In the article “Who are the targets of Rajavi’s retaliation?” a brief look was taken on the connotation and meaning of the terms “trial” and “retaliation” as well as their structural contradiction compared to democratic views, and Masoud Rajavi was asked to elaborate more on this words and clarify what he meat by them. It is evident that Masoud Rajavi never clarify his statements; however, those familiar with the cultic literature of Mojahedin and those who have understood the ideological revolution by heart need no further explanation. Yet there are some who want to know what is the meaning and definition of terms like trial, retaliation, court, punishment, defendant, prosecutor from the viewpoint of Rajavi and his ideological revolution and how they are opposite to the culture and literature of democratic societies.
Or maybe some think that Masoud Rajavi might forget about his ideological past and look at the world from a different angle. However, as seen in his messages and statements, this matter is unlikely to happen. There have already some questions and paradoxes found in his message about threatening to trial and retaliation been elaborated on yet they never suffice for understanding the real intention of Rajavi behind these words. I acknowledge that no one but Mojahedin themselves can expound on the intended meaning of these terms. Therefore, it is necessary to return to three decades ago when after the fall of Pahlavi’s regime in Iran some courts were formed to investigate the crimes of its agents. The position taken by Mojahedin at that time, and one of them in particular, may represent a typical instance of justice and tribunal from their viewpoint.
In this instance, what Mojahedin mean by court, defendant, crime, judge, ruling and its credits, defendant and its rights, and everything on this issue is referred to and elaborated on. This is an ideological article titled “People’s court; a step toward masses governing their own destiny” published in the journal of Mojahed No.3, dated August 1979, less than 7 months after the victory of Iranian revolution, in complaint to the formed legal tribunals. Mojahedin strongly stressed that the courts had to be harsh and relentless when trying the criminal agents and figures of the collapsed regime and acted much revolutionary in the rulings rather than paying humanistic aspects. It was not actually a suggestion but rater enforcing their own revolutionary view they strictly believe, and still believe, in. even in some cases they threatened to be executors of the rules they deemed justifiable. Their preferred form of the court was a revolutionary court apart from the legally adopted civil laws where some self-appointed representatives of people, of course presiding or supervised and attended by Mojahedin, could freely try the adversaries therein with nobody holding them accountable for the rulings.
The following is Mojahedin’s general idea of such courts published in the form of an article. It has to be noted that the introductory part of the article has been omitted since it is irrelevant to the discussion.
Quoted from the Journal of Mojahed No. 3, dated August 1979
People’s court relies on the masses
People’s court as its title impels is a tribunal whose judges are representatives of different strata of the society and the issues investigated therein are related to all peoples and their destiny. The function of these tribunals relies on the revolutionary conscience of the masses and their judgment rather than following codified legal and statutory rules. Consequently, the judges of these courts are not only experts of legal and statutory affairs but also a combination of people’s representatives some of whom lack even the required skill and expertise in jurisdiction since in these courts more attention is paid to investigating the political and social responsibility of the trend to which the defendant is related to than the legal trial. The orders issued in these tribunals take the revolutionary interests of the society into consideration and it is likely that they fail to correspond with the compiled legal and statutory disciplines and rules. It happens that people’s courts sentence a convict to execution whereas the civil law issues a much lenient verdict when a crime has the punishment of execution; it may happen that according to the interests of people or political and ideological issues the people’s court refrains to be lenient and acts much harsher. It can be said that in people’s court, the angel of justice determines her votes according to people’s interests rather than predetermined inflexible disciplines.
The function of people’s court
Giving some instances may help us to clarify the above statements. These instances are seen in all revolutions and we have selected them from Palestinian revolution:
During the internal wars of Lebanon, Palestinian guerillas took part in wars actively beside Lebanese. In this war, all intellectual and leftist Muslims confronted with reactionary rightists. Once in a mission, a Palestinian guerilla fighter arrested a Christian family and raped their daughter. Subsequently, the leader of Palestinian revolution formed a people’s court, tried him at the site of his crime and sentenced him to death and immediately executed the order.
Another example is the revolutionary tribunal of Abu-Nazzal, a high ranking of Al-Fatah. Despite his definite and unquestionable betrayal that led to a hindrance in Palestinian revolution and the fact that the court sentenced him to execution, the vote was not pursued and executed. Why? Since enforcement of the issued order might result in spreading the perverted and non-revolutionary fabricated trend of Abu-Nazzal. The study of the above instances of revolutionary tribunals may give us a deep understanding of the real content and function of people’s courts.
