U.S. House of Representatives Report (1976)
| The Mossadegh Project | August 12, 2026 |
The following presentation from the anti-Shah Iranian Students Association (ISA) is from a 87 page report on Human Rights In Iran.
HUMAN RIGHTS IN IRAN
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
AUGUST 3 AND SEPTEMBER 8, 1976
Prepared for the use of the Committee on International Relations
REPORT BY IRANIAN STUDENTS ASSOCIATION IN THE UNITED STATES,
“ON THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN IRAN”, SEPTEMBER 1976
INTRODUCTION
The period between May, 1951 and August, 1953, has remained a glorious part
of Iranian history. As eager as the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) was to
continue its profit-making operation in Iran, the popular government of Dr.
Mossadegh could not bear the situation any longer, and therefore acted unexpectedly
to nationalize the oil industry and expel the British technicians from
Iran. For “The Anglo Iranian Oil Company had become a state within a state,
an industrial giant that drained the nation’s main resources with little profit to
the Iranian people. In 1950, at the height of its power, the AIOC produced 30
million tons of crude oil, employed 80,000 workers (the white collar workers and
technicians being British) and held 13% of the world’s oil reserves, whereas
Iran, after 46 years of intensive oil production, still remained one of the poorest
countries in Asia.” (Repression in Iran, by Ahmad Faroughi, Feb. 1975, Reprinted from Index).
The incident was a drastic shock to the western countries, since Mossadegh’s
move was the first of its kind in the Middle East, and the western countries were
highly concerned in regard to the fact that should the nationalization of oil become
an exemplary act for other countries, their excessive profits would have
been lost. The first move by AIOC was to declare a world-wide boycott of Iranian
oil. Mossadegh devoted all his power to overcome the economic crisis that followed, and
his efforts, though facing a tremendous amount of hardship, were not in vain. Under this
government, for the first time and only time in Iranian history, the export and import
index of Iranian trade were equal.
Despite the severe economic crisis caused by the opposition of foreign powers,
and some pro-Shah elements, Mossadegh was able to uphold a democratic government.
Freedoms of speech, press, assembly, etc. were enjoyed by the Iranian people, rights
that they had been deprived of through much of their ancient and
contemporary history. During this period, all factions of the opposition were
given a free hand in their activities and expressing their views. Circulation of
publications by progressive organizations (both pro and anti-Mossadegh) was
quite permissable. Since there existed a significant democracy enjoyed by all, and
Mossadegh’s government allowed every voice to express every view, there was
also a logic behind the massive support that Mossadegh was receiving.
At this time, one of the foreign powers, aware of the damaging results of the
Iranian nationalization of oil was the U.S. At the request of both the Shah and
Great Britain (who was losing ground in maintaining its interests), and considering
the strategic importance of Iran, the U.S. acted promptly to reverse the
situation. On August 19, 1953, the CIA staged a coup in order to overthrow the
government of Dr. Mossadegh, and brought back the Shah, who had fled to Rome.
“There is no doubt at all that the CIA organized the 1953 coup, overthrew Premier
Mohammed Mossadegh, and kept the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi on his throne.”
(The invisible government, by David Wise and Thomas B. Ross).
Although the United States refused to officially admit the CIA’s role, the
indirect statements of high officials such as John Foster Dulles and later the
published documents, proved the CIA’s role an undeniable fact. “The Central
Intelligence Agency plays an important role behind the scene, as it proudly
admits with regard to the deposition of Mohammed Mossadegh when he
nationalized the oil industry in Iran.” (Freedom in Iran, by Bertrand Russel,
Minority of One, Nov. 1964).
“On August 19, General Zahedi, at the head of pro-Shah army elements and
with the active participation of American CIA agents in Iran (H. Norman
Schwartzkopf and Kermit Roosevelt) marched on the capital, and after a fierce
street battle which raged for two days, overthrew Mossadegh and brought the
Shah back to Tehran.” (Repression in Iran, by Ahmad Faroughi, Feb. 1975).
This was a turning point in the Iranian people’s political life. From this time
on, political repression has continuously prevailed in every aspect of Iranian
society. Following the coup, all the freedoms exercised during Mossadegh’s time
vanished. Thousand of arrests were made, and hundreds of the Shah’s opponents
were executed by firing squads. People were banned from participating in political
opposition meetings. The books available to the public were those, which had
passed through censorship procedures, and the same was true of the newspapers
and magazines. Opposition papers were eliminated, and the remainder of the
“press” became a propaganda machine for the regime. In short, people lived
under a complete state of siege.
Formation of SAVAK, the secret terrorist police of Iran, occurred in 1956,
“with the aid of the CIA and the Israeli intelligence” (The Washington Post,
Sept. 4, 1976). SAVAK as the main tool of suppression eventually institutionalized
the torture of political prisoners. Unwilling to admit the practice of torture, the
Shah’s government even refused to give back the bodies of the martyred
to their families, in order to avoid providing the evidence of physical torture.
