The 33rd court session to hear the charges of the MEK: Sure innocence and the principle of surprise, the most fundamental distinction of victims of terrorism from others

 

 

According to Mizan News Agency, the 33rd court session to hear the charges of 104 members of the People’s Mojahedin Organization (PMOI) and the nature of this organization as a legal entity was held in public on Tuesday May 13 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.

At the beginning of the session, while announcing the public and formal nature of the trial, Judge Dehghani said: “According to the indictment sent by the Tehran General and Revolutionary Prosecutor’s Office to Branch 11 of the Criminal Court of a Tehran province, the charges against the first defendant (the People’s Mojahedin Organization), the second defendant (Masoud Rajavi), the third defendant (Maryam Rajavi) and other defendants are related to terrorist acts. Victims of terrorist charges are completely different from victims of other crimes. Victims of terrorist acts differ fundamentally from other victims in terms of both quantity and quality, i.e. the severity of the harm inflicted. Whether direct or indirect victims of terrorist acts, i.e. the families and close relatives of the victims of terrorism, are harassed in a completely different way from other victims.” He added: “Pure innocence and the principle of surprise are the most fundamental principles that distinguish victims of terrorist acts from other victims.” The judge stated: “Fear of a repeat of the incident is one of the fears that accompany victims of terrorist acts for the rest of their lives.” The diversity of gender, age and different situations of victims of terrorism make post-treatment measures for them very difficult; and these fundamental differences have led many countries to define their laws with an emphasis on the rights of victims. Therefore, as a judge, I propose to the international community a judicial and legal interpretation in favor of victims as opposed to an interpretation in favor of the accused in the laws and regulations related to terrorist acts.

Addressing the countries hosting the accused of terrorist acts, he said: In line with international conventions and the comprehensive conventions of the United Nations, member states of the conventions are not allowed to host the accused and even in some cases the suspects of terrorist acts. In the European Union, the Common Position Paper on Combating Terrorism adopted in 2001 calls on governments not to give shelter to terrorists, and Articles 6 and 7 of this document do not allow terrorists to use the territories of the European Union. Article 16 of this document also requires states to ensure that the asylum seeker has not been involved in or planned terrorist acts before granting them asylum.

The judge continued: Article 1 of the 1951 Refugee Convention also explicitly states that persons suspected of terrorist acts are excluded from asylum. In fact, this article excludes the conditions under which terrorists apply for asylum in accordance with Article 1 and the 1951 Refugee Conventions, and seriously calls for not granting asylum to persons who have committed terrorist crimes.

He added: Based on the principle of extradition, no country, similar to the document presented by the European Union, is allowed to take actions contrary to the document and the objectives of international conventions, principles, and the United Nations regarding terrorist individuals and groups, and in accordance with Article 33, paragraph 2, it must deport refugees.

Judge Dehghani stated: “Today, the first defendant in this case, a figure of the People’s Mojahedin Organization, and 104 other defendants, including Massoud Rajavi, Maryam Qajar Azdanloo, Afshin Alavi, and many other defendants, are facing the most serious charges of terrorist acts under the Criminal Procedure Code at the Tehran General and Revolutionary Prosecutor’s Office, and their case is being heard in Branch 11 of the Criminal Court of a province in Tehran.” He continued: “The principle of the necessity of extraditing those accused of terrorist crimes; a clear example of this is Article 11 of the UN Convention against Terrorist Bombings, which has excluded “terrorist crimes” from the list of political crimes so that these defendants do not enjoy the protections related to the non-extradition of political criminals. I am the head of Branch 11 of the Criminal Court of a province in Tehran, which is hearing the charges of individuals accused of terrorist acts.” In line with Article 11 of the UN Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, which explicitly distinguishes between terrorist crimes and political crimes, asylum cannot be granted to those accused of bombings, hijackings, and acts of terrorism. None of the crimes set forth in Article 2 of this Convention are extraditable or co-operative.

The judge of the MKO court noted: According to Articles 1 and 2 of the European Union Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, which specifically includes the same issue, and accordingly, the articles of the 1997 Convention on the Punishment of Acts of Terrorism are based on the principle of extradition or prosecution, and oblige states to provide legal assistance in this regard. I remind the French government and judicial authorities and the European Union of Article 11 of the United Nations Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, and I announce to the defendants in the case that this court will act with all its legal power and authority to extradite and prosecute the defendants in accordance with the law. The French government is not allowed to host the defendants in this case according to the listed international regulations and many other conventions. The European Union is not allowed to host European territory for defendants of terrorist acts according to the listed regulatory document and articles.

The judge of the court continued: According to the bill he received in the previous session, more than 200 more people from the victims family were added to the plaintiffs. The Iranian nation, as victims of terrorism, will pursue its complaint against all governments that host suspects in violation of international law.

He added: Hosting suspects of terrorist acts is considered to be their proxy. We seriously remind the French judicial authorities and the executive authorities of the French government and the European Union that hosting suspects of bombings and suspects of terrorist acts (the term “accused” is explicitly used in Article 11 of the Convention against Bombings); and granting them asylum is against the current regulations of the French government.

The judge of the MKO court, emphasizing that European countries or the French government should not prevent the presence of the suspects in court, stated: Preventing the presence of the suspects in court is a form of confrontation with international peace. We do not have a different procedure in our laws for handling terrorist acts for suspects. The type of impartiality and justice is such that it is currently being handled based on the unified procedure.

