wanted to make a splash, but after they suffered a heavy defeat in these strategies in Iran, they were forced to change their line and believed that they would follow the command through the telephone line.” They had the phones in France to recruit their teams and core supporters for the work they were planning. I myself heard that there were 200 phones in one of these bases.

Salehi, a defected member of the People’s Mojahedin Organization, said: Mehri Hajian was one of the commanders and Masoumeh Malek Mohammadi was responsible for coordinating with the Iraqis, and besides them, many people were involved in this matter. In addition to operations, these commanders were also responsible for entertaining their people. In 1973, they imprisoned many opponents, but to hide this, they said that these people were sent for internal training. The unit had an operations officer and the team had to train under their supervision and prepare an operational plan.

He added: Parviz Sabeti was one of the directors-general of SAVAK and in his book Dar Damgeh Al-Khadesh, he narrated that Rajavi cooperated a lot with us in the arrests. In addition, his brother, who lived in Switzerland, was a SAVAK agent. Torab Haghshenas, who is now deceased and was a long-time member of the organization who had a friendly relationship with Hanif Nejad and worked with him, emphasizes in his book From Feyziyeh to Paykar that the interrogations are in Rajavi’s own handwriting and are not fake in any way, and at that time they were saying that the Islamic Republic was falsely publishing these interrogations, while they were all in Rajavi’s own handwriting. Therefore, I believe that Rajavi was among those who collaborated with SAVAK.

In response to another question about whether you know about other hijackings, Salehi stated: In the case I mentioned earlier called the Resistance Core, Dariush Dehghan was in our unit and they said that he was one of the five people who hijacked the plane.

He continued: In addition to the assassinations mentioned, they continued assassinations in various ways in the 1970s, but they always fraudulently claimed that inside Iran they even called these announcements the Interior Headquarters, but in reality they assigned teams in Iraq, trained them, determined how to camouflage weapons, types of weapons and ammunition, provided them with fake documents and sent them from there. In 1973, they had a series of operations called irregular operations that operated in the border strip or cities near the border. In 1976 and 1977, a series of operations were no longer operations but missions that they called clearing missions, and their claim was that we had supporters inside, our units would come and identify the borders and roads, and our supporters would come through these roads, which often led to clashes and deaths, and I myself was in one of these clearing teams when my foot stepped on a mine. Again, from 1977 to 1980, a series of teams conducted mortar operations inside Iran; they generally say that mortars are not point-blank. There were a series of mortars that were called commando mortars that were lighter and they used these mortars to carry out operations. A team left our headquarters in 1978. In response to the fact that they also conducted military operations in 1978, he said: Yes, from 1978 to 1980. These teams had come and operated in Ahvaz, at that time the commander of our center, under the pseudonym Afsaneh, lifted one of the team members up in a general meeting and said, “What did you do that your bullets were scattered everywhere?” This was the exact words of Afsaneh, the commander of the headquarters that sent us. The plans were basically checked by Mojgan Parsai, Zila Dehim, Sepideh Hosseini, and if they approved it, they would send the plan to Mahvash Sepehri under the pseudonym Nasrin, and finally, if she approved a plan, the plan would be referred to Maryam and Massoud Rajavi. All operational plans had to be approved by Maryam and Massoud Rajavi. The main factor in all these assassinations was this person.

He continued: “Who determined the main line of this strategy to hit the system’s fingers? Massoud Rajavi. Going to Mashhad, Tabriz, and Tehran to hit anyone you caught and to hit anyone who had a picture of Imam Khomeini (RA) was all officially done by him himself. In the major operation, he was officially the one in charge of the operation and controlled the rest of the operations from behind; especially Operation Aftab in April 2018, Operation Chelcheragh in June 2018, Operation Mersad, Forough Javidan, for which Maryam Rajavi issued the order to fire.

Then, Hossein Tanhaei, the lawyer for the defendants in the case, said on the stand: The witnesses insist on blaming all the charges in this case on Massoud Rajavi, and this contradicts the indictment. It is true that Massoud Rajavi intervened in these actions and we will examine his actions during the explanation of the charges, but not all the charges should be blamed on him.

He added: According to the indictment and according to the statements of two Air Force officers named Fazlollah Ghazi Asgar and Vahid Dehghan, Massoud Rajavi hid in the airplane toilet during the flight, and Hossein Eftekhari confirmed that he was there. These statements of the witnesses contradict what is stated in the indictment.

Mohammad Reza Goli, a defected member of the People’s Mojahedin Organization, said: I was in the organization for about 23 years, and in 2011, together with a friend, we planned to escape from the organization. We have been in Iran for 13 years. We were supposed to introduce ourselves to the Iraqi forces, and then we went to Baghdad and contacted our families, and later we met with them, and there the families convinced us to return; which we did in 2011.

In the end, the judge said: The next meeting will be held on June 10, 2025.