People would be employed only if their political background was confirmed by
SAVAK standards; otherwise, they remained unemployed. All the worker’s
strikes, and student protests have been violently and ruthlessly suppressed. The
Iranian press, cinema, theater, radio and television are all under the control of
SAVAK, the latter two even being state owned. “The behavior of the secret police
is the tradition of tyranny. The research and information organization of international
students conference reported that in Dec. 1953, the royal military
government and police agents entered the University of Tehran and shot to
death three unarmed students, suspected of dissident views. Frequent invasion
of the University by armed soldiers in uniform, police and secret agents
occurred." (Bertrand Russel, Minority of One, Nov. 1964). “May 2, 1961, saw
government troops attack 4,000 teachers in Tehran, because of a teacher’s strike
for higher pay. One teacher was killed and three wounded according to a first
hand report of Dr. Burton W. Marvin, Chairman of the American Exchange
Division at the University of Tehran.” (Saturday Evening Post, Dec. 30, 1961).
In June 1963, a massive uprising of the people, who were protesting the critical
condition of living, and the existence of an evergrowing repression, by the Shah’s
dictatorship, was brutally suppressed by the army. . . . The ensuing military
repression was so ruthless that more than four thousand people were killed in
the three day battles.” (Repression in Iran, by Ahmad Faroughi).
According to the Iranian constitution, the Shah is solely to be a ceremonial
figure, and not a legislative, executive, or judicial power. Those responsible for
legislative matters are the national assembly and the Senate. But in reality,
every single article in the constitution is being ignored. Every law is being
legislated under the Shah’s order. His dictatorial rule eliminates every freedom
maintained by the Constitution. The “Parliament” and “representatives” pass
whatever bill the government presents. In fact, the Iranian parliament is of a
more humorous character than of any other character. The election of
representatives has long been mistrusted by the people. The votes taken out of the
ballot box are called the “miracle of the ballot box.” People are quite aware of
the results, even before the election.
The one party system has been a target of attack by the Shah in his book,
“Mission for my Country.” For a while a number of pro-Shah parties existed,
while all opposition organizations were banned. The pro-Shah parties were
eventually cut down in numbers. For a period of time, there existed two parties,
the nature of which was best described by Newsweek magazine as a “yes” party,
and an “of course” party. They were supposed to be functioning as two parties
in opposition with each other. And finally, there came the Shah’s new decision.
He dissolved the two parties, and stated that since there was no real opposition
in the country, there should exist a one party system.
[Rastakhiz Party] Since the Shah’s decision
was in contrast with what he himself had stated in his book a few years back,
that particular book vanished from the shelves of the libraries and book stores.
SECRET POLICE (SAVAK)
During the three years following the coup, the Shah maintained martial law
with the aid of his military’s intelligence force, backed by the CIA. Under such
oppressive conditions, the Iranian people demonstrated with their opposition
just how unpopular this government was. In order to maintain control in such
rebellious times, a dictatorship must result to alternative means of control. People
throughout the world react to a government that operates under martial law
for any extended period of time. The Shah realized the strength of the people’s
struggle, and thus he attempted to camouflage the true nature of his regime by
forming a “democratic” image without martial law. The Shah, through the
efforts of the CIA, initiated and developed a secret intelligence agency, SAVAK,
which would seek out, organize and maintain "security and information" for
Iran. But this increased opposition of the Iranian people under the repressive
policies of the Shah’s regime.
The only way for the Shah to maintain his dictatorship was to formulate a
long range plan for the suppression of the people’s resistance by SAVAK.
SAVAK’s main goal was to bridge the void between the Shah’s hollow promises
and the conditions that truly existed by brutally suppressing those who
attempted to voice such contradictions. This suppression was effected by SAVAK
at all levels of society, from the peasants to high government officials. Extremely
tight controls were instituted in order to maintain organization and surveillance
of the Iranian people. Support for SAVAK as an organization came from the
U.S., and performed a vital function of sustaining the puppet Shah. This
support has shown itself in various degrees, ranging from help, as the U.S. and
Israeli intelligence services trained members of SAVAK, to the U.S. sending
top ex-CIA head Richard Helms to Iran as the U.S. ambassador.
The Sazemane Ettela’at va Amniyate Keshrar (State Security and Intelligence Organization,
or SAVAK) was established in 1956 “with the help of American CIA and Israeli intelligence”
(Washington Post, Sept. 4, 1976), but it has since developed closer ties with Israeli intelligence.
It began its activities with personnel of army counterintelligence, police personnel and detectives,
and a number of civilians (mostly high ranking, and all of them extremely loyal to
the Shah), under the direction of CIA agents.
Its first director General Teimur Bakhtiar was the son of a leading khan of
Bakhtiari tribes. His father served as governor of the Bakhtiari regions as well
as several terms in Majles (the Iranian Congress with appointed members).
After attending St. Cyr Military School in France, Bakhtiar entered the Iranian
army and rose through the ranks. With the marriage in 1951 of Soraya, also a
Bakhtiari, to the Shah, the outlook for the ruthless officer improved. After the
overthrow of Mossadegh, he was promoted to general and, in short order, to
military governor of Tehran and director of army intelligence. It was in this
position that he started to practice torture. Therefore, when SAVAK was
created, Bakhtiar, nicknamed the killer, was the logical choice as its director,
while its agents were expertly trained to torture by CIA and Israeli intelligence
agents. Bakhtiar strengthened SAVAK but, in spite of all savagery, was unable
to prevent political disquiet that began in the summer of 1960 and resulted in
the cancellation of the Majles election in September. That autumn was a period
of increasing demands for new elections, free of the control of the secret police.