He further referred to the law of the suspect under surveillance in the French Code of Procedure and said: “With regard to the law of April 14, 2011, the French Code of Procedure, considering the necessity of keeping a person suspected of terrorist acts with the police forces for conducting initial investigations and speed of action in preserving the evidence and traces of the crime, is up to 96 hours and faces numerous exceptions. While in the Criminal Procedure Code approved by Iran, there is a unified procedure and the presumption of innocence even for these defendants and the principle of freedom as an inalienable right and the right to a lawyer has been accepted for them. Judge Dehghani reminded: The French government and the European Union, which have drawn up numerous documents regarding the non-hosting of those accused of terrorist acts, are today obliged to extradite terrorist defendants to this court.” The defendants in the case, such as Massoud Rajavi, Maryam Qajar Azdanloo, Abrishamchi and other defendants, should know that this court will extradite the defendants to the country in order to discover the truth and justice in line with the laws and regulations of the law and what is internationally accepted in our domestic rules. I remind the hosts of the defendants who act against the laws of their countries that the Iranian nation will file a complaint against the executive and judicial authorities of France who are hosting these defendants against the laws of their countries.

Hojjatoleslam Masoud Maddah, the lawyer for the plaintiffs in the case, took the stand and said regarding the actions of the MKO in the hijacking: Massoud Rajavi is a second-tier defendant, a figure who has shown no mercy even to members of the terrorist group in order to achieve his own goals and promote his organization and power. Massoud Rajavi, in order to attract American support and maintain his power, shows no mercy even to the women and girls of the MKO and places them at the disposal of the Americans.

He said: “According to the documents, between 1983 and 1984, the organization was in a situation where, in order to save itself from political death, it took immoral actions such as assassinating ordinary people and torturing people, bombing important centers in the country, and assassinating influential people in order to destroy the Iranian people in its own way. One of the characteristics of terrorist groups is that they take frightening actions to attract people so that people support them out of fear, like ISIS did.

The plaintiff’s lawyer continued: “Massoud Rajavi took the terrorist act of hijacking an airplane to promote himself and gain media attention and save the organization from political death. The document, No. 161 of the Mujahid magazine, page 37, explicitly states that 5 members of the organization in Shiraz took control of a Boeing 747 that was bound for Tehran and, after refueling in Kuwait, it left for Europe.” Ebrahim Khodabandeh testified in court that Mr. Seyed Al-Muhaddisdin, the organization’s foreign relations officer, had stated that the hijacking was a spontaneous act and not approved by us. He said: “On the one hand, the organization orders its members to hijack the plane, and on the other hand, it tells them to declare that they did it spontaneously.” The organization had adopted the same policy regarding assassination and torture. The plaintiff’s lawyer stated: Dariush Dehghan, who was himself one of the hijackers, has stated that the purpose of the hijacking was solely for its media dimension.

The lawyer of the plaintiffs continued: If these people were not members of the organization, how could Massoud Rajavi consider himself their commander? If these people were not connected to the organization, how could the Mujahid magazine, No. 161, page 37, admit that one of our popular resistance cells had taken control of the plane? Our other witnesses are Mr. Issa Azadeh and Ebrahim Khodabandeh, who testified in court. They have published the biographies of the hijackers on the MKO website. He added: Massoud Rajavi and the central cadre of the organization announce to the cells of the terrorist group that anyone who can carry out hijackings, assassinations, and bombings can do so. The lawyer of the plaintiffs stated: Another act of the organization is the hijacking of a Boeing 727, which is mentioned in the indictment. Then, Farid al-Din Atalo, the legal representative of the Civil Aviation Organization, took the stand and stated: The Civil Aviation Organization, as the representative of the government in exercising sovereignty over the aviation industry, is responsible for supervising the activities of civil aviation, preventing the occurrence of dangers, and protecting public interests. In October 1982, a Boeing 727 of the Islamic Republic of Iran Airlines was hijacked by an agent of the MKO terrorist group in that company, pilot Kayhan Jahanfakhr, with 70 passengers on the Tehran-Vienna route. After landing at the Austrian airport, he requested political asylum from the authorities in that country, and the pilot provided his classified information to the MKO. He added: The news of this incident was published in the publication of the Union of Muslim Students Associations Abroad, issue 59, pages 1, 8, 9, and 10, and issue 60 of the same publication, page 25. Also, the text of the interview of the pilot Kayhan Jahanfakhr with the publication of the Union of Muslim Students Associations Abroad, issue 59, pages 8 to 10, in which he declares his full support and solidarity with the People’s Mojahedin Organization, also known as the MKO. Atalo stated: The news of the press conference in Vienna with the presence of this pilot was also published in the publication of the Union of Muslim Associations Abroad, No. 60, on page 25 and No. 61, on page 29; therefore, considering the necessity of addressing the issue, in accordance with the provisions of Article 23 of the Civil Aviation Law approved in 1328 AH and its subsequent amendments and the regulations contained in international documents including the Tokyo Convention, the Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, 1970, the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, Canada, 1971, the International Convention for the Suppression of Hostages, 1979, Annex 17 of the Chicago Convention, 1944, the Anti-Terrorism Law and the Islamic Penal Code, I request the prosecution and severe punishment of the perpetrators of this crime, including the legal entity of the People’s Mojahedin Organization, its central cadres and members, in addition to announcing the Civil Aviation Organization’s complaint to the court.

