Report 50: Introduction to the third block of recorded testimonies

In our previous report, we provided a summary of the introduction to the second block of recorded testimonies presented before the Court of Appeal on 22 March 2023.

In this report, we have summarized the introduction by the prosecution, plaintiff counsels and defense counsels to the third block of recorded testimonies held on 16 May 2023. During these presentations, the focus of the prosecution and the counsels is to direct the Court of Appeal to what the Court should pay particular attention to while watching the recordings of the testimonies given in the District Court.

Opening of the trial day

Presiding judge Christer Lund initiated the day’s proceedings by welcoming everyone to the Court. Judge Lund stated that the Court had no questions or comments after watching the prior block of recorded testimonies and gave the floor to the Prosecution to begin with their statement.

The prosecution’s statement

The prosecution started by stating that their presentation would focus on the testimonies by 9 plaintiffs given (and recorded) in the District Court. They explained that these were the testimonies given by family members of people who had been executed in Gohardasht prison.

The prosecution began with Plaintiff 20 whose brother was executed in Gohardasht prison during the relevant time period. The prosecution explained that the Plaintiff’s testimony was done via video link from Albania and that there had been some technical issues. The prosecution then referred to written evidence that supported the Plaintiff’s testimony, among other a list compiled and sent to the authorities by an external person which contained the name of the Plaintiff’s brother. The prosecution explained that where the location of the execution was listed as ‘Karaj’ this referred to Gohardasht since Ghezel Hesar (which is also located in Karaj) did not keep any political prisoners. The prosecution also referred to the Iran Tribunal’s list, where the Plaintiff’s brother also was listed and where it was stated that he was executed on 30 July 1988, at the age of 28. Furthermore, the prosecution pointed to Plaintiff 33’s book Aftabkaran where Plaintiff 20’s brother also was mentioned.

The prosecution made similar statements regarding Plaintiff 21 who had also been heard over link from Albania in the District Court. The prosecution explained that the plaintiff’s brother was executed in Gohardasht prison on 31 July 1988, and that the statements made by Plaintiff 21 about her brother was supported by written evidence such as the list by the external person as well as the book “The Firebird’s Dance” by Plaintiff 1.

The prosecution continued with Plaintiff 22 who had also been heard over link and explained that his brother was executed in Gohardasht prison at the age of 34.  The prosecution highlighted that the Plaintiff’s brother was mentioned on the list of executed prisoners that had been compiled by an external person, as well as on the list made by the Iran Tribunal.

The prosecution continued with Plaintiff 15 whose brother was a leftist and had been imprisoned for sympathizing with the Tudeh party. The prosecution pointed to how the Plaintiff had explained that her father and two oldest brothers had visited Gohardasht prison several times and their last visit was 22 July 1988. The Plaintiff had also handed in written material strengthening her statements, such as letters from her executed brother that had showed the date and the place the letter was sent to and from. The prosecution highlighted that the last letter was sent in July 1988, and that it was addressed to Karaj education department, which referred to Gohardasht prison. The prosecution emphasized that the fact that the list of executed prisoners created by the Iran Tribunal contained the name of the plaintiff’s brother even though the plaintiff herself had not engaged with the Iran Tribunal showed that the brother’s presence and execution at Gohardasht prison had then been confirmed by others.

The prosecution continued with Plaintiff 23 who had flown in from Canada to give her statement in the District Court. The Plaintiff had herself also been imprisoned in Iran for 1,5 years but her statement in District Court concerned her brother who was imprisoned in 1361 (1982/1983) due to his association with the leftist organization Rahe Kargar and who was executed in Gohardasht prison. The Plaintiff had visited her brother in 1367 (1988) when she was 24-25 years old. The Prosecution again emphasized how the Plaintiff’s statement was supported by written evidence in the form of a segment from the book “The Flower’s Last Chance” by Plaintiff 8 in which the brother was mentioned. However, the picture included in the book was not correct, and Plaintiff 23 had herself brought a picture of her brother which she demonstrated during her hearing in the District Court. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s brother was also listed in the book “Black Book 67”, as well as in Amnesty International’s report “Blood-soaked Secrets”. The Plaintiff had also herself contributed with written evidence in the form of a copy of the brothers ID-book and a death certificate issued in 1369 (1990/1991) that the family had been given from Evin prison that states that the brother had died on 3 October 1988. The Plaintiff had also brought her brother’s graduation certificate, which stated that he had studied civil engineering at the Iran University, as well as a hiring contract for the brother. The Plaintiff had also handed in letters, sent to and from Karaj, supporting the Plaintiff’s statement that her brother was in Gohardasht prison during the execution period.