This, together with the designs he gradually developed for ruling Iran himself,
resulted in his dismissal in 1961 and exile in early 1962 to Europe. He later went
to Iraq to continue his activities against the Shah and, finally, was assassinated
there by SAVAK agents in 1970 after being condemned to death in absentia in 1968.
The second director, General Pakravan, was assigned as ambassador to
Pakistan, because of the Shah’s dissatisfaction with his leniency toward suspected
people. The third and present chief, General Ne’matt’ollah Nassiri, might well
succeed where each of his predecessors has failed. Nassiri was a classmate with
the Shah, then Crown Prince, at the Military Academy and received his officer’s
commission with him. He demonstrated his loyalty and toughness by serving as
commander of the Imperial Guards from 1950 and by carrying on activities
against the popular Prime Minister Mossadegh. It was Nassiri, then a colonel,
who carried the Shah’s orders of dismissal to Mossadegh on August 16, 1953, and
who ultimately found and arrested him after his escape from the armed forces
besieging his house.
But even with these credentials, Nassiri was not entrusted with sole responsibility
for intelligence. Within the organizational framework of SAVAK is a Special Intelligence
Bureau, which is nominally separate and financially independent. It is headed by General
Hossein Fardust, who was not only a classmate with the future Shah and Nassiri, but was
one of the Persian boys whom Reza Shah dispatched to Switzerland with his son. The Shah
had described him as a “special friend” during his childhood.
Finally, the J-2 branch of the Imperial Armed Forces (Army Intelligence)
is another division in SAVAK. These branches duplicate each other’s efforts,
so there is a little likelihood that any important internal or external threats to
the regime will escape unnoticed. The Shah has regularly scheduled personal
audiences with his SAVAK chiefs. No one officer (Nassiri, Fardust, or the head
of “army intelligence”) can exert influence over the Shah because the
responsibilities that he fulfills are not unique or essential. The dismissal of any
one of the three would not submit the regime to any “intelligence gap,” for, in short,
the Shah himself is the actual director of SAVAK.
In response to increased opposition, SAVAK has tightened control and its
permeation of all aspects of Iranian society. The opposition has taken the form
of strikes and demonstrations by workers and students, and even armed struggle,
that have gone on unrelentingly since the 1953 coup, and which have gained
more and more popular support.
SAVAK’s response has been to try to eliminate all forms of dissent. Anyone
suspected of anti-Shah sentiment is subject to arrest and indefinite detention,
even though all the prisoner may have done was to mildly criticize some aspect
of the Shah’s government or to have known someone else who had.
Today in all the little towns and villages, there are active branches of
SAVAK. These branches are in direct contact with top personnel within SAVAK
who are in close relation to the Shah and his advisors. These areas are controlled
by the new tools of SAVAK which have been created in the name of the
“White Revolution,” a fake “reform” program, devised to make extremely
superficial change that has actually increased the repression of the villages and
surveillance of the people’s lives. The literacy corps, health corps, development
and construction corps and others were developed to be dispatched to various
villages and small towns for some superficial token reforms, but mainly to regulate,
oversee and supervise the people’s lives.
The attention that SAVAK gives to expanding in these areas is in direct
relation to the policies set by the regime which are subordinate to the interests
of U.S. businesses. Iranian villages are one of the major “danger” spots, due to
the lack of centralized control over sparsely populated areas. There has been
an extensive infiltration of all these areas by the various corps. All movements,
in and out of the village, are recorded; any “suspicious” character is watched
closely. Especially sensitive is the strict control of new people entering these
areas. A vast amount of information concerning each village and its occupants
is relayed directly to SAVAK for final inspection.
In larger towns and cities, many aspects of a worker’s life are under the scrutiny
of SAVAK and its various tools. In the factories, SAVAK enlists informants
through bribery, but most often SAVAK agents are planted as spies. All factory
owners can receive as many weapons deemed necessary in order to arm “those
workers under the pretense of preparing for the “probable danger of war.”
SAVAK also has strict control over the “unions” which act in direct contradiction
to the interests of the workers. These “yellow unions” are used to avert strikes,
shutdowns and demonstrations.
Iran’s schools and universities are also an arena of SAVAK activities, since
these places are usually areas of democratic movement against the unpopular
and dictatorial policies of the government and the existing repression in Iran.
Faculty members, as well as students, are harassed and arrested if they show any
kind of sympathy with the resistance movement or object to the crystal clear
presence of SAVAK agents in the universities. The administration and faculty
are strictly required to report to SAVAK if they find any anti-Shah feeling among
the students. In case any democratic movement acquires momentum within the
universities and set the time for their reopening. It is worth mentioning the
presence of a permanent “Guard” at all university campuses, as well as
undercover SAVAK agents among the students.
The media is directly regulated and manipulated by SAVAK. All newspapers
are printed by the government, who uses the mass media to exert a certain
influence toward western ideas. Traditional literature and art have been under attack,
and replaced with new pro-western propaganda. SAVAK is free to indiscriminately
block out any news items, and to alter the content and flow of information
to an extent where the distortion creates a totally different result. Absolute
censorship exists in all forms: newspapers, television, magazines, books and films.
Such media are used for extensive propaganda exists in order to manipulate and
control public sentiment and maintain general ignorance if important events.