The court judge stated: According to the bill you presented to the court, you declared a pilot named Kayhan Jahanfakhr a criminal. What is the crime that this person committed?

The legal representative of the Civil Aviation Organization said: This pilot hijacked the plane during the flight and took it to a place where the Mujahedeen were present, while according to the statement of Iran Air, this person had been a member of the staff of the Islamic Republic of Iran Airlines and had been working as a pilot for 16 years. This action of the pilot has caused fear and terror among the people and passengers of the flight.

Judge Dehghani said: Considering the information provided by the representative of the Civil Aviation Organization to the court and the complaint filed by the representative of the Civil Aviation Organization of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Civil Aviation Organization, this court has accepted the criminal complaint against Kayhan Jahanfakhr and will send this complaint to the Saleh Prosecutor’s Office for consideration in accordance with Article 341 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Civil Aviation Law.

Then, Hamed Afkari Mehraban, the legal representative of Iran Air, took the stand and said regarding the intervention of France in the hijacking issue: According to the laws of the European Union, if a person from a member country of the European Union requests political asylum, he should not be suspected of terrorist acts. The 5 people who attempted to hijack a plane from Shiraz were tried in France and sentenced to 10 years in prison, which was later reduced to 5 years, and after a year and a half they were granted asylum in France. How can a country that considers itself a leader in the law behave like this?

He said: The second plane to be hijacked was a Boeing 727, which was hijacked by pilot Kayhan Jahanfakhr and landed at Vienna Airport with 70 passengers. Pilot Kayhan Jahanfakhr was a senior pilot and founder of the Pilots Association for 15 years. He left the country with classified information and handed it over to the Mojahedin Organization, gave interviews to various publications, and handed himself over to Massoud Rajavi in ​​France.

The legal representative of Iran Air said: European countries did not take any legal action against this person and granted him asylum. Following the bill I submitted to the court, the Islamic Republic of Iran Airlines is suing this traitorous pilot and the Mojahedin Organization and is demanding the harshest punishment.

The judge said: Do you have any specific charges in mind regarding the pilot’s provision of classified information to the MEK?

The legal representative of Iran Air said: Our complaint is about espionage and hijacking in relation to pilot Kayhan Jahanfakhr.

The judge said: The court accepts this complaint and will forward it to the prosecutor’s office for consideration in accordance with the regulations.

Hojjatoleslam Walmuslamin Masoud Maddah, the lawyer for the case, stated: An important issue that I declared a crime against in the previous session and that was neglected is the crime of kidnapping, which is documented in Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the Islamic Penal Code approved in 2013. Considering that the formal court in France did not address this issue regarding the crime of hijackers, this court is competent to address this crime.

Stating that kidnapping is considered the most important crime against the physical integrity of individuals after murder around the world, he said: “Many articles from the French Declaration of Human Rights and the Rights of the Citizen adopted in 1789, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948, and the Islamic Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1990, stipulate human freedom, especially freedom of the body. Given these indications, it seems that the French government and judges, instead of cutting off the legs of terrorists, are supporting terrorists and have given shelter to kidnappers and hijackers and those who disrupt Iranian and global security.” Hojjatoleslam Walmuslimin Madad reminded: Our legislator explicitly declares in Article 621 of the Fifth Book of Penalties and Deterrent Punishments of the Islamic Penal Code that whoever kidnaps or hides a person with the intention of demanding money or property or revenge or for any other purpose by force or threat or trickery or in any other way, personally or through another person, will be sentenced to 4th degree imprisonment if the crime was committed by force or threat and otherwise to 5th degree imprisonment.

He noted: In comparing the crime of kidnapping with the incident that the hijackers committed, I must say that the People’s Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization and its members carried out kidnappings in numerous cases and it does not only refer to the issue of hijacking. Citing pages 662 to 667 of the indictment, this organization carried out kidnappings in engineering operations, torture and assassination of ordinary people. Another example of kidnapping was the hijacking of a Boeing 747.

He continued: In the circumstances and circumstances of the crime of kidnapping, lawyers have raised three issues, including: the customary fulfillment of the kidnapping, the victim’s lack of consent, and the abductee being alive, all three of which have been met in this instance. In the Mujahid magazine, issue 212, page 35, they publish a notice from the resistance nucleus on the plane, which announces that the plane has come under the complete control of the supporters of the People’s Mojahedin. The notice also states that a large amount of TNT has been planted in the plane and will explode with the slightest unforeseen event. The hijackers also threatened the passengers with shooting and blowing up the plane; all of which are examples of kidnapping.

The lawyer for the case added: According to our law, the mastermind in the crime of kidnapping is punished as an accomplice, and this shows the importance of the crime of kidnapping; therefore, the second defendant in the case, Massoud Rajavi, as well as all members of the organization’s military cadre, are all kidnappers and masters of this crime and should also be convicted of this crime.

He added: Some jurists also believe that kidnapping is a crime of corruption on earth, and this crime is only mentioned for one kidnapping case, but when an organized group commits kidnappings on multiple occasions, can’t this be an example of Article 286 of the Islamic Penal Code, which is a crime of corruption on earth?

