Verdict Overview:

Regarding the verdict issued for Mr. Toumaj Salehi, it seems that the court which issued the ruling erred both procedurally and substantively. It is essential to note that in recent years, some judicial authorities have practically become sources of propaganda against the system in political cases or what these authorities interpret as “security cases.” Today, no propaganda against the system has reflected as widely worldwide against Iran as the issuance of this verdict (or similar verdicts). Consequently, this verdict has become the leading headline in most global audio-visual media (except for Russia, China, and Syria).

Judicial Responsibility:

The primary and most important duty of Iranian judges in all crimes, whether the punishment is hadd (fixed punishment), qisas (retribution), or ta’zir (discretionary punishment), is to align the verdict with documented law. However, as explained below, Toumaj’s actions do not align with Article 286 of the Islamic Penal Code.

Misapplication of Law:

Regarding the issuance of the verdict and the cited article for this ruling, it seems that the court either did not consider the meaning and interpretation of this law or deliberately intended to create a precedent within the judicial system to make citing Article 286 of the Islamic Penal Code under the title of “corruption on earth” a common practice for Revolutionary Court judges.

Critique of Article 286:

Although the article cited faced various criticisms from legal experts due to its broad scope and potential for expansive interpretation, it is still not formulated in a way that a rapper’s lyrics could be considered examples of corruption on earth. Issuing such a verdict in the future will face more opposition both globally and within Iran.

Article 286 Explanation:

This article states that anyone who “widely” commits crimes against individuals’ bodily integrity, the country’s internal or external security, spreading lies, disrupting the country’s economic system, etc., as mentioned in the article, is considered corrupt on earth and sentenced to death. The term “widely” in the article practically questions all the specified instances because the extent of “widely” is not defined, leaving interpretation up to the Isfahan judge.

Incorrect Interpretation:

As observed, interpreting this article in any form other than the Isfahan Revolutionary Court’s interpretation does not include Toumaj Salehi’s actions. This process, other than paving the way for issuing such verdicts in the future and becoming a judicial practice for judges like the president of the Isfahan Revolutionary Court, has no legal basis or result. Moreover, it seems that in issuing the death sentence for the named individual, it is stated that considering Toumaj Salehi’s case history and actions, if the verdict is upheld by the Supreme Court, a request for clemency in the Pardon and Forgiveness Commission will grant him a degree of leniency.

Legal Inconsistencies:

Although Mr. Salehi’s lawyers have denied the presence of such a statement in the verdict, procedurally, even if the court included such a subject in its issued verdict, this action by the court is practically considered a forward escape. In clearer terms, the court included such a statement to avoid severe judicial criticisms beforehand. The court does not have the authority to grant clemency or forgiveness permissions for actions after issuing the verdict for convicted individuals.

Court’s Authority:

The court’s ruling must be explicit, definitive, and unconditional. Whether the Supreme Court approves such an undocumented and illegal ruling or not, and based on that, a degree of leniency is granted to the accused or convict at the time of execution, does not relate to the court that issued the verdict.

Potential Judicial Misconduct:

It seems that when the judge issued the verdict, he was aware of the damaging effects of his incorrect ruling and planned this forward escape in the issued decision. If this matter is included in the verdict, it was to mitigate the impact of the ruling and its wide reflection against the judicial system and even the governance within the country.

Lawyer’s Statements:

According to Toumaj’s lawyers, the previous Supreme Court ruling was considered advisory, and without following it, under Articles 469 and 470 of the Criminal Procedure Code, with changing the criminal charges, all accusations were converted to corruption on earth after the verdict was issued and annulled by the Supreme Court, condemning the accused to death, which is a precedent against the law-abiding system in trials.

Judge’s Misunderstanding:

The Isfahan judge does not correctly understand the law and its mandatory enforcement and has divided the law into imperative and advisory, similar to the fatwas of authoritative scholars and high-ranking authorities, which could become a heavy burden if it becomes widespread.