And now, in the middle of the night, the terrified Iranian people may find armed
SAVAK agents inside their houses, searching every corner of their homes to find
prohibited books. Of course, search warrants are not required, and the literature
that will lead to the arrest of its owner may even be a novel that the person has
purchased in an Iranian shop. Such books may be legally displayed in stores, but
ownership will lead to arrest.
The original function of SAVAK was to liquidate the remnants of the outlawed
opposition parties after the fall of Dr. Mossadegh’s government. Later, it took on
the task of wiping out all manner of opposition to the Shah’s regime. Its primary
role was, and still is, domestic. But as a result of repressive measures taken by
the regime, and the savage treatment the dissidents have received at the hands of
SAVAK, political activities within the country grew more and more restricted
and dangerous. Thus dissident groups were gradually formed in foreign countries.
Therefore SAVAK has taken on a significant role abroad, monitoring the activities
of the thousands of Iranian students in foreign colleges and universities,
whose actions are a major source of embarrassment to the Shah.
The primary task of SAVAK is to infiltrate the Iranian Students’ and other
Organizations, abroad and to learn the identities of those involved in political
activities against the regime. This is done through their numerous agents and
informers, among many of whom are “students.” “These student informers are
recruited through selective allocation of government scholarships. If a student
comes from a wealthy family that can afford to send him to a foreign university,
he can avoid performing this service. But if he needs a scholarship, he may
agreed to work for the state for several years upon his return, and to this
obligation is often added that of informing on his classmates while he is studying
abroad.” (Washington Post, Sept. 4, 1976)
If the identity of a political dissident is learned by SAVAK, he is usually
pressured into silence and inaction through SAVAK’s pressuring his family in
Iran through intimidation, threats, confiscation of property and business, and
imprisonment and torture of his family members. The consequences of being
known by SAVAK can be so grave for the families of political activists, that
even sympathizing with the Iranian Student’s Association (ISA) could be a
risk in itself. Therefore in all the demonstrations, hunger strikes and other
activities organized by the ISA, all Iranian participants are advised to wear
face masks, out of fear of recognition. At the ISA meetings, absolutely no one
is addressed by his family name. It often happens that even the closest friends
do not know each others’ last names, not out of mistrust but more as a precaution
that, in an unguarded moment, one may mention the names of others.
Everywhere it is routine and pleasant for a student to spend his vacation
with his family and friends in his own country. But it may not be so for many
Iranian students abroad. For the more outspoken opponents of the regime it is
even unthinkable, since their return for a visit invariably results in their
immediate arrest by SAVAK agents, imprisonment and torture. Other students,
who are not so active, have to spend a good deal of their vacation going through
the red tape and being quizzed by SAVAK agents on the activities of their
friends in foreign universities. They are often persuaded or intimidated into
collaboration with SAVAK by starting to inform on their friends upon their
return to resume their studies. If they refuse to give straight answers or to
cooperate, their exit visas may be suspended, if no harsher measures are not
taken against them.
When a student, after finishing his studies abroad, returns to Iran to work,
he is invited to an interview with SAVAK, during which he is asked to tell
everything he knows about his former classmates, fill out long questionnaires
and written statements, and at the end he must sign a statement to the effect
that he is to become a member of the “Rastakhiz (Resurgence) Party”—the only
legal political party in Iran. It used to be that “I am not and will not become
a member of any party," but that was before “His Majesty’s” discovery of the
advantages of a one-party system! If someone refuses to sign such a statement,
or fails to convince SAVAK of his good intentions, the least that can happen
to him is to have to stay home and give up the hope of ever finding a job.
SAVAK operates out of Iranian embassies and consulates in foreign countries,
as the Sunday Times of London disclosed two years ago. We should also mention
that many, if not most, Iranian diplomats are SAVAK agents. To substantiate
this allegation we may cite the following incident, as an example: Upon the
release of documents by the World Confederation of Iranian Students, Swiss
officials expelled the first secretary of Iran’s diplomatic mission to the United
Nations office in Geneva. "Swiss officials in Berne were quoted as saying he
(Ahmad Malek) was a senior SAVAK agent engaging in prohibited intelligence
activity’ and was responsible for watching Iranian students in western Europe.”
(Washington Post, Sept. 4, 1976) This expulsion of the “security official” caused
a diplomatic crisis that resulted in the retaliatory expulsion of the Swiss
ambassador from Iran.
The activities of SAVAK abroad do not end with monitoring the Iranian
students. SAVAK has to its credit a number of successful or attempted kidnappings
and murders of dissidents and former government officials who have
fallen from grace with the Shah. A most recent example of which was that:
“On the night of June 4, 1976, Mohammad Reza Amirteymour the newly recalled
Iranian ambassador to England was found dead in the ambassador’s residence
in London. The embassy’s first secretary, Morteza Kakhi, told reporters the next
day that he died from natural causes. The doctor who examined him and the
police are also satisfied.” (Washington Post, July 6, 1976)
In reality it was not a suicide. "The many question marks around this affair
have led some intelligence officials here to think that the dreaded SAVAK had
a hand in it. SAVAK agents operate from the embassy in London, as the Sunday
Times disclosed two years ago.