Then Abdullah Afghan, a defected member of the People’s Mujahedin Organization, appeared on the stand after taking the oath and stated: I joined the organization in 1988 after Operation Mersad in Iraq, and I returned to Iran in 2005. When I joined the organization, they announced that a person named Hossein Eftekhari, alias Ehsan, had hijacked an airplane from Shiraz and taken it to Orly Airport.

The judge asked: Did you speak to Hossein Eftekhari personally and ask him questions about the hijacking?

This eyewitness replied: Yes. But he insisted that we not ask him about the Boeing. But he openly confessed to hijacking the airplane.

The judge asked: Where did you meet Hussein Eftekhari?

Abdullah Afghan replied: In Camp Ashraf. Most of the members jokingly called him Hussein the Thief and said that he had stolen a plane. As the members told him in the camp, Hussein Eftekhari had put a Colt in his hand cast and put it in the plane, and after hijacking the plane, he had delivered it to Rajavi at Orly Airport. He was in our unit at Camp Ashraf in 1988.

The judge asked again: Did you see anyone else related to this matter there?

The defected member of the MKO replied: No.

The judge said: How can we be sure that this group was in contact with Rajavi?

This eyewitness stated: Hossein Eftekhari was in the same unit with us. These people considered themselves the core of the resistance and we had also read about this in the Mujahid magazine. We were never allowed to talk about these topics in the gatherings and all the information I have is from before 1988 and the beginning of the gathering.

The judge asked: Since when were you in the same unit with Hossein Eftekhari?

This defected member of the MKO replied: I was a fireman in the 122nd and 130th artillery units. From 1988 after completing a training course until the last moment when the Americans confiscated the Ashraf barracks, that is, until 1983, I was in the artillery unit. Hossein Eftekhari was also in our unit for a while and then in the mechanized unit. He was a problematic person and had problems with the organization and it didn’t look like he could hijack a plane at all.

He said: When I joined the organization, I was a religious person and I fasted. One day when I was fasting, the commander told me not to fast, if the regime is overthrown one day, you will become the governor of Mazandaran at most, and that was when my mind went haywire. After 1979, I was forced into the organization. After a while, people who were forced into the organization started committing suicide, and I was one of the people who committed suicide.

Afghan Ader continued: Children aged 2 to 3 who had been sent to Europe during the war with Kuwait were returned to the organization when they were 17 or 18. These children insulted us. This made me take pills and commit suicide. One person also shot himself in the foot with a Colt.

The judge said: Do you know about the border wall operations?

This defected member of the organization said: I only know that the team that wanted to assassinate Martyr Lajevardi was with us 6 months ago and we were not aware of this. We found out about this after the operation in Tehran.

The judge said: What did they do during the 6 months?

This defected member of the organization said: They were receiving military training. One of them was named Reza. When the assassination operation of Martyr Lajevardi was carried out, this person was also killed, and Massoud Rajavi gave him the title of national hero.

Next, Reza Mohammadi, the lawyer for the first defendant in the case and 20 members of the organization, appeared on the stand and asked Abdullah Afghan, a defected member of the MKO: In part of your statement, you said that you heard from members of the organization that a plane from Shiraz was hijacked to Bandar Abbas, while the hijacked plane was on a Shiraz-Tehran flight. Please explain in this regard, based on what you heard at the time, which was the destination of this flight?

The lawyer for some of the defendants continued: According to the indictment that was issued, one plane was destined for Vienna and the other for Amsterdam. The legal representative of the Aviation Organization also stated that the hijacking of the plane has not been investigated in a French court. Now my question is, was this act essentially a hijacking and did the act of kidnapping occur? A plane takes off from its origin and lands at its destination, and after landing at its destination, the pilot announces that he does not want to return to Iran; is this really considered a hijacking? Of course, the issue is different with the plane that was bound for Tehran, but in the other two cases, in my opinion, there was no hijacking at all. Explain this?

He continued: Another point that is not related to the witness, but it is unclear to me, is that the defense lawyer states that since there was a hijacking, there was also a kidnapping. If we want to rely on this issue, there were wallets in the passengers’ pockets, so there was also a kidnapping? That is, based on this, 10 criminal charges can be imposed on one act. Is this true?

Afghan, a member of the MKO who broke away, said: I heard the origin and destination of the flight from members of the organization, and it was a quote, and I did not hear anything from Hossein Eftekhari himself in this regard, because he was asked not to talk to anyone about this issue; But I heard from Hossein Eftekhari himself that he had put the Colt in his hand cast.

Hojjatoleslam Walmuslemin Masoud Maddah, the lawyer who filed the case, said: “In light of the statements of the defendants’ lawyer, I must say that in the science of law we have a subject called spiritual plurality; that is, one behavior can be an example of two or more criminal titles. My point was that sometimes we are faced with a single kidnapping case and sometimes with a kidnapping network that can widely affect our internal or external security. In my statement, I referred to the opinions of jurists who consider this crime to be an example of corruption on earth.”

He added: “The jurists and our penal code stipulate that ta’zir can be combined with hadd. Now, if this ta’zir and hadd were of the same kind, a person would be sentenced to hadd punishment only, but if hadd and ta’zir are different, there is no contradiction in a person being subjected to both ta’zir and hadd.”

The judge stated: “The defendant’s lawyer asks whether you claim that multiple criminal consequences resulted from a single crime, such as those mentioned in Article 134, or is it essentially one crime with different titles?”