The prosecution then moved on to Plaintiff 28 whose brother was arrested due to his sympathies with the leftist organization Rahe Kargar and executed in Gohardasht prison. Plaintiff 28 visited her brother in prison somewhere between March and May 1988. The Plaintiff was interviewed by Amnesty International for their work with the report “Blood-soaked secrets” where she also received questions about her husband who also was executed during this time period. In District Court, the defense team pointed out that it was stated in the Amnesty International report that her brother was executed in Evin prison and not in Gohardasht prison.  The plaintiff had stated in District Court that this was incorrect, and the prosecution asked the Court to pay attention to the explanation given by the plaintiff to the District Court when watching her recorded testimony.  Plaintiff 28’s brother is also mentioned in Plaintiff 8’s book “The Crow and the Red Rose” as well as in the list of executed persons compiled by the Iran Tribunal in which it says that her brother was executed in 1988. The prosecution mentioned that the Plaintiff’s brother is also listed in the book “Black Book 67” but that the book stated that her brother was executed in Evin prison and that he was a member of MEK. The prosecution underlined that while the information in the book was incorrect, it did in fact prove that the Plaintiff had been imprisoned and executed during the relevant time period.

The prosecution continued with Plaintiff 24 whose husband was imprisoned due to his sympathies with a leftist organization. Plaintiff 24 fled Iran after the imprisonment of her husband but had been in contact with her husband’s parents who visited her husband in prison several times. The last visit took place at the end of 1366 (1988), after which a prohibition against visits was introduced in Gohardasht prison. The prosecution highlighted that the plaintiff had been in contact with a former prisoner who had survived prison and who had told her that he had been kept in the same department as her husband in Evin prison and that he had been moved to Gohardasht prison at the same time as her husband. The prosecution also pointed to written evidence that confirmed that the plaintiff’s husband had been executed in Gohardasht prison during the relevant time period. The husband was mentioned in the list of executed persons compiled by Iran Tribunal and in the “Black Book 67”, in which it says that the plaintiff’s husband was executed in Gohardasht prison during the relevant time period.

The prosecution continued with Plaintiff 25 whose brother was executed in 1367 (1988) in Gohardasht. Her brother was first imprisoned in Evin prison and then moved to Gohardasht prison where the plaintiff herself visited her brother. The prosecution explained that the plaintiff’s brother had an illness and therefore her family was in contact with the prison management to ensure that he received the care he required. The last time that their father was in contact with the prison management was in July 1988. The prosecution then highlighted written evidence that supported the plaintiff’s testimony, such as information from the book “The Flower’s Last Chance” by Plaintiff 8 and Amnesty International’s report “Blood-soaked secrets”. The report stated that Iranian authorities claimed that the plaintiff’s brother had disappeared or fled abroad. However, the plaintiff’s family has also handed in a death certificate given to the family from the Iranian population registration authority, which stated that her brother had died on 28 August 1988. The certificate had not been issued until 11 May 2009, when the plaintiff’s mother contacted the authority, and incorrectly states that the brother died in Tehran. Plaintiff 25 has also participated in the Iran Tribunal regarding the brother’s execution.

Finally, the prosecution moved on to Plaintiff 12, who had given her testimony in the District Court over link from another country.  The plaintiff’s father was arrested in 1363 when he was 39 years old, and she was 8 years old (1984/1985). The plaintiff’s father was imprisoned at Ghezel Hesar, Evin and lastly Gohardasht prison where he was executed. The plaintiff and her mother visited her father several times in Gohardasht prison, but she cannot recall the last time she visited him. The family was later notified that the father had died and received a death certificate stating that the father had died of natural causes. The prosecution then pointed to written evidence in the form of letters, segments from plaintiff 8’s book “The Flower’s Last Chance” as well as the book “The Crow and the Red Rose”. The prosecution then ended their statement.

Plaintiff counsel Hjalmarsson’s statement

The Court resumed after a short break, and plaintiff counsel Hjalmarsson introduced the only one of his clients that were relevant for the day’s session. The client, Plaintiff 15, had a brother who was executed in Gohardasht prison during the summer of 1988. Plaintiff counsel Hjalmarsson spoke about the letters sent between the brother and the plaintiff’s family, which was mentioned by the prosecution earlier during the day. He further underlined that several witnesses had confirmed that the Plaintiff’s brother had been present at Gohardasht prison and that the District Court had judged that it had been shown that the plaintiff’s brother had been executed in Gohardasht prison during the relevant time period. Plaintiff counsel Hjalmarsson then finished his statement and the Court handed over the floor to plaintiff counsel Hesselberg.

