The Mizan News Agency Published Part of the Ruling from Branch 39 of the Supreme Court Regarding Mohammad Qobadlou, Which Amir Raeisian, the Attorney, Denied Existed and Requested Mizan to Publish It

Firstly, the procedural document of this case and the arguments of Qalasi Mehr, the Chief Justice of Tehran Province, along with the references from Mohseni Ejei, the head of the judiciary, as described in Note 2 of Article 477 of the Criminal Procedure Code have not been published. As a media activist, I truly do not understand why, even if a rejection of the retrial was intended, the First Branch of the Supreme Court issued a ruling merely authorizing the retrial. Why was the Judicial Council of Branch 5 of the Tehran Criminal Court not allowed to reject the retrial? Or to apply Article 477 of the Criminal Procedure Code at that stage?

Secondly, it seems there is a “possible oversight” in referencing two simultaneous rulings in Branch 39 of the Supreme Court, and it is unclear to me whether this branch had previously issued a ruling for execution or if it was another branch. If it was indeed Branch 39, even though the branch must issue a ruling based on the head of the judiciary's opinion, did it really need to issue another ruling rejecting the retrial?

Thirdly, in the description of the case of #Mahsa_Amini in the ruling, the location of the incident is stated as Kurdistan, whereas it should be Tehran. It appears the authors of the ruling were hasty in preparing, signing, and finalizing it.

Fourthly, with great respect, I have a significant question for Mr. Amir Raeisian, the attorney:

Wasn't the case serial number noted at the top left of the ruling present in his client files within the Adl Iran system, so he would know which authority was handling the case? Shouldn’t he have visited the judges of that branch and followed up?

And could they not have reviewed the case and pursued it in the Execution Unit of the Public and Revolutionary Prosecutor's Office in Robat Karim?

Although according to the explicit text of Article 477, and following the issuance of a ruling on this matter, regrettably, further retrial (other than for contravention of Islamic law) was not possible, if more accurate and realistic information had been published in cyberspace, Abdi Media and other outlets would have disseminated it, and perhaps the relevant authorities would have informed Ayatollah Khamenei of the situation, which might have provided—albeit with a very slim chance—a way to halt the execution.

This is akin to the historical error—and I emphasize “unintentional”—by Mr. Ali Sharifzadeh Ardekan, an esteemed attorney, regarding the late Seyyed Mohammad Hosseini, which I detailed in Abdi Media, or the historical mistake made by some political and legal activists concerning the case of Mohammad Thalath, the details of which I do not wish to enter at this time.

It is regrettable that spilled blood and lost lives cannot be restored with "ifs," "buts," and "maybes."