Anti-revolutionary media spreading lies about Amir Nasr Azadani and Bita Haqqani’s verdict

According to Fars news agency, citing the media center of the Judiciary, the hearings for the cases of the defendants of the recent riots are being held, and after that, the verdicts of these cases will be issued by the courts and will be finalized after review by the appeals courts and the Supreme Court.

In the issued verdicts, sometimes according to the accusations of the defendants, multiple convictions are considered for them.

One of these cases, which the anti-revolutionary media has been manipulating recently, is related to Amir Nasr Azadani, one of the accused in the incident in Isfahan’s Gardjanari Khaneh Square neighborhood, where three security guards were martyred by rioters.

In this case, Amir Nasr Azadani was sentenced to 5 years in prison for being a member of an illegal group with the intention of disrupting the country’s security, for the charge of assembly and collusion leading to crimes against security, to 5 years in prison and for the charge of being a deputy in Moharebeh. He was sentenced to 16 years of imprisonment.

The anti-revolutionary media have claimed that this person has been sentenced to 26 years in prison with the sum of the convictions issued, even though in such circumstances, if the verdict is confirmed by the appeals court, the accused will bear the harshest punishment (16 years in prison).

A similar thing happened in another case. Bita Haqqani Nasimi is an accused who was arrested and tried in connection with the riots in Sari city.

According to the verdict issued by the court of first instance, this person was sentenced to one year in prison for the propaganda activity of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in terms of the charge of assembly and collusion to commit a crime against the internal or external security of the country by participating in the gatherings and riots on 29 and 30 Shahrivar. This year in Sari, he was sentenced to 5 years in prison and in terms of the charge of inciting and inciting people to riots and killings with the intention of disrupting the security of the country by publishing calls for gatherings and riots and related materials in cyberspace, he was sentenced to 5 years in prison. He has been sentenced to 5 years in prison for the offense of insulting the sanctity, and for the charge of Note 1, Article 742 of the Computer Crimes Law, he has been sentenced to 2 years in prison, including the previous detention.

In this case, the anti-revolutionary media, with the aim of media operations and playing with public opinion, stated that this defendant was sentenced to 18 years in prison. This is despite the fact that according to the law and if the decision is approved by the appeals court, the severe punishment (5 years imprisonment) will be implemented in relation to this case.

In another case that is discussed in cyberspace, it is related to the case of a person named Ehsaas Pirbarnash.

Pirbarnash, who was active in Qaimshahr riots as well as in some Tehran riots, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for propagandizing against the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran on the charge of forming or managing a crowd with the intention of disrupting the security of the country. He has been sentenced to one year in prison and five years in prison on the charge of insulting holy things, and in terms of Article 746 of the Computer Crimes Law, he has been sentenced to two years in prison, including the days of previous detention, and with severe punishment.

Regarding the case of this defendant, anti-revolutionary media also claim that he has been sentenced to 18 years in prison by summarizing the sentences issued for this person in their news.

This is despite the fact that in this case too, if the judgment is approved by the appeals court, the severe punishment (10 years of imprisonment) will be enforceable.

According to Article 134 of the Islamic Penal Code, only the most severe punishment included in the document can be enforced, and it is not the turn of other punishments unless the severe punishment is reduced or converted to one of the legal reasons, or by reason such as the passing of a private plaintiff, annulment of legal punishment, or the passage of time. becomes unenforceable, in which case the next severe punishment will be implemented. But even in such a case, the legislator’s view of protecting the convict is current, and it should be stated that the amount of the previously executed punishment is calculated in the implementation of the next severe punishment.

In line with the continuation of the protection of the convicted, the legislator has considered parole, suspension of the execution of the sentence and amnesty as part of the execution order.

end of message/