Plaintiff counsel Hesselberg’s statement

Plaintiff counsel Hesselberg began by addressing Plaintiff 23 and stated that he would not dive too deep into details in order to avoid repetition from what the prosecution has stated. However, Hesselberg highlighted that the plaintiff’s brother had been a civil engineer and that he was fired from his job as a teacher at the technical high school in Tehran when he was arrested in 1361 (1982/1983) due to his sympathies with the organization Rahe Kargar. Plaintiff 23 had herself visited her brother 5 times, and her brother had been imprisoned at Ghezel Hesar, Evin and finally Gohardasht prison where he was executed. The plaintiff’s father had been informed in October or November 1988 that his son had died and was instructed to come and pick up his belongings in Evin prison. Plaintiff counsel Hesselberg also underlined the importance of the written evidence submitted in the case. In particular the death certificate that the plaintiff had submitted to the authorities, which said that her brother was executed in August 1988. Hesselberg also underlined that several witnesses had accounted for his presence and execution in Gohardasht prison. Hesselberg concluded his statement regarding Plaintiff 23 by stating that the District Court had concluded that it had been proven that her brother had been executed during the relevant time period in Gohardasht prison.

Plaintiff counsel Hesselberg then moved on to Plaintiff 24 who was present in the Court room during the day’s session. The Plaintiff grew up in a family of leftist activists which led to the death of her brother and the imprisonment and execution of her husband. The Plaintiff’s husband was sentenced to 15 years in prison, was first imprisoned in Evin prison and later moved to Gohardasht prison in March 1988 where he was executed the same year. The Plaintiff had not been inside the prison herself but received information from her husband’s mother who visited her son in prison several times. The last time his mother visited him was in Evin prison in 1988 before he was moved to Gohardasht prison. Hesselberg also pointed to the importance of the written evidence submitted in the case, such as the segment from the book “Black Book 67” where the plaintiff’s husband is mentioned. He further underlined that several witnesses had accounted for his presence in Gohardasht prison and execution during the relevant period.

Plaintiff counsel Hesselberg continued by addressing the testimony by Plaintiff 25 and whose brother was executed in Gohardasht prison. The plaintiff had received information from other former prisoners confirming that her brother was executed in August 1988. In December 1988, his family had been informed about the brother’s death and instructed to come and collect his belongings from Evin prison. In support of the latter, the plaintiff had submitted the note that the family had received in which they were instructed to collect her brother’s belongings. Hesselberg further repeated what had been stated by the prosecution about the plaintiff’s brother suffering from a serious illness which had prompted the family to interact with the prison management, amongst others Naserian and Nayyeri.

Plaintiff counsel Hesselberg’s concluded his statement by discussing Plaintiff 12 whose father was executed in Gohardasht prison. Hesselberg pointed out that the plaintiff’s father had been imprisoned in Evin prison, Ghezel Hesar Prison and Gohardasht prison, and that there were letters confirming his presence in Gohardasht prison. The final letter that the plaintiff’s family received was sent in July 1988. The family found out about the execution of the plaintiff’s father when his belongings were sent home. Hesselberg invoked that the plaintiff’s testimony about her father was confirmed by three witnesses and that the District Court had concluded that it was proved that her brother had been executed during the relevant time period in Gohardasht prison.

Plaintiff counsel Hadding Wiberg’s statement

Plaintiff counsel Hadding Wiberg then took the floor and started by discussing Plaintiff 20 whose brother was executed in Gohardasht prison on 30 July 1988. Hadding Wiberg highlighted that the plaintiff’s testimony about her brother’s death was supported by written evidence in the form of the book “A Galaxy of Stars” by Plaintiff 33. Plaintiff 20 left Iran in 1361 (1982/1983) but her father stayed and continuously visited her brother in prison. Hadding Wiberg pointed out that the father was a lawyer and had a certain insight and understanding of the legal system. According to the plaintiff’s testimony, he had told his daughter to remember certain names that he had heard from her brother when they had talked, and one of those names where the name of the defendant. The plaintiff had not been able to have much contact with her family since she fled since they had been harassed after being in touch with the plaintiff. The plaintiff was then informed by her father that he had received information on 29 September 1988 that her brother had been executed. Hadding Wiberg under that several other plaintiffs such as Plaintiff 2, 30, 7 and 33 had stated that they had seen the plaintiff’s brother in Gohardasht prison and that both Plaintiff 7 and 33 had mentioned him in their respective books that they had published after their release from prison.

