Are you Mohammad's Mother?
Mohammad was 16 years old when he was imprisoned for an alleged murder. He was initially assigned a court appointed attorney but after saving some money, his mother contacted Nasrin Sotoudeh who is an Iranian attorney specialized in juvenile cases. Mrs. Sotoudeh represents other minors facing execution in Iran. Sina Paymard is one of them.Soon after Mohammad Mousavi's mother hired her own attorney, she was contacted by Mr. Marvi, an official of Iran's judiciary in the central city of Shiraz where they reside. Mr. Marvi told Ms. Mousavi not to publicize her son's execution verdict and to fire her new attorney and in return he promised that Mohammad would not be executed because he was only 16 at the time of the alleged crime. Relying on the Iranian official's promise , the desperate mother told the new attorney not to proceed with defending her son. She also avoided talking to media or human right advocates about her son's situation.
On April 22, 2007 she was contacted by the Iranian authorities, But what she heard was not the promised news of commuting of her son's death penalty. Instead she was told:
" Your son was executed this morning, please make necessary arrangements to collect his body".
The execution orders of minors in Iran require direct approval (Estizan) of Iran's head of judiciary, Ayatollah Sharudi. The Judiciary of Islamic Republic of Iran did not even extend Mohammad and his mother their most basic human right of a saying good bye to each other. Mohammad was 19 at the time of execution. Ms. Mousavi has not heard from Mr. Marvi anymore.
To permanently Stop Child Executions in Iran, please visit
The execution orders of minors in Iran require direct approval (Estizan) of Iran's head of judiciary, Ayatollah Sharudi. The Judiciary of Islamic Republic of Iran did not even extend Mohammad and his mother their most basic human right of a saying good bye to each other. Mohammad was 19 at the time of execution. Ms. Mousavi has not heard from Mr. Marvi anymore.
To permanently Stop Child Executions in Iran, please visit
WE MUST STOP THIS!
I PRAY FOR MOHAMMAD AND HIS MOTHER> MS MAUSAVI YOU ARE IN MY THOUGHTS AND MY PRAYRES I AM SO SORRY FOR THE LOSS OF YOUR BEAUTIFUL SON! I AM THE MOTHER OF 2 SONS 18 AND 22 I CAN NOT IMAGAN WHAT YOU MUST BE GOING THRU! LOVE BEING SENT FROM THE USA TO YOU MY DEAR WOMAN!
LUCY BILTZ (Comment this)
Who really runs Iran? Men of Faith and Compassion as preached in every Bible mankind worships from, or The Fallen One! (Comment this)
Until the world establishes courts of competent jurisidiction to address human rights violations we are left to nonjudicial remedies such as petitions and prayers. It is blemish on modern civilization that we lack the judicial resources to undertake the prosecution of human rights violations. The world must adopt the Concept of Universal Jurisdiction which will allow courts to undertake the prosecution of such actions. Until that happens we can only plead and request mercy from the heartless individuals who care nothing about the lives of those who suffer.
There are two methods of attacking human rights violations in the courts. The first is via criminal prosecution and the second is through civil prosecution. Criminal prosecution is brought by a governing institution whereas civil actions seek compensation for damages. Given the reluctance of the governments of the world to prosecute criminal actions for human rights violations, except in extreme situations, the burden falls to private citizens to utilize resources available via private actions.
Recently, there have been numerous cases brought in the United States for human rights violations abroad. They are typically brought under the Alien Tort Claims Act and recently the Torture Victims Protection Act has become a vehicle for addressing such crimes. In April of 2007 a Chinese political prisoner filed an action under the these Acts in federal court in San Francisco against Yahoo. They were political dissidents who had voiced their opinions on the internet. Yahoo assisted the Chinese government in identifying them. Yahoo's excuse was that the government of China requires businesses doing business in that country to cooperate in such investigations. (A cause for boycotting Yahoo in my estimation.) The reason these actions are important is that the ability to attach financial assets of perpetrators of human rights violations is a tremendous deterrent to future human rights violations. The key is to trigger jurisdiction in a proper court.
Other possible methods of addressing these problems, particularly with respect to minors in Iran is the HAGUE CONVENTION OF 1996 ON JURISDICTION, APPLICABLE LAW, RECOGNITION, ENFORCEMENT AND CO-OPERATION IN RESPECT OF PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY AND MEASURES FOR THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN which went into effect in 1996. While the Convention is intended to apply primarily to parent child relations, in fact, the language as I read it, would allow prosecution against governments when the child is in the care custody and control of that governing entity. The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption may also provide teeth for prosecution in some instances. A problem with respect to Iran is that Iran is not a signatory nation. Nonetheless, one argument for enforcement may arise by acquiring jurisdiction in a member nation where Iran has relations.
Other possible methods of criminal prosecution of human rights violators within the United States specifically arises under Article IV of the United States Constitution which confers jurisdiction on US federal courts in the implimentation of self-executing treaty provisions which even prevails against domestic law including federal statutes.
With the Senate ratification of the Genocide Convention in 1988 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1992 and two years later, the International Convention on all Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the opportunity for criminal prosecution of foreign dignataries in US courts is now becoming viable. In addition, the US, of course, remains a party to the 1949 Geneva Convention and the United Nations which also provides a source of jurisdiction for US courts.
The US has trailed behind other western democracies in these issues and in fact, the US itself is the Defendant in actions brought for human rights violations as a result of the Iraqi War, as it should be, for the events at Abu Grab Prison.
The next phase in the assault on human rights violations, I would propose, should be in the establishment of courts of competent jurisdiction to address human rights violations. This can be accomplished both by filing actions in various courts around the world until they begin to accept jurisdiction and secondly by the presentation of petitions to governmental bodies to establish legislation conferring jurisdiction upon existing courts or creating courts specifically for the purpose of prosecuting human rights violations, that do not suffer from the impotence of the present courts that exist for this purpose. It is the inalienable right of the people of this world to the protection that these courts would provide. (Comment this)
May Peace Prevail soon
ONE Love,
Robin's Heart (Comment this)
his poor mother will never have the chance to say goodbye . i hope and prey mr marvi never has to experience the torture he has put others through but god knows he deserves it (Comment this)
I'm going to translate this and let people in Japan know how Iran is violating children's rights. (Comment this)