A group of political, civil, and human rights activists said in a statement that the death sentence for Navid Afkari came from the same centre that had ordered the shooting and killing of hundreds of protesters in November 2018, with the sole purpose of intimidating the people.
The sudden execution of Navid Afkari and information, reports, and contradictory analyses provided from official and unofficial sources emphasize the necessity of compiling a transparent and documented report questioning the responsible institutions.
A- According to the existing document, except for a short period Navid Afkari had a public attorney, and this lawyer also appealed the case.
B- According to the testimony of two witnesses in the retrial, Navid was at his older brother's house at the time of the murder. Also, it is reiterated in the testimony of those spotted Navid in the CCTV video that the video shown to them belonged to Dariush Street and not the place in which the late Turkman was killed. Issued by Branch 39 of the Court, it contradicts their statements and is at least one hour before the time of the murder.
C- Saeed, the other defendant, acquitted after confessing against Navid, has recently legally stated that his statements against Navid were made under pressure from the officers and redeemed his testimony. He even disclosed that he had met Navid Afkari in Court for the first time.
D- While the Judiciary report has emphasized the necessity to hear the case in the Court, from the time of retrial registration to the retrial rejection in Branch 38, only six days have elapsed, two of which were Thursday and Friday (weekend). Now the question arises how revising the file with more than 600 pages took only four days?
E- It is issued in the statement that 6 Avengers of blood have demanded retribution, while the parents of the late Turkman, and three children, are five people. Another question that arises is who the sixth person is? And if this number is not of great importance, how can you remain confident about the "accuracy" of the rest of the case documents?
There were high inconsistencies in the case file, and the timing was highly ambiguous. Not only the publication of the judiciary minutes shed light on the case, but it also led to more inconsistencies.
1- The signatories of the minutes have testified that Navid Afkari called his brother at 22:15. But there is evidence that Navid rang his brother at 11:23. How could the signatories witness the incident an hour later?
2- How is a subject with such national and international dimensions organized on a white paper without a header? Without the order of the execution from the judge, chiefly responsible for executing the sentence!
3- Mentioned in these minutes are the names and signatures of four people without any position. It is of paramount importance to know the role and identity of people present there at such an hour on Friday. It will probably uncover some information about people involved and their intentions. Also, while Mr. Saeedi's name is written as the person in charge of prison information protection, he did not sign the text of the minutes.
4- According to the execution of sentences bylaw, retribution must be notified to the convict by the sentence execution judge so that if the judge decides, the convict can meet anyone he wants. There is no sentencing judge and no announcement of "last meeting" or "last call."
5. Basically, the order of the supervising prosecutor and the judge's absence to execute the sentences means that there was no order to perform the sentence. Moreover, the execution of the sentence was not notified to the prisoner.
6- Assuming that Navid's call was his last call and meeting, why did other Afkari brothers call at 10 to 10:30 pm? While Vahid, in his contact with the family, also emphasized the transfer of the three brothers. Execution of Iranian wrestler Navid Afkari was overnight, and he was buried with security measures.'
7- With the same improbability that the execution of the sentence was announced to Navid Afkari, is 11:23 pm a good time for the last meeting? Is there such a possibility at that time of night?
8- It seems that the time mentioned in the minutes of the meeting is related to the time of Vahid and Habib's call, and Navid called his family an hour later.
9- Considering the published handwriting, the person writing the minutes text is the same person who wrote and signed instead of Navid Afkari. It remains to be seen whether Navid Afkari wrote the minutes or the author of the minutes signed them in place of Navid.
10. This fact also must be taken into account that Navid's signature below the minutes is different from his signature in other letters, papers, and documents of the case.
11. These cases indicate the severe suspicions of the Navid Afkari execution case, requiring straight answers to acquaint public opinion with the truth.
Regarding not pursuing the consent issue of the victim's family, the verdict in the murder case has been decided after the rejection of the appeal on June 9, 2020. Navid and Vahid, considered themselves innocent, they felt no need to obtain the consent of the victim's family. Following the rejection of the request for a retrial by the Supreme Court Branch 38 on August 16, 2020, the Shiraz Revolutionary Court issued a preliminary verdict in the Moharebeh (combat) case, despite the promise of innocence. The sentence execution was thought to be impossible, given that Navid Afkari had a private plaintiff in the opening cases. The law, and also years of experience in obtaining consent from the victim families in retribution cases, has shown that retribution will not be executed quickly. However, this time seems that the sixth person in charge has hastened the execution of this sentence. Although Navid and Vahid believed to be innocent in the murder case, the decision was made to repel the possible danger at the same time as requesting a retrial and the application of Article 477 from the head of the judiciary to gain the consent of the victim's family.
About the Author
Mahtab is an Iranian Social activist determined to bring a change in society. She is a strong voice for women in Iran.
Comments