As Iran’s Guardians Council is processing the qualifications of the presidential candidates, the country’s media has reported that 7,456 jurisprudents have written a letter to it requesting that it disqualify those individuals who “in the past and in the course of the 2009 sedition had deviated from the path of the revolution.”

A number of points must be noted regarding this letter.

First is that why did the authors of this letter not identify themselves in the letter? Why are these people afraid to reveal their name and details? If they believe that their letter is lawful and their demands are legitimate and legal, then why is the letter published without any names?

The second issue is that the letter has the least semblance of a legal document. Its authors, who have referenced some laws, must clarify where in the election law is there any mention of the term “sedition,” on the basis of which they have asked the Guardians Council to reject the presidential candidates. Not only is there no such mention in the election law, even the Islamic criminal code does not contain a crime called “sedition” which could be used to deem a person to be criminal and then disqualify him from the presidential race. So candidates cannot be denied their rights on these grounds.

In reality, a jurisprudent cannot pass such judgment, punishment or deny the rights of a person by resorting to political issues or using concepts that have no legal foundations. This letter and the request for an unlawful action against the citizen of a country is unbecoming of any jurisprudent.

Another issue to which these jurisprudents must respond is this: if the larger goal is to observe the rule of law, then the question that comes to mind is how does this relate to the illegal house arrest of Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Zahra Rahnavard and Mehdi Karoubi who have been denied their rights for over three years. This house arrest is illegal according to every legal principle because the charges against them have not been brought before any competent court of law. The only reason for their house arrest is, according to officials, their role in a “sedition,” a term that has no meaning in law.

Every jurisprudent who has signed this letter is obliged to identify the specific law from which he has extracted the term “sedition.” Specifically, which law states that “sedition” is a crime and specifies the punishment for committing it? Which official body in the country or which specific law has defined “sedition” and the punishment for committing it?

It is clear that when letters of this kind appear during electoral campaigns they are written merely for political purposes and in this situation unfortunately this letter brings the integrity of jurists under question.

Shirin Ebadi
Roozonline