The lawyer representing the case replied: It is a crime with different titles, and that is the crime of hijacking. This crime is sometimes simply hijacking an airplane, but here a weapon was also drawn and there was also atrocities. If someone on the plane had been killed during this hijacking, could we say that they were simply hijackers and should be punished and not retaliated against? Sometimes a crime can have multiple titles in different subjects. This was a hijacking that included all the elements of kidnapping.

Hamed Afkari Mehraban, the legal representative of Iran Air, took the stand and said: Kayhan Jahanfakhr landed the plane in Vienna. A plane is entrusted to a pilot when he makes commitments to the airline. Kayhan Jahanfakhr had also made commitments. Jahanfakhr proudly announces in the Students’ Association’s publication that he did this for the Mojahedin Organization and has confessed to this.

He said: “A pilot must deliver an aircraft to its destination in accordance with the obligations he gives to the company, and if he does not do so, it is hijacking.”

Mohammadi, the defendants’ lawyer, continued: “A hijacking is different from stealing an aircraft. The legal representative of Iran Air says that we gave the aircraft to the pilot and this person did not return the aircraft. This is not a hijacking, but rather a betrayal of trust.”

The legal representative of Iran Air said: “In our view, this is a hijacking.”

Then Hadi Shabani, a defected member of the People’s Mojahedin Organization, took the stand and said: “I worked with the Mojahedin Organization for 20 years, and today I appeared in court as a witness. I became a member of the organization in 1985, and I left the organization in 1984, and I participated in the Mersad and Chalcheragh operations.”

He said: “In 1984, I was connected to the organization by phone and I received messages with a radio code, and in November 1985, I went to Pakistan and went to Iraq with a fake passport.”

Regarding the hijacking, Shabani said: One of the perpetrators of the hijacking was Dariush Dehghan. Dariush Dehghan was in the mechanized unit in 1980. I was in the same center with this person for a year, but Dariush Dehghan never talked about the hijacking. No one in the organization talked about his work. In the organization’s relations, no one could do anything on their own and without the organization’s orders, and the hijacking was an organizational action.

This defected member of the organization said: In the case of the explosion of the Islamic Republic Party, the organization needed an operation to show itself. In 1402, when the organization’s trial began, he confessed to the crimes he had committed.

Shabani continued: In the hijacking incident, France granted asylum to members of the organization. Dariush Dehghan was killed in a border operation under suspicious circumstances. In an operation, he entered an area that had been mined, and he was not told that the area had been mined. Dariush Dehghan stepped on a mine and was killed. Other members of the organization who voiced their opposition were also killed under suspicious circumstances.

He continued: Massoud Rajavi used to say publicly that the revolution needed blood and that it was okay for a few innocent people to be killed.

This defected member of the organization said: Dariush never talked about the hijacking. Because anyone who spoke would get in trouble with him. After Dariush was killed, they said in the organization that this person was the deputy team leader in the hijacking operation.

Shabani said: They were working in the organization to gather information, which is why no one spoke.

The judge said: Do you know about the fate of the rest of the hijacking team?

Shabani said: No, I don’t know. When I was in Iran, I could have done many things and operations, but the organization would order us what to do. That is why the hijacking was also carried out on the organization’s orders. Orders were issued from top to bottom.

He added: The organization’s biggest operation was the July 27th explosion, which Rajavi announced.

In the following, Hojjatoleslam Masoud Maddah, the lawyer representing the case, said: “The point I consider necessary to raise is that in this hijacking case, should the pilot land the plane in Vienna or should he turn the plane around and land it in Tehran? According to international law and the rules of the Iranian Civil Aviation Organization, the plane’s destination was Tehran, not Vienna. The airline’s legal representative will explain this issue in full to the court.”

He continued: “When consciences go to sleep and European countries grant amnesty to criminal terrorists, child-killing terrorists who have no mercy even on 2- and 3-year-old children and even an 18-month-old child, one of the crimes of the organization was that a resistance cell in Shiraz blew up a bus and a 2-year-old girl named Leila Nourbakhsh was martyred on the bus. The parents of this martyred child are present at the hearing as plaintiffs, and a video has been prepared describing the incident regarding the bus explosion and the people who played a role in this incident, which I ask permission to play in court.” A video of the Shiraz bus terrorist incident in the 1960s was played in this court hearing. The lawyer for the plaintiffs’ case then stated: The sister of this two-year-old martyred child, Zahra Nourbakhsh, who is a veteran of this incident, is also present in court. I ask permission for the parents of this martyr to take the stand.” The father of martyr Leila Nourbakhsh, one of the martyrs of the Shiraz bus terrorist bombing, took to the stage and said: The hypocrites say we didn’t kill these children and we didn’t do these things, we killed the guards, but you see that this explosion is one of their crimes. Our family suffered a lot from this explosion, my child, Zahra Nourbakhsh, underwent ten surgeries and her life was disrupted. Her head was completely burned. We were ordinary people when the hypocrites committed this crime against us and then they said we didn’t do this. They did this on Eid al-Ghadir in 1986 and now they have become refugees and have denied these actions. Is there anyone who can stop these people? What is the sin of people like us? They martyred thousands of people, what was their sin? The hypocrites were saying, come and support us and support us. I ask Mr. Qazi to punish the members of this organization.