This is hardly surprising, since SAVAK was reorganized and trained by the
CIA nearly 20 years ago, and the CIA invariably has sizeable station
complements at major embassies." (Washington Post, July 6, 1976)
TORTURE
Iran is signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which
article V states that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment.” And Article 131 of Iran’s Penal Code
“forbids any government employee to apply or order the infliction of bodily harm
to any accused person for the purpose of procuring a ‘confession’. Conviction of
such an offense merits a 3 to 6 year prison term, and if the victim should die, the
tormentor is tried for murder.”
Yet Martin Ennals, Secretary of Amnesty International, has stated that “no
country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran.” Since the
Shah was restored to power by the CIA in 1953, torture of political prisoners,
those arrested by SAVAK for their opposition to the Shah, has become an
established practice.
Between the time of arrest and the trial, a prisoner is completely in the hands
of SAVAK, whose role it is to conduct an investigation into the alleged crimes of
the prisoner and to prepare the prosecutor’s file. The results of the interrogation
of the prisoner go into the file, and the “confessions” so procured are the result
of the most brutal and inhumane torture.
Some people have been broken under torture, and have gone so far as to
denounce their former beliefs and those who are still opposing the regime. But
these are few. Most prisoners resist, even to the point that many have died
under torture.
The regime has always denied reports of torture. However, in a 1972 interview
with Jacquelyn Portelle, representative of the International Federation of
Human Rights, and John Thorne, representative of the National Lawyers Guild
and the League for the Rights of Man, Prime Minister Hoveyda surprisingly
confirmed the reports when he said first in English, “we usually don’t torture
people in Iran,” and then in French, “we don’t usually torture people, but I can’t
swear to anything.” Even more recently, Time Magazine (Aug. 16, 1976) has
reported the Shah saying, “we don’t need to torture people any more. We use
the same methods some of the very highly developed nations of the world are
(using), psychological methods.”
Even without such admissions by the regime, the proof is overwhelming. The
International Commission of Jurists has charged that basic human rights do
not exist in Iran." There is abundant evidence showing the systematic use of
impermissible methods of psychological and physical torture of political suspects
during interrogation." (Washington Post, May 29, 1976)
Much of the proof is obtained by observers, representatives of various international
and human rights organizations, that have managed to speak to political
prisoners, or to attend their military trials. In court, almost all of the prisoners
have retracted their “confessions,” stating that they had been made under torture.
In 1972, lawyers Henry Libertalis and Nouri Albala, representing the
International Association of Democratic Lawyers, the International Federation of
Human Rights and the International Association of Catholic Lawyers, managed
to attend four sessions of military court and to interview two political prisoners
in Evin Prison, Nasser Sadegh and Ali Mihandoust. Mr. Sadegh told the lawyers
that he and Mr. Mihandoust had indeed been tortured, emphasizing that SAVAK
agents had “hit him over the head with gun butts so hard that it resulted in
internal bleeding and that he had been unconscious several times.” (Le Monde,
Feb. 12, 1972) Sadegh testified that he had seen Behrouz Deghani die under
torture, and also described having seen Masoud Ahmadzadeh, Asgar Badiezadegan
and another prisoner tied to a metal bed frame which was heated by a hot plate
underneath. He said that Mr. Badiezadegan had been burned so badly
that his legs had become paralyzed. In court, Mr. Ahmadyadeh managed to
show the lawyers the scars on his chest and back that had resulted from his
having been tortured. Mr. Sadegh repeated that he had been tortured to another
foreign observer during his trial.
The London Sunday Times (Jan. 19, 1975) concluded from a two-year
investigation, based on personal testimony from prisoners, interviews with
prisoner’s families and reports from impartial observers, that torture of political
prisoners is regularly practiced in Iran.
The Times reported that the torture of Asgar Badiezadegan, who was mentioned by
Nasser Sadegh as having been paralyzed on the “Hot Table,” is also
described by two other prisoners. One is Reya Rezai, who managed to escape from
Evin Prison and sent a long letter out of the country. He says of Mr. Badiezadegan:
“He was slowly burned by means of an electric fire while his hands and legs were
tied to a bed. He was so badly burned in the lower lumbar areas
that it reached some of the vertebral bones and he fell into a coma. He was
then untied and left with his wounds in a putrid state, so much so that the
stink of his infected flesh filled our cell and nobody else would come near it. He
was then transferred to prison hospital and underwent several operations. But
he can no longer walk, only crawl on all fours.”
The other prisoner, unnamed because of danger to his family in Iran, also
wrote of Mr. Badiezadegan: "He was pinned on an electric oven and burned
in his sacral areas. His wounds were not treated for a long time and the
smell became unbearable to all. He was half-paralyzed and he was taken to
court and shot soon afterwards in this state.”
Several former prisoners have also testified that they were taken into the
torture chamber, where the “Hot Table” was kept, “after hearing dreadful
screams coming from it and immediately noticed a smell of roasted flesh.”
Mr. Yves Bandelot, a lawyer at the court of appeals of Paris, was sent in 1974
by the International Association of Democratic Jurists and the International
Association of Catholic Jurists, to investigate the conditions of political
prisoners in Iran. He reported that “these conditions, according to a former
prisoner, are particularly harsh in the period preceding the sentence. The
detention in isolation usually continues several months, and the investigation
more often is limited to a very formal questioning which lasts no more than
couple of days. The prisoners are jailed in Tehran, in Comite Prison or Evin
Prison, both belonging to SAVAK. The conditions of imprisonment are extremely
painful. The prisoners are cut off from the outside world, and all means
are employed to bring about complete confessions, and they include torture.”