If we look at the above instances with regard to the interests of Palestinian people, we can find out some significant points. In the first case, if we take into consideration the conditions like the singlehood of the felon, his tough living conditions and a life full of deprivation, his wicked past full of defeats and ethnical and family problems, and tens of internal and external factors that intermingled with his strong lust and in a lunatic mood made him commit this action, we can find out that he did not deserve execution. However, what is insisted by the revolutionary tribunal is the political repute of the revolution of Palestinian people. This action done by one of the soldiers of the revolution may turn to a danger polluting the revolutionary honor of this movement. The reason behind the determination of the people’’ court to order and put it into execution was thus well justified.
In respect to the latter case, the people’s court refrained to enforce the execution sentence of Abu-Nazzal. His execution seemed to be performing justice for a betrayer; however, the consequent would not be in any way helping the long-term interests of people; rather, his execution not only failed to annihilate his fabricated trend but also it was very likely that it turned him to a saint and hero that would increase the longevity of this trend and thus threatening the future interests of Palestinian revolutionary masses.
When the people’s court is formed and who are its members?
As it was said, people’s court is a court whose judges are representatives of people. To this definition it has to be added that: According to circumstances, the way of forming these courts may vary. It means that in the reign of a dictator, these tribunals are hidden and qualified members of a revolutionary organization constitute its members since such an organization is the upshot of the demands of the masses and aims to hear miserable people’s problems. In a democratic environment and particularly after the victory of [Iranian] revolution, people’s court is formed with the presence of different strata of the society and representatives of revolutionary-leading organizations. What are of interest in people’s court are the political and social aspects of crimes and less attention is paid to their legal and statutory aspect. Jurisdiction in penal code and law observes predetermined issues and has the same reaction to various instances of the same crime. The process of common trials is also based on a pre-made trend whereas people’s court aims to preserve and guarantee the interests of people and shows much dynamism and flexibility in this regard, therefore its members are representatives of different strata and classes of the society and the issue of juridiciary expertise and skill is replaced by the qualification in recognizing and understanding the interests of the masses that can only be done by their real and true representatives.
What are the crimes investigated in people’s court?
In people’s courts, the plaintiff is people; the crime is the injustice committed against people. The crimes investigated in this tribunal are various depending on the features of that phase of the revolution. However, their commonality is the political and social aspects of the committed action that has polluted the honor and political repute of the revolutionary society disregarding whether the mentioned action in the compiled laws has the title of crime or guilt. It means that the political significance of the committed action is so high that it affects other aspects of that crime and even an action that is not considered a crime in normal circumstances, may be regarded a crime due to its negative consequences and may sentence the criminal even to death to eradicate those negative consequences. Likewise, the person who leads ideologically to the creation of a perverted trend in the society and debar the original and natural movement of the society or slows its movement is to be tried for that perverted trend and the judgment of the tribunal is more concerned with the political and social effects of this trend rather than the individual penal conviction of the committed person. Execution of the tribunal’s order is not for revenging a certain person yet it is the enforcement of the penal conviction of that perverted trend. The rulling of the tribunal is the inevitable ruling of people who can recognize their own interests in any period of time and enforce it through their most trusted and faithful representatives.
Contemporary revolutionary experiences
The history of the revolutions in China, Algeria, Vietnam, Libya, and Palestine proves the necessity of forming a people’s court after the victory of the revolution to prevent any disagreement, disunity and split and has shown its efficiency since in people’s court it is the representatives of all strata of the society that try a perverted trend and agents of that trend not the ruling system that may constitute the representatives of a certain stratum. Moreover, if condemnation of a perverted trend is carried out through the representatives of all strata of people, the possibility of its survival and revival is negated; whereas, the same order on the part of the ruling system and its juridiciary may fail to annihilate the perverted trend and also it may result in arising of doubts and pessimism that may finally led to split and disintegration of the united lines of peoples. Taking this fact into consideration may confirm the necessity of the forming an open people’s court in this phase of our revolution.
What was mentioned above, clearly represents the ideas and viewpoints of Masoud Rajavi and MKO on the issue of trial, court, crime, criminal, judge, legal qualification, the right of plaintiff, law, punishment, etc. Surprisingly enough, Masoud Rajavi as the ideological leader of Mojahedin has been reminded of his past ideas calling international bodies and his audience to form people’s courts under the title of trial and retaliation in less than one month after the removal of MKO from the EU terrorist list. Furthermore, Maryam Azdanlu, the false pro-democratic leader of MKO in her recent speech on the 30th anniversary of Iranian anti-monarchy revolution uses the same words and expressions of Masoud Rajavi for threatening the global society despite the fact that she has repeatedly promised the Iranians to remove the sentence of execution from the judicial system of Iran in case of coming to power. Now, the judgment is on the clear conscience of international bodies and all those concerned with the destiny of MKO.