In response to the judge’s question about how many people he had boarded the bus with that day, Shahideh Noorbakhsh’s father stated: I boarded the bus with my family members, but the hypocrites were also on the bus and we didn’t know.

The judge asked: Where was the origin and destination of the bus?

Shahideh Noorbakhsh’s father said: We boarded the bus from Abivardi and wanted to go to Shahcheragh.

The judge asked: Did you board on the way or at the terminal?

Shahideh Leila Noorbakhsh’s father said: We boarded on the way and the bus was a single-line bus. This happened at the Namazi Square.

The judge asked: Was the bus full?

The martyr’s father replied: Yes. Four women were sitting on the bus. When we reached the Namazi Square, one of the women said to stop the bus, they had planted a bomb in the car, but they were lying. When all the passengers rushed to the front door of the bus to get off, only those four people got off through the back door. I was looking at the four people while my daughter Zahra was in my arms and I saw them take out a plastic bag and throw it in the middle of the bus and then light a match and throw it inside. Three of them got into a pickup truck and left, but one of them waited to see what would happen and how many people the explosion would kill. He even visited his mother several times during the months my daughter Zahra was hospitalized in Namazi Hospital. This woman later introduced herself and confessed that the explosion was her fault. The judge said: Was there a military person on the bus or were they all ordinary people?

 

The father of martyr Leila and veteran Zahra Nourbakhsh said: “They were all ordinary people, and the hypocrite who caused this fire later confessed that we wanted to set the bus on fire, and this happened. We did not want to assassinate anyone.”

The judge asked him: “Do you have a complaint?”

The father of martyr Leila Nourbakhsh replied: “Yes, I have a complaint against the hypocrites. I demand retribution. They set my child on fire on the bus, and I saw my child burning in the fire with my own eyes, but I could not do anything. My wife and I, because we lost our child in this assassination, understand the parents who lose their children every day in Gaza. My wife cries for these children many days.”

Then, Hojjatoleslam Walmuslimin Masoud Maddah appeared on the stand and requested that a video of the confessions of Flor Zare, a member of the People’s Mojahedin Organization who was the perpetrator and cause of the Shiraz bus fire in the 1960s, be broadcast.

A video of the confessions of Flor Zare, one of the perpetrators of the Shiraz bus burning in the 1960s, who is a member of the People’s Mojahedin Organization, was played during the court session.

The lawyer for the case then appeared on the stand and explained part of Ms. Zare’s confessions. In explaining part of her confessions, she said: “From the beginning of the military phase, the organization’s line was to create a line of terror and terror among the people and also to confront the people, which have many lines in this regard. Regarding confronting and standing in front of the people, even though we thought we were working for the people, but in reality we were standing in front of the people, one of the lines was the burning of the bus in Shiraz, and I myself was one of the people who participated in this process, which led to the martyrdom of an innocent child, and as far as I know, other people were also burned in this process.

He added: In another part of her confession, Flor Zare states that before I was arrested, according to the rumors outside, I thought that upon entering prison I would face all kinds of torture and that they would treat me hostilely. However, here, in addition to there being no news of torture, the authorities treated me with complete Islamic compassion. It was because of these issues that I was able to think more outside of organizational and group frameworks inside the prison and came up with a series of issues.

Hojjatoleslam Walmuslimin Maddah stated: Those who were deceived yesterday in Ashraf and today in Albania should know this: those who are torturers and child killers and do not have mercy on their members are the deceived Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. The sacred system of the Islamic Republic does not even treat its enemies in this way.

He continued: Zare’s advice in his statement is, I ask you, sisters and brothers who are outside, to learn from me as a clear example of this process and to ignore the empty and demagogue slogans of the MKO that have deafened the ears of the world, and to know that bringing up their history of struggle and making fun of people like Hanif Nejad and Mehdi Rezaei can only be to achieve sinister goals.

The lawyer for the case stated: Masoud Rajavi and Maryam Qajar Azdanloo are liars who say that we support women and the rights of women and children. Are you supporting women and children who kill a two-year-old girl alive? Are you supporting women who do not even have mercy on their own women and use them as fire shields, rape them and use them for the lust of your main leader? You cannot talk about freedom.

The mother of martyr Leila and veteran Zahra Nourbakhsh was present at the stand and said about that day: On Eid al-Ghadir, we decided to get on the bus and go to Shahcheragh. We didn’t know that the MKOs would get on the bus. We were in the middle of the bus. Zahra was next to her father, Leila and Ali were with my wife’s sister, and my little son was with me. The bus was also full of passengers. When we left and reached the Namazi square, one of the women said, “Mr. driver, stop the bus, there is a bomb in the car.” People got scared and got up. Those women were covering their faces. When the driver stopped the bus, one of the women threw a plastic bag from the back of the car into the middle of the bus and it exploded. We tried to save my child Leila, but it didn’t work. Fire was coming out of the bus door. We took my other child Zahra to Namazi Hospital.

The mother of two-year-old martyr Leila Nourbakhsh said: “My face is still burning.” Imagine a mother, her two-year-old child being burned in front of her eyes, her child also being injured and having to undergo several operations. How much can a mother and father endure? We have been enduring this pain since 1960 and are burning with this pain. We want them to be punished. This is what we want.

The mother of the martyr, Leila Nourbakhsh, continued: “Zahra, my young daughter, is wrapped up like a rose. I have a lot to say, but I can’t say more because it puts pressure on my nerves. I want the hypocrites to be punished for their actions. These same hypocrites who confessed to their crimes and the bombing.”