Plaintiff counsel Hadding Wiberg then discussed Plaintiff 21 and explained that her brother was arrested in 1360 (1981/1982) and executed in Gohardasht prison. When the family found out about his arrest, he was imprisoned in Gohardasht prison. The plaintiff was also imprisoned and thus could not visit her brother in jail. When she was released in 1365 (1986/1987), she had to use her sister’s ID to visit her brother. In November 1988, the plaintiff’s mother told her that her brother had been executed. Hadding Wiberg underlined that several other plaintiffs such as Plaintiff 1, 8, 16 and 30had all stated that they had seen the plaintiff’s brother in Gohardasht prison. The Plaintiff’s brother was also included in the Iran Tribunal’s list of executed persons, and he was mentioned by Plaintiff 1 in his book “The Firebird’s Dance and the Call of the Ashes”.

Plaintiff counsel Hadding Wiberg continued by discussing Plaintiff 22 and explained that her brother was executed in Gohardasht prison. The plaintiff’s parents were informed during the spring of 1988 that her brother had been moved to Gohardasht prison, and in September 1988 they were informed that they could pick up his belongings from Evin Prison. Plaintiff counsel Hadding Wiberg underlined that several other plaintiffs, such as Plaintiff 1, 30, 33 and 35had all stated that they had seen the plaintiff’s brother in Gohardasht prison. The plaintiff’s brother was also included in the Iran Tribunal’s list of executed persons as well as in the list of executed persons in the book “Aftabkaran” by Plaintiff 33. He was also mentioned by Plaintiff 1 in his book “The Firebirds’ Dance and the Call of the Ashes”.

Plaintiff counsel Hadding Wiberg then concluded her statement by discussing Plaintiff 28 who was arrested in 1364 (1985/1986) and who lost both her brother and husband in the 1988 mass executions. At first, they were all imprisoned in Evin prison but her brother, who is the person relevant in the case before Swedish courts, was moved to Gohardasht prison in 1366 (1987/1988).  She visited her brother for the last time in 1366 (1988) in Gohardasht prison before all visits were prohibited. The family was later informed that a male member of the family could recollect the belongings of her brother as he had been executed. Hadding Wiberg also instructed the Court to consider written evidence in the form of a death certificate, the Iran Tribunals list of executed persons and the book “The Crow and the Red Rose”.  Plaintiff counsel Hadding Wiberg underlined that several other plaintiffs, such as Plaintiff 27 and 31, had stated that they had seen the plaintiff’s brother in Gohardasht prison.

The defense counsels’ statement

After the lunch break, the Court resumed the court session by giving the floor to the defense counsels. The defense counsels started by addressing the fact that the defendant had not yet received the documents that had been taken away from him in jail and that the situation concerning his visits had not yet been resolved, which the counsels had raised during the past court session as well.  The defense counsels argued that this hampered the defendant’s possibility to defend himself, and that it also affected the work of the defense counsels as the procedures with the jail to ensure that the defendant received the documents that had been taken from him required a lot of their time. The defense counsels also stressedthat he had been unable to receive visits from his son, which they believed to be very problematic in regard to his rights while imprisoned.

Defense counsel Bodström began by discussing how the evidence was assessed in the case and expressed criticism against the value that some sources were being given by the Disctrict Court in their judgment and the lack of consideration given to contradictions in the evidence. Bodström stated that three circumstances need to be proven. Firstly, it needs to be proven that the persons in question were imprisoned due to their sympathies with MEK. Secondly, it had to be proven that the persons had been executed in Iran. Thirdly, it had to be proven where, when, and how they were executed.  

As for the question of how and when the persons were executed, Bodström argued that the Court should take into consideration the following four factors, which negatively affects the reliability of the testimonies: that prisoners were constantly moved between prisons, that families visited different prisons, the location of the last visit and that most of the supporting evidence is based on hearsay.

Bodström then began by addressing the testimony given by Plaintiff 20 in the District Court and stated that much of the information was based on second-hand information, and sometimes even more distant hearsay. This, Bodström argued, must be considered by the Court when listening to her testimony.  