(Le Monde, Dec. 1974.) The report continues: “According to the prisoners that
Mr. Baudelot could question, and who have undergone torture cruelty, the
most frequently practiced are the following: scourging with a metallic whip,
metallic table heated white-hot on which the prisoner is extended, burns from
cigarettes, electric charge to the sex organs, hanging up by arms to the ceiling,
and introduction of a broken bottle in the anus. The tortures are also practiced
on next of kin according to former prisoners. One of them mentioned to
Mr. Baudelot the case of a woman who was raped in front of her husband, of
a 17-year-old given a whipping and subjected to the electric torture in front
of his father, of a 4-year-old child whipped and whose neck was cut in front
of his mother. One of the persons questioned by the lawyer told him that it had
been so unbearable for him to see his son tortured that he had wished he had
a knife to kill him rather than watch him suffer.”
Dr. Hans-Heinz Heldman, representative of Amnesty International, reported
on his trip to Iran in 1970: "Political prisoners are regularly tortured in the
prisons, with the exceptions only of those few prisoners who are too well known
within or outside the country. The families of the prisoners are frequently
exposed to psychological terror and economic pressure. (For example, the wife
of a prisoner is threatened with being slandered throughout the country as a
prostitute, being imprisoned and being treated as a prostitute.)
The already available announcement about the torture death of the holy
man Saidi, and the graduate of the polytechnical school in Tehran, Nikdavoudi,
are confirmed. Saidi is said to have ultimately died from the introduction of
boiling water into the intestine. According to a medical attestation available
to me from the clinic of the central detention center, Nikdavoudi had suffered
the following injuries, leading ultimately to death: broken vertebrae in the
neck, injuries to the spinal cord, and from disks shoved between the vertebrae,
leading ultimately to complete laming of all extremities and intercostal muscles.”
Amnesty International has
stated
in its Report on Torture that: “Taking
into account the constant factors in all the allegations over the past ten years,
together with the details supplied, which include descriptions of methods,
names of torturers, places and times, it can be concluded that enough prima
facie evidence of torture exists to warrant a properly constituted inquiry.”
Bertrand Russell, in his article “Inside the Shah’s Prisons,” quote instances
of torture described in a letter smuggled out of Gezel-Gale Prison in Tehran,
Nov. 29, 1967: The writer, Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsenjany, was tortured for
twelve hours, during which period one of his ears was seriously damaged. [Rafsanjani, future President of Iran] Mr.
Ali Ghayoury, who is the Mullah of the Pol Siman mosque in Tehran, was
whipped, slapped, beaten, and an instrument which causes the chest to stay
expanded by means of weights attached to his arms, thus making breathing
difficult, was applied to him. As a result of this treatment, his shoulders, kidneys
and the side of his body have been injured.
Mr. Sahab El-Smani Hamedani, who is suffering from stomach ulcers and
general weakness, has been tortured for hours at the SAVAK headquarters
in Qum, as well as Gezel-Gale. The tortures were so vile and inhuman in his
case that we are ashamed to describe them. Consequently, he is very ill and
we do not know whether he is going to survive.”
At present some 4,000 of the political prisoners in the Shah’s jails and dungeons
are women. Most of them are, or have been, subjected to maltreatment or
barbaric torture, such as beatings, whipping, the application of cigarette burns,
slow roasting on electric grills, shock treatment to genitalia, avulsion of nails,
rape and maltreatment of children in front of the captive mothers.
One prisoner, Fatemeh Saidi Shayegan, aged 50, was so severely tortured that
as a result she has suffered paralysis of both her arms. Three of her sons and
her grandson have been killed by the regime. Another woman, Shahin Tavakoli,
stated at her trial: “At the moment of my arrest, the police tore down my dress
and beat me, though I had offered no resistance. They kept me naked in public
for some time and then took me to the hospital to watch my badly wounded
husband in severe suffering and unattended. Later they started their torture
sessions in earnest. They knew I was a decent woman with a young child, a suckling
baby, but this did not stop four SAVAK thugs named Azadeh, Khatai, Makhfi
and Amini, headed by an officer called Nik-Tab, from stripping me completely
naked after binding my hands and feet and gagging my mouth. Nik-Tab, who
was reeling with drinks, would lift his glass after each infliction on me and have
a swig. Then all five raped me, one after the other. During my stay at the police
cell, every conceivable humility and brutality were inflicted on me.” Ashraf
Deghani, who had been held and tortured for two years in the Shah’s prisons,
escaped from Ghasr prison in late March, 1973. She later described her experiences
in a book entitled Epic of Resistance. The following occurred in Evin Prison:
“Torture started again. This time they gave me an electric shock using a
truncheon shaped electrode. Before putting an electric charge through it, they
used it to degrade and humiliate me. The target was really my psychological
rather than physical condition. They had stripped me completely, and while
uttering revolting obscenities were administering electric shocks to sensitive
parts of my body . . .
At last they were tired of whipping me . . . Then Khatai, standing four meters
away, aimed his revolver and threatened to shoot me through the nose. At first
I believed them. When he made as if to pull the trigger I moved my head forward
so that I would be shot in the head. They laughed. The thug aimed again. I
realized mocking me was their idea of fun. So I stopped paying attention.”
