The 31st court session examining the charges against 104 members of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) as well as the organization’s nature as a legal entity, was held on March 4th in branch 11 of the Criminal Court of Tehran Province, presided over by Judge Amir Reza Dehghani.
Massoud Madah, the Plaintiffs’ lawyer emphasized on the fact that the court is not dealing with a simple criminal group. “We are dealing with an organized terrorist group that has committed acts with the support of intelligence services,” he said. Remarking Massoud Rajavi’s meeting with Taher Jalil Haboush, the head of the Iraqi intelligence service, in 1999, the lawyer mentioned that Rajavi explicitly stated in that meeting that he was in contact with the American, British, and French intelligence services.
According to Maddah, Based on what is stated in the indictment, the fifth reason for the MEK being a terrorist organization is that it was on the list of terrorist organizations by the United States until 2012 and was recognized as a terrorist organization by the European Union in 2005. Also, Maryam Qajar Azdanloo (Maryam Rajavi) was arrested on June 17, 2003, along with 165 leaders of the organization, by the anti-terrorist police in France for attacking the Iranian embassy and assassinating 25 defectors of the group.
The lawyer stated that from the perspective of criminology and the characteristics that have been declared for terrorist organizations, the organization should be included in the list of terrorist groups. Bombings, intimidation, public unrest, guerrilla attacks, torture, coups, mass murder and genocide, kidnappings and hijackings are just a few of the crimes committed by the MEK.
“This terrorist group tortured and martyred children from 18 months old to young students and students in the most heinous way possible,” he added. “No ethnicity or religion in this country has been safe from the actions and crimes of the MEK, and as long as the legal personality of this organization is established, these crimes will continue. Accordingly, my clients demand the dismissal of the MEK as a legal entity and that the extradition of its criminals and their punishment.”
During the court session, Hossein Sobhaninia, a member of the central office of the Islamic Republic Party and a witness of the bombing of the Party’s building, took the stand and, after taking the oath, stated:
“I remember that Mohammad Reza Kolahi (MEK member) was present that night in the space between the prayer place and the meeting hall, inviting and encouraging people to attend the hall. Members of this meeting usually attended with prior invitations, and since at that time most of the members of parliament were members of the Republican Party, in this incident 27 members of parliament, four government ministers, a number of deputy ministers, and a group of personalities and central members of the Islamic Republic Party were killed.”
Sobhaninia presented his testimonies about the killed and injured victims of the incident: “It took an hour for the basic facilities to arrive. They wanted to remove the roof with a crane, which increased the subsidence. Some of the victims were thrown out of the hall window and their bodies were outside the hall, including Ejei, the representative of Isfahan Derakhshan was also next to the window. An attempt was made to dig out the part where Ayatollah Beheshti was sitting, but with great difficulty his body came out, which was burned. These bodies were taken to the hospital and the others were pulled out of the rubble.”
Elaheh Pirouzfar, the lawyer for defendants in rows 88 to 107 of the case said: “Mr. Sobhaninia’s statement is consistent with the indictment. He says that the bombing was not the work of one person, and I confirm this because the bombing was next to the pillars (contrary to the previous witness’s statements). I want this matter to be explained.”
The judge said: “We invited a bomb expert to the court session for this matter, and in the 28th session, they announced that there were two bombs in the columns and one bomb next to Shahid Beheshti’s table. In fact, one of these statements, that there was a bomb next to Shahid Beheshti’s table, is consistent with the expert’s opinion, and the other opinion, that the bomb was next to the columns, is also consistent with part of the expert’s opinion. Each witness testified to the extent of his knowledge.”
The judge added: “In previous hearings, the bomb expert raised a point in court about the technology used to make this bomb, which has so far been immune from objection by the defendants’ lawyers. According to this expert’s opinion, making and placing such a bomb with this technology was not the work of anyone inside Iran; that is, such a bomb could not have been made and designed inside the country under those conditions, and the bomb in question was foreign.”
Massoud Maddah, the lawyer who filed the case, said: “The MEK had 7 cases of plane hijackings, one of which was on June 28th, 1983, when they hijacked a plane with 371 passengers and 19 crew members that was traveling from Shiraz to Tehran. The plane first landed in Kuwait and then was taken to France to Massoud Rajavi. A widespread action against the country’s internal and external security, of which the plane hijacking is a part.”
Ali Akbar, the legal representative of Iran Air, then took the stand and said: “The duty of Iran Air is to supervise the technical and operational performance of airlines. The plane that was hijacked by the MEK in 1983 belonged to the Islamic Republic of Iran and the main victim and plaintiff is Iran Air Company.”
The legal representative of Iran Air explained that the hijacking was registered by EKO and even with the help of EKO the plane was returned to the country. According to the case documents, with the coordination made, the plane was delivered to our country’s embassy two days later. According to Ali Akbar Iran Air is suing the MEK for this hijacking and requested the court to consider the severest punishment for the leaders of the group and the perpetrators of the hijacking.
Tohidi, a PhD in international law and university professor, explains the rules governing hijacking from an international perspective. He said, “Air piracy and hijacking are carried out for personal or specific vengeful purposes, such as demanding the release of specific prisoners or causing social unrest, and sometimes using aircraft as a weapon to target specific areas and buildings.”
The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft was adopted in 1970, and the discussion of hijacking was considered here, and an attempt was made to emphasize facilitating cooperation between states in preventing impunity for those who disrupt aviation security. Therefore, the 1970 Convention states several basic points. The first point is that Article 2 of it states that the contracting states have committed to punishing this crime severely. The second point is that Article 3, paragraph 3 of this Convention states that this Convention applies to both domestic and international flights, and the flight that the MEK hijacked was from Shiraz to Tehran and is covered by this Convention, according to Tohidi.
The judge concluded: “In view of the receipt of the plaintiff’s lawyer’s bill and the issued indictment, as well as the request for a postponement from Iran Air and the letter that the family of the complainant submitted to the court, the court accepts the Iran Air’s postponement to submit a complaint to the court in this regard and gives the Civil Aviation Organization this deadline for 10 days. In view of the statements of the legal representative that actions have been taken regarding the allegations that occurred during his time, the documentation must be submitted to the court, therefore, the Civil Aviation Organization is given a 10-day postponement within this period. Otherwise, due to the omission of the act, the court will refer the matter to the Tehran General Prosecutor’s Office in accordance with Article 341 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The next court session will be held on April 28, 2025.”
