Iran: Further information on: Fear of Torture/Medical concern: Vahid (m), aged 28 (surname unknown)

Amnesty International:

Iran: Further information on: Fear of Torture/Medical concern: Vahid (m), aged 28 (surname unknown)

PUBLIC AI Index: MDE 13/035/2005

18 July 2005

Further Information on UA 176/05 (MDE 13/031/2005, 24 June 2005) - Fear of Torture/Medical concern

IRAN Vahid (m) (surname unknown)

Iran’s Judiciary has announced that Vahid's trial is still in progress, and he is therefore not at imminent risk of having his eyes surgically gouged out. This contradicts previous reports that Vahid had not only been sentenced but had an appeal rejected by the Supreme Court.

According to a statement given to reporters by judicial spokesperson Jamal Karimi-Rad on 5 July, the trial is still in progress, and Vahid has not yet received a final sentence. He added that such a sentence "would be difficult to carry out due to the fact that it could not be very equal to the crime committed," and the judge was more likely to demand that Vahid pay compensation to the victim.I

ran has to work urgently to bring domestic law and practice into line with its obligations under international law, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and abolish judicial penalties such as eye-gouging, which are cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments amounting to torture.

According to June reports in the Iranian press, Vahid was convicted of deliberately pouring acid from a battery on the face of another youth, Gholam-Hossein, blinding him. Vahid maintained throughout his trial that his actions had not been deliberate. The Supreme Court rejected an appeal on 9 June and ordered that the punishment should be carried out. Vahid’s lawyer was seeking clemency for his client from Gholam-Hossein’s family. Vahid had been asked to pay three billion Rials (US$300,000) as diyeh (blood-money) to escape the punishment, but he said that he did not have that much money. With the 5 July statement from the judiciary it is no longer clear whether the June reports were accurate.