ChatGPT said: ChatGPT Publishing Articles 9 and 10 of the Instruction on the Implementation of Article 477 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the Information of Esteemed Companions

As I mentioned in my note addressed to the honorable lawyer, Dr. Paknia, the criticisms regarding the ruling leading to the execution of the late Mohammad Qobadlou are directed toward the proposer, namely the "Chief Justice of Tehran Province," while the final ruling that is conclusive, non-appealable, and not subject to retrial is issued by the judges of Branch 39 of the Supreme Court.

However, it seems that no one wants to acknowledge that if there is a substantiated critique, it should reference the main axis and the original proposer, and address it accordingly.

And to clearly state why, on religious and legal grounds, it should not have been established that he acted contrary to Islamic law, or that a mistake was made, or on what basis unlawful actions were taken.

This refers to Sheikh Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei, the head of the judiciary and the specially appointed prosecutor for the clergy.

For whatever reason, in this case, he was found to have acted contrary to Islamic law, and he authorized the application of Article 477, and the branch of the court was obliged to act according to his opinion. Furthermore, Mohseni Ejei issued authorization for the execution of a death sentence on behalf of the Guardian Jurist.

Why is there no engagement with this highly specialized religious matter and this crucial circle?

It is evident, and I understand.

In any case, anyone operating within the framework of legal standards and the regulations of the Islamic Republic must naturally critique the existing judicial rulings and procedures within that same system.

Is it not so?