In response to the judge’s question, “Were you injured?” the martyr’s mother said: “When I was saving my children, my hands and feet were injured by the broken window of the bus.”

 

The judge asked: Where was your daughter when she was martyred? Was she in your arms?

The mother of the martyr Leila Nourbakhsh said: My son Ibrahim was in my arms, Leila was in the arms of my wife’s sister. My wife saved her sister, who was 18 years old, but my daughter was left in the car and we were unable to save her. My wife’s head was also burned.

The judge said: Do you have a request?

The mother of the martyr Leila Nourbakhsh said: I want retribution for these people.

In the following, Hojjatoleslam Wal-Muslimin Masoud Maddah, the lawyer for the case, stated: Another terrorist act that the MKO carried out against the Iranian nation was the assassination of Hojjatoleslam Wal-Muslimin Seyyed Hassan Beheshtinejad, the judge of Shiraz and the temporary Friday Imam of Isfahan. In this terrorist operation, his nephew, Martyr Seyyed Hamid Beheshtinejad, who was a three-year-old child, was also shot and killed by a five-member terrorist team of the organization.

He added: The perpetrators of this crime were Mohammad Fakhar, Saeed Bagheri, Abbas Yadollahpour, Touraj Heydari and Mohammad Zidani, who, under the command of Mohammad Fakhar, obtained weapons and grenades from his superior, Ismail Dadgar, and went to the home of this great martyr and shot the 3-year-old child and Seyyed Hassan Beheshtinejad to death.

 

The father of the 3-year-old child of martyr Seyyed Hamid Beheshtinejad, who was martyred by the MKO group, appeared on the stand and said: The establishment of this court was very necessary and essential, and we, the families of the martyrs of the terror, expected that action would be taken to establish these courts sooner than this time. We hope that the head of the court and the esteemed lawyers will bring the families of the terror to a conclusion.

 

He continued: My three-year-old child, along with my brother Hojjatoleslam Walmuslimin Seyyed Hassan Beheshtinejad, were martyred by the MKO on the 21st of the blessed month of Ramadan 1360. We hope that the innocent blood of these martyrs will catch these criminals and their masters, the arrogant people of the world, and that they will be punished by God.

The judge said: Were you at home when this happened?

The father of the three-year-old martyr Seyyed Hamid Beheshti said: At that time, it was the presidential election period and one of the candidates was martyr Rajaee. For this purpose, I had gone to the vicinity of Isfahan to campaign. I was not at home and my family was present at the scene. The martyr’s mother passed away in Bahman 1403 after forty-some years of raising her child and watching the scene of his martyrdom. God willing, we will witness the punishment of the perpetrators, overseers, and perpetrators of these crimes.

He added: My brother Hojjatoleslam Seyyed Hassan Beheshtinejad was one of the active clerics in the fields of propaganda and service to the issues of the revolution and the sacred system of the Islamic Republic. He was assigned by Ayatollah Shahid Beheshti to work as a judge in the Shiraz Revolutionary Court for a while. He was also the temporary Friday Imam of Isfahan and was also active in propaganda and cultural programs. He also tried to serve the community and the oppressed in any way he could. Judge Dehghani asked: Have you or your brother been threatened by a person or persons before? He replied: A few days before this incident, an unknown person came to our house and spoke to my brother, who seemed very suspicious, but he did not report it to the relevant centers. On the morning of the 21st of Ramadan, someone came to my brother’s house and said that he had brought a letter from the Shiraz court, but he had lied, and instead of the letter, he pointed a gun at my three-year-old child and my brother and killed them. It didn’t matter to them whether they were young or old. I hope that the blood of these martyrs will be avenged, not only my brother and child, but also all the martyrs of terror who are unjustly martyred all over the world, especially the women and children who are martyred by the child-killing Zionist regime in Gaza. God willing, the divine scourge will fall on all of them, and we, the families of the martyrs of terror, will witness the destruction of this terrorist and criminal group of the hypocrites, their masters, and global arrogance. The judge said: Do you have any demands from the court? The judge said: Do you have any demands from the court? The father of the three-year-old martyr Seyyed Hamid Beheshti stated: “At present, the issue of the person is not at issue, but the issue of the legal personality of the martyrs of terror is at issue. The fathers, mothers, and children of 17,000 martyrs of terror are demanding justice. We demand that all material and moral damages and any problems they have caused be prosecuted. We call on the judiciary and the sacred republican system to complete the work they have started with firmness and determination and to make the hearts of the families of the martyrs of terror, the hearts of the dear Iranian nation, and all Muslims happy.” The wife of the martyr Hojjatoleslam Seyyed Hassan Beheshtinejad appeared on the stand and stated: “When the terrorist group of the MKO realized that they could no longer win, they carried out all kinds of ideas, roles, and threats at the beginning of the revolution. These people were martyring people simply because they had merits or were wearing a chador. The crimes of this group are countless.

 

 

He added: Hojjatoleslam Seyyed Hassan Beheshtinejad’s only goal was to serve the people. He was the Friday Imam of Isfahan and a judge in the Shiraz court. After holding the Night of Power ceremony on the morning of the 21st of Ramadan, he was resting at home when someone came to his house and said that he had brought a letter and had to deliver it. Martyr Hojjatoleslam Seyyed Hassan Beheshtinejad went to his house to complete his work. Instead of the letter, that person took a gun from his bag and cowardly martyred Seyyed Hassan Beheshtinejad along with his nephew, who was a three-year-old child.