One other political prisoner has been able to escape, and, in his letter, Reza
Rezai describes some of the tortures he had witnessed: “The use of electric
canes is the most common method of torture, because it has the advantage of
giving smashing shocks without leaving any revealing traces.”
Injection of convulsive drugs such as Cardiazol, which are supposed to break
the will power, strong electric shocks, ultra-sound waves, super strong lights,
pulling off finger nails, hard blows to the head that cause insanity and
blindness, are very common in the process of interrogation, as are hanging heavy
weights from testicles, which is a killing pain and in some cases has made
urination impossible. Pushing empty bottles into the rectum and using heavy
handcuffs are other means of torture.
Conditions in the cell make it barely livable. The cells are 1.2 meters by 2
meters and a small window of 30 centimeters by 40 centimeters. There is no light
in the cell. A cell is small for even one person; we lived there with three.
In the prison of Evin, one doesn’t have the right to read, exercise or even
to simply walk or to breathe the air outside one’s cell. They hit prisoners who
speak loudly or sing softly.
I quite understand the bitter fact that these conditions are still much better
than the living conditions of millions of our people . . .
Considering all these bitter facts, how can a political prisoner, who is only
guilty of loving and supporting these oppressed people, have any complaint as far
as the living conditions of prison are concerned? Their appeal to the international
authorities is beyond the provision of better room and board. Our objection is only
to the massive, illegal and inhumane arrests of the regime. We object
to the execution of the most humane and devoted of our people.
Listen carefully to the prisoners’ cry of agony, suffering from the brutal
tortures of SAVAK. Raise your voice to object to all these inhumane
practices, and try to make the people of the world hear that and support you.”
MILITARY TRIALS
The State Organization for Security and Information (SAVAK) which is
directly responsible to the Shah, and only the Shah, has complete authority to
determine the investigatory stages of proceedings involving political activities
and builds the case for the prosecutor from the very decision to arrest to the
point where the case is ripe for hearing by military tribunal.
Internationally, Iran has been a keen promoter of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and is signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. The Iranian regime often acknowledges that it has duties
according to these documents, but commonly breaches both in numerous ways
in domestic practice as is evidenced by the application of SAVAK law and the
use of military tribunals to try civilians accused of political activities.
Bertrand Russel, in his article “Inside the Shah’s Prisons,” states: “Iran
was one of the first signatories to the Declaration of Human Rights. For many
years, however, there has been suppression of political parties, detention without
trial (or following a show trial) and control of the press. Elementary rights,
such as freedom of opinion, of association and of assembly, have been violated
systematically. The secret political police (SAVAK) have terminated violently
the exercise of rights guaranteed by Articles 17, 18 and 19 of the Declaration of
Human Rights.”
As all political activities against the State fall within the jurisdiction of the
permanent military courts, SAVAK is empowered to be the sole investigator of
all political activities as well as the authority which initiates the bringing of
the charges against the involved persons. SAVAK can directly order the arrest
of any person on a charge of political activity and no resource to any court for
approval is necessary.
It must be noted that the Military Justice and Penal Law of 1938 does provide
that where the investigator orders an arrest, the agreement of the court must
be secured within 24 hours. In the event of the Prosecutor’s disagreement with
the decision to arrest, the conflict is resolved by the military court. The
defendant has the right, under Article 10 of the Supplementary Constitutional Law
of October 8, 1907, to be informed of the charges against him within the same
24 hour period. But in most cases, the accused is not informed of the charges,
even after a couple of days and/or sometimes weeks.
“SAVAK conducts the entire investigation into each charge and prepares the
file which forms are entirety of the prosecutor’s case at trial. As SAVAK controls
the investigatory process, the accused will not stand trial until the case file is
satisfactorily complete. This sometimes results in many months of pre-trial detention
for the accused, awaiting the successful production of evidence.” (Amnesty International)
After the interrogation period has ended and the file is satisfactorily complete,
the prisoner is finally brought to trial. Trials for all activities contrary
to the government are held by military courts. Not only are they held in
military tribunals but also, they are held in secret. Even in those cases where they
are ostensibly “open”, it is very difficult to gain entry because a special permit
is required.
A recent report from Iran stresses “Foreign Journalists and jurists are no
longer permitted to attend trials as observers.” (Report from Iran, John
Watkinson, Barister Bill Nash, August 29, 1975) Again, this arbitrary ban on press
and observers appears to fly in the face of the Supplementary Constitutional
Law, as article 77 provides: “In political and press offenses, where it is
advisable that the proceedings should be private, this must be decided on with the
unanimous vote of all the members of the tribunal.”
The military courts have never been overruled in denying objections founded
on this provision, as they rely again on Article 87 which allowed for the
institution of military courts with sui generis rules.
The court itself allows for no possibility of justice. The judges are untrained
in law and there is no jury present. When Mr. Claude Ducreux, representative
of International Association of Democratic Jurists, attended a trial in 1965, he
reported that: “Numerous military personnel were on hand in the courtroom,
armed with machine guns and wearing helmets.”
The defendant is allowed to see his lawyer only ten days before the trial.
The lawyers are retired military officers, also untrained in law. A list of these
lawyers is provided by the military tribunal from which the defendant is
provided by the military tribunal from which the defendant must choose the person
to defend him.