Bodström then moved on to Plaintiff 21 who in her testimony before the District Court had described her visits to prison to see her brother and that her mother was summoned to Gohardasht prison a in November-December 1988 and informed about the brother’s death. Bodström argued that no further information had been given about the mode of the execution, and that the fact that the family had been given a snare was supposed to prove that the execution was conducted by hanging. Bodström underlined that contradictory information about the mode of execution of the plaintiff’s brother had been presented and mentioned in the book “Leila’s last smile”, in which it says that the execution was conducted by a firing squad (rather than by hanging). Furthermore, Bodström argued that the book contained contradicting information about the date of her brother’s death and the date of when her mother had been informed about his death. According to statements in the book, the plaintiff’s mother had been informed about the execution on 5 December 1988, but the plaintiff’s brother’s watch had stopped on 10 Mehr 1367 (2 October 1988) (author’s note: most likely referring to the prosecution’s statement in a prior session where it had been presented that some prisoners broke their watches before execution). Meanwhile, Bodström pointed to the fact that it had also been presented by the Plaintiff that the brother’s clothes were returned to her mother on 3 December 1988. In the book, it also said that the plaintiff’s brother had been executed in October 1988 (rather than during the summer of 1988). Bodström further stated that it had not been investigated whether other prisons may have used firing squads a an execution method, and that, by any account, the information in the book contradicted the statement that hanging was the execution method being used in Gohardasht prison.

Bodström then moved on to address the testimony of Plaintiff 22, who had told the District Court that his brother was moved to Gohardasht prison in 1988 but that his parents were called to Evin prison to receive information about their son’s execution. Bodström further argued that the lists of executed persons compiled by the Iran Tribunal and in the book “Black Book 67”, contained several contradictions concerning the dates of the brother’s execution and that the location of the execution was stated as “Karaj”, which could also mean that the execution could have been conducted in Ghezel Hesar prison.

Defense counsel Bodström then gave the floor to his colleague, defense counsel Rampe. Rampe began by addressing the testimony of Plaintiff 15 and argued that the written evidence submitted by the prosecution contained several contradictions concerning the dates of the plaintiff’s brother’s execution as well as the method of his execution. In the book “Black Book 67” it was stated that he was executed by a firing squad (rather than by hanging) and that the execution took place in Evin prison. It was also Evin prison to which the plaintiff’s father was called to be notified about her brother’s death.

Rampe then discussed the statement given by Plaintiff 23 in the District Court and asked the Court of Appeal to consider that the time of death stated for the plaintiff’s brother in his death certificate and in the book “Black Book 67” was 3 October 1988, which fell outside the scope of the time period indicated in the indictment. Again, Rampe pointed to the circumstance that the plaintiff’s father had gone to Evin prison (and not Gohardasht prison) to receive information about his son’s death. Rampe also asked the Court to consider the lacking information given by the plaintiff in her testimony concerning who it was who had called the family to inform them about the death of her brother, and where that person was calling from.

Defense counsel Rampe then addressed the testimony of plaintiff 28 and that she had told the District Court that she had visited her brother during the spring of 1988 in Gohardasht prison but that the family was summoned to Evin prison to receive his belongings. Rampe urged the Court to consider the statements made by the plaintiff in an interview with Justice for Iran which formed part of a report by Amnesty International.  In the interview, the plaintiff only mentioned the Evin prison. When she was asked about this by the prosecution in the District Court, she had only stated that this was due to a misunderstanding or an incorrect citation. Rampe argued, however, that the plaintiff must have had the right to read the interview before it was published and that she could have had the information corrected. Rampe also argued that there were contradictions in the written evidence submitted in the case concerning the date of death of the plaintiff’s brother. In the list of executed persons compiled by the Iran Tribunal, a person with the same name as the plaintiff’s brother is stated to have been executed in October 1988 while a similar list in the book “Black Book 67” states that a person by the same name was executed in Evin prison in October-November 1988.

Defense counsel Rampe made similar statements concerning Plaintiff 12, 24 and 25. She argued that the written evidence invoked by the prosecution contained contradictions in regard to when and where the plaintiffs’ family members were executed, but also how they were killed, if it was by hanging or by a firing squad. Rampe stated that contradictions between the information in the written evidence and the testimonies given by the plaintiffs negatively affected the reliability of the plaintiffs’ testimonies.  

Bodström concluded the Defense Counsel’s statement by reiterating the difficulty in securing reliable evidence 35 years after the alleged crimes took place.  

Clarifying questions and statements

The Court then asked about a recording of a video interview with Plaintiff 28 by Amnesty International, which the defense counsels had submitted in an USB, and whether it was intended to be invoked as evidence by the defense counsels to which the counsels answered affirmatively.

After a quick clarification by the prosecution concerning a citation made earlier during the day, presiding judge Lund closed the trial for the day.

Next report

In the next report, we will summarize the content of the next court session which is scheduled for 29 May 2023.