Dear Mr. Ali Mojtahedzadeh, esteemed attorney at law; Hello

 I read your note and thank you for your concern regarding the detention of Toumaj Salehi and similar cases.

Regarding the lack of a clear mechanism for how harassment occurs in specific security and intelligence centers, it generally depends on the internal oversight body of that security organization and how much they are willing to cooperate with the judicial investigation and acknowledge and report any violations or crimes committed.

Overall, this relies on the legal, ethical, and responsible duties of the head and staff of the inspection center, as well as the personnel of the security information protection department of that organization.

Even if the investigating judge wishes to personally inspect the location of the complaint, there are many ways to circumvent the judge that may lead them to issue a ruling based on the request of the investigative authority, which I mentioned in another note.

The interaction between the investigative authority and the judicial authority is always present, and no one can prevent it with the various tools at their disposal.

Although recently operations of arrests and inspections of homes and locations are being filmed, and detention centers generally have surveillance cameras—except for places intentionally out of reach of oversight.

However, the detention facility differs from the interrogators, and no interrogator can personally visit the cell or room, or the general holding area of the suspect without coordination and oversight from a prison officer and the head of the detention center. These visits must be recorded with timestamps, and coordination with the security head is required. These records are noted in the so-called “prison logs.”

Thus, even if these cameras and logs are classified—which they are—the security protection of the agency has full access to them and can conduct a complete and thorough review regarding any potential judicial inquiries.

Additionally, the investigating judge or prosecutor who initiated the arrest is obligated, according to the detention center regulations, to periodically visit the detainees they have sent to these facilities.

It is clear that the detainee can express any complaints they have to the relevant judicial authority, and if the investigating judge or prosecutor does not attend to this important matter during their visits to detainees in the security detention center, they have committed an offense.

In the case of Mr. Toumaj Salehi’s complaint, the strange aspect is that the Judicial Authority’s media center has essentially denied the filing of the complaint.

Therefore, it is appropriate for esteemed legal expert Mr. Amir Reisi, Mr. Salehi’s attorney, to publicly disclose the date of the complaint submission, the referral date, the case number, and the adjudicating authority.

I hope that the investigating judge at the Government Employees Prosecution will correctly assess the case after listening to the supplementary statements of the complainant and their respected lawyer and will properly investigate and demand answers from the legal and judicial directorate of the Ministry of Intelligence’s protection department, which should then conduct a thorough and impartial investigation and report back to the judge.

For these reasons, I indicated in my previous note that we are facing a “hard test for the Judiciary, the Inspection Center, and the Ministry of Intelligence’s Protection Department.”

I emphasize the importance of utilizing all existing legal capacities to uphold the rights of citizens.