The wife of the martyr Hojjatoleslam Seyyed Hassan Beheshtinejad said: When the murderer of the martyr was arrested, they asked him if he knew Martyr Beheshtinejad. He said no, I only did this because of the order that was given to me.

Martyr Beheshtinejad’s wife said: We demand the harshest punishment for the perpetrators and leaders of these crimes.

Hojjatoleslam Masoud Maddah, the lawyer for the case, said during the court session: One of the characteristics of terrorist groups is the issue of infiltrating government agencies to carry out terrorist operations. The influence of the MKO began in 1999, and its members infiltrated various organizations. One of these individuals is Kazem Afjehi, who works in Evin Prison and attacks and assassinates Mr. Gilani, Lajvardi, and Kachoui, which ultimately leads to the martyrdom of Mohammad Kachoui, the head of Evin Prison. The organization explicitly supports Mohammad Kazem Afjehi and announces that Afjehi will provide weapons and attack these martyrs and martyr Kachoui.

Mahmoud Kachoui, the brother of the head of Evin Prison, Mohammad Kachoui, who was present at the stand, said: My brother was martyred on July 28, 1989, by a member of the MKO. Martyr Kachouei behaved well towards the people who were members of the organization and who were arrested. Mohammad Reza Saadati, who was arrested in Evin Prison on charges of espionage, treated Kazem Afjehi in a way that made it seem like he was an effective member inside the prison.

He said: After the incident of July 27, the whole country was on alert. It was the same in Evin Prison and no one was allowed to enter or leave the prison. Kazem Afjehi was walking inside the courthouse with a weapon and intended to assassinate Martyr Lajevardi. The IRGC suspected him and informed Martyr Kachouei and took the weapon from Afjehi.

Martyr Kachouei’s brother said: Afjehi’s leg was broken at the time. When the weapon was taken from him, he procured another weapon through his contacts and hid it in his leg cast. He attacked Martyr Kachouei and Lajevardi in the prison compound, which led to Martyr Kachouei’s martyrdom. After Afjehi was arrested, he was taken to the roof of the prison, where one of the organization’s influential agents, Mehdi Asemantab, told Afjehi to throw himself down, and he did the same and was killed.

He said: “I started working in the prison in early 2010.”

Martyr Kachoui’s brother said: “Some people had escaped from prison and were behaving suspiciously and abnormally, which Martyr Kachoui also learned about, but he was trying to reform these people and treated them with kindness and gentleness.”

The judge asked: “Have you met Kazem Afjehi and talked to him? Did you have any doubts about him?”

 

Martyr Kachoui’s brother replied: Yes. I saw Afjehi several times and I was suspicious of him. The day Saadati came to Area 311 to get some air, Mr. Saadati had to go into his room so that the other prisoners could go inside the area to get some air, so that they wouldn’t meet each other, because they were all members of the MEK organization. When we asked Saadati to go into his room, he protested and didn’t want to go into the room, but we let him into our room anyway. The MEK newspaper that was published at the time presented this issue in a different way and claimed that Saadati was being tortured. At that time, we didn’t suspect anyone else, we only suspected Afjehi, because sometimes when he entered the cell block, he would say takbir loudly and announce his presence to Saadati. Saadati would also write papers and place them above the toilet flush so that Afjehi could pick them up.

The judge of the MEK court said: Where did you get this information from?

Martyr Kachoui’s brother stated: He gave us this information later in his confession. The area where the assassination took place was an open area that used to be the home of Mr. Sabeti, the head of SAVAK, and was located next to the prison prosecutor’s office. Martyr Lajevardi and Martyr Kachoui were sitting by the pool that day when they were assassinated. My father had come there that day to meet Martyr Kachoui and was an eyewitness to the incident.

He added: My father used to tell us that they were praying when Martyr Kachoui got up and asked Afjehi to give him the weapon. Apparently, Afjehi had been after Martyr Lajevardi from the beginning and intended to assassinate him. Martyr Lajevardi also hid behind a tree. My brother asked Afjehi to give him the weapon, but he was shot in the fight, leading to his martyrdom. Before the fight, Afjehi entered the scene shouting in the name of God and the heroic people of Iran, which was the slogan of the MKO.

The judge asked: Did your father describe the events to you?

Martyr Afjei’s brother clarified: Yes. On the day of the incident, the court hearing the actions of the arrested members of the MKO was being held, and the hearing of their trial was being held in the same open space; because there were many of them and this large crowd could have caused a disruption in the order of the prison. One of the defendants, Mehdi Asemantab, was also inside the crowd that day, and he was an infiltrator.

Judge Dehghani said: Considering that today the families of the martyrs of the terror announced to notify the French government and the European Union that they are hosting people who use the name of the people in their slogans, but today they are accused of terrorist acts and their trial is being held. Considering the anti-terrorism commissions and regulatory documents from the European Union, of which France is also a member, granting asylum to the defendants in this case is against the documents. This court is pursuing this issue officially and in writing with both the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the International Police regarding the extradition of the defendants in this case legally.

The judge said: The next court session will be held on June 26.