Only Ourselves to Blame
To Our Courageous Colleague Nasrin Sotoudeh
The aim in legislating "the independence of the Bar Association" was to end any intervention by the judicial and executive branches of power in matters related to the legal profession so as to enable lawyers to defend, freely and as governed by their professional conscience, individuals who have spoken against any incumbent government - generally, there is less likelihood of government interference in the legal profession in respect of other lawsuits, such as those related to family, property ownership and tenancy matters. In any case, thanks to Dr Mosaddeq’s initiative, any interference in the affairs related to the legal profession was prohibited. Moreover, to finalize the independence of the Bar Association it was stipulated that all the affairs related to lawyers, such as the issuance and extension of the license to practice law, offences committed by lawyers, and so on, shall be dealt with by the Bar Association. The Bar Association is run by a Board of Directors, which is directly appointed by lawyers every two years.
To preserve the independence of lawyers and prevent the Judiciary from prosecuting lawyers and revoking their license by resorting to all sorts of vain pretexts, Article 15 of the said law stipulates: "If any municipal or provincial judges or prosecutors learn of any prosecutable offences committed by any lawyers, they must inform the Disciplinary Prosecutor’s Office for Lawyers of the matter in writing. If the said Prosecutor’s Office determines that the matter warrants prosecution, it should issue a bill of indictment and refer the matter to the Disciplinary Court for Lawyers or present its opinion to the Prosecutor with corroborative evidence. In the event the Prosecutor is not satisfied with the opinion of the Disciplinary Prosecutor’s Office for Lawyers he shall refer the matter directly to the Disciplinary Court for Lawyers.
What is noteworthy in this article is that the judicial authorities cited to in the Article only have the right to appeal to investigate the matter. The Disciplinary Court for Lawyers can rule for the acquittal of a lawyer, without even holding a session, owing to lack of sufficient evidence.
Unfortunately, at the onset of the revolution, they closed down the Bar Association and arrested and imprisoned the majority of the Board of Directors, under the pretext of purging the lawyers. For years afterwards, the Bar Association was managed by a lawyer who was appointed by the Judiciary until the government of the Islamic Republic finally bowed to international pressure and reopened the Association. However, the government was not worried about any defiance by the Bar Association since it had already revoked the licenses of a substantial number of lawyers. But as a cautionary measure, before the reopening the association, it adopted the Law on Conditions for Obtaining a License to Practice Law, on 6 April 1997, which stipulated that the competency of the candidates for the Bar Association’s Board of Directors must be endorsed by the Disciplinary Court for Judges. And since the Disciplinary Court for Judges is one of the entities under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary, the head of which is appointed directly by the supreme leader, the supervision system which had come to operate in all parts of the governing system in the wake of the revolution, turned its attention toward the Bar Association to exert control over that independent guild entity, hence depriving lawyers of any of their union rights.
Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Law on Conditions for Obtaining a License to Practice Law stipulates: "The Supreme Disciplinary Court for Judges is the authority dealing with the competency of the candidates and as such it has a duty to make enquiries from relevant authorities (i.e. the Intelligence Ministry) about their competencies within a period of two months, and once informed to make them public."
Following the adoption of the aforementioned law, all the lawyers appointed to the Bar Association were either individuals who were trusted by the government, or were at least trusted by the security officials not to criticize the government. The competency of any lawyer acting defiantly would not be endorsed in the subsequent terms. The competency of every lawyer was endorsed for two consecutive terms, including the aforementioned individual [Nasrin Sotoudeh] who also became a member of the Bar Association. But as soon as she embarked on defending several accused political activists and criticizing organizations and bodies concerned with the implementation of the law, they disqualified her without any reasons. The Disciplinary Court for the Judges has disqualified many lawyers, including, among others, Abdolfattah Soltani, Mohammad Ali Dadkhah, Hadi Esma’ilzadeh, Shirin Ebadi, Sadiqeh Hojjatpanah, Farideh Gheyrat, Jahangir Mostofi [and] Ne’mat Ahmadi.
In view of the aforementioned issues, it is of no surprise to see that in the past two years some dozen or so lawyers who were members of the Bar Association were imprisoned for defending political and ideological prisoners, without receiving any support from the Bar Association.
Recently, too, following an appeal by the Tehran Prosecutor, the Disciplinary Court for Lawyers convened to review the suspension of Mrs Nasrin Sotoudeh’s license to practice law. A lawyer who is a source of pride for the law society was brought to the Bar Association in handcuffs.
An hour later, she was returned to prison after the hearing was rescheduled to a later date. Throughout this time, in the words of Mrs Sotoudeh’s spouse (Mr Reza Khandan) and on the basis of the published photographs, her handcuffs were not removed. Sadly, neither the Board of Directors nor members of the Disciplinary Court for Lawyers showed any reaction or gestures of protest. And indeed, why is it that our lawyers are not defended by their union body?
What is happening to our lawyers today stems from a flawed law that was adopted in April 1997. The identities of the MPs who had voted in favour of the law are known; some of them have now chosen to retire, some are sympathizing with the Iranian people and some are thriving. We have no expectations from the latter group. But those who sympathize with us today must seek forgiveness. The people will no doubt be pleased with their remorse.
Shirin Ebadi