The secretary of Iran’s Human Rights Council has said the responsibility to protect people under house arrest lies with the security apparatus.
The secretary of Iran’s Human Rights Council has said that the Islamic establishment has exercised tolerance in dealing with those who have been placed under house arrest [a reference to Mehdi Karroubi and Mir-Hossein Mousavi, two presidential candidates who disputed the 2009 election results and caused widespread unrest in the country].
Mohammad Javad Larijani, who was in Lorestan Province, said there is a lot of evidence pointing to commission of offenses in the case involving people who are under house arrest. [In order to put someone under house arrest] Either a judge’s order is necessary, or the Supreme National Security Council decides on the issue.
The following is a partial translation of the human rights official’s remarks as reported by Entekhab, a news website, on February 18:
As the judiciary chief has already said, putting people under house arrest should come through legal channels. One such channel is that a file is lodged [against individual(s)] in a court of law and a judge issues a verdict in the case.
The other channel is specifically for security cases. Under the law, if the Supreme National Security Council deems it necessary – on any grounds – to limit the freedom of an individual or a group to promote national security, it can communicate its decision to different government branches, among them the judiciary, and they have to act on the council’s decision.
Naturally, there is a lot of evidence pointing to commission of offenses in the case of people under house arrest, but it can be dealt with only through these two channels.
The house arrest of these individuals is quite legal and it has gone through the channel of the Supreme National Security Council.
I have not met with them [the people under house arrest]. Naturally, we do not hold personal grudges against individuals, especially those who have served the country in the past. The establishment normally treats them with tolerance.
The onus is on the security apparatus to protect these individuals. Nothing has gone wrong. They can even make trips to different parts of the country; they have access to medical services as well.
The services these people have rendered [in the country] have been always taken into account. But when a person commits offenses they should take responsibility for what they have done, even though they have served [the country].