Lawyers Henry Libertalis and Nouri Albala who went to Iran on behalf of
the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, the International Federation
of Human Rights, and the International Association of Catholic Jurisits,
indicate in this report:
“In the court sessions, the defendants are treated well, their hands aren’t
tied down and they are even provided with cigarettes and are allowed to talk
on their political views without being interrupted, if they wish.
“The defendants have to protest to the competence of the military court on
their own and request attendance of a jury in the court since the Iranian law
has predicted such action in the political trials. The defendants who are
deprived of defense attorneys during the time of interrogation, are in fact
deprived of true lawyers in the court sessions too. Only military officers who are
on duty or retired are appointed to defend them. The credentials and the law
degrees of those lawyers are attached to the file and nobody is permitted to
see it. The trial sessions are held without any witnesses and not a single
document is presented against the defendants. The documents used as evidence
against the defendants are the ‘confessions’ received by the SAVAK agents.”
(Le Monde, Feb. 12, 1972)
As the trial starts, the charges against the defendant are read, usually in
the form of imprecise allegations. The prosecution is the first to present its
case, i.e. the entire file which has been prepared. The defense has no right to
demand witnesses, produce witnesses or cross-examine. Demands for the
production of incriminating evidence are bluntly denied. Therefore, when it
comes the turn of the defense, the task is to prove that the prosecution has
not made out its case; it is never the burden of the prosecution to prove
that it has.
One example of the kind of situation the defense is presented with was a case
where “the document of accusation was neither shown to them (the defendants)
nor given to them in a copy. It was merely given a hurried reading during the
first hearing. It consists of not less than 16 pages of accusations and contestations
which both the accused and counsel for the defense had to recall by memory.”
(The report of Dott Giancarlo-Lannutti about the political trials in Iran-
Rome, June, 1966.) Under such conditions, it is glaringly clear that the defendant(s)
are presupposed guilty. The defense lawyer is, in practice, not
supposed to defend at all. However, there was a case where the lawyers did
make a concerted effort to defend the accused. They were rewarded for their
efforts by being arraigned and sentenced, themselves, for having given too
convincing a defense (AI Report, Aug. 14, 1972)
At the close of the proceedings before the tribunal, the President of the
Military Court announces the verdict of the Court and the sentence agreed upon.
The sentences are predetermined by SAVAK. “A sheet containing SAVAK’s
opinion about the defendant is stapled to every file. These opinions which are
predetermined formulas, act as a directive to the military court. The military
court knows that the meaning of a certain formula is 2-4 years, another formula
5-7 years, another formula, acquittal and the next, execution. The
prisoner also knows the end of the comedy for he has probably heard the result
from the interrogators.” (Article from Prison)
This practice was partially revealed by General Farison, denounced for
sending prisoners in front of firing squads, who “used to say in private: ‘I know
they are innocent but I have orders to condemn them’.” (Report of Mr. Claude
Ducreaux, International Association of Democratic Jurists, December 30, 1965.)
Actually, this attitude seems to be quite prevalent. For in 1966, when the
Italian journalist Giancarlo-Lanutti was interviewing Dr. Tavakeli, Director
General of Foreign Relations of the Ministry of Information, he asked if the
Persian government had ever considered the possibility of abolishing the death
penalty. Dr. Tavekeli’s reply was: “The problem is certainly due for consideration
in the future; but our country is centuries, even milleniums, behind civilization;
first we must educate the people, abolish illiteracy, and only after this
is done will be be able to take care of sentimental problems.” (The report of
Dott Giancarlo-Lannutti, Rome, June, 1966)
The priorities are clear: first we worry about education, then we worry about
killing people. This outlook has certainly been reflected in practice. There was
one case where the military court passed a three year sentence on one prisoner
before the defense lawyer ever had the possibility of accepting the defense. Even
more extreme was the case of several people who were already in jail serving
long sentences and were resentenced to death for having “participated in a
conspiracy” to take over a gendarme station in Siahkal—an act which was
physically impossible for them to have participated in.
To summarize, “Defendants in political trials in Iran are denied rights which
are fundamental to the rule of law. For example:
(1) Although civilians, they are tried by four-man military courts, without jury.
(2) They are denied access to any lawyers until ten days before trial.
(3) They are defended by military lawyers, chosen from a list maintained by
the military court.
(4) The military tribunals accept as evidence confessions of guilt which the
defendants themselves have already repudiated in court as having been made
under torture.
(5) Proceedings before military tribunals are often entirely closed to any
observers. The prosecutor decides which trials will be closed. In 1972, an order was
issued banning foreign journalists and observers from political trials.
(6) The accused has no right to confront the witnesses against him and no
right to cross-examination.
(7) Defense demands for the production of incriminating evidence in SAVAK’s
filed are usually refused.
(8) The defendant is presumed guilty; the burden is on the defense to explain
away or disprove the allegations in the SAVAK file. But the accused has no
right to introduce evidence in his own behalf, other than his own testimony.
(9) The actual charges are often comprised of loosely drawn allegations of a
conspiracy between defendants to plot against the government. Guilt by
association is a favorite basis for SAVAK allegations; in one open trial, the only
evidence was that some of the defendants knew all of the others and that all of
the defendants knew at least one of the others. AI observer: “laughable”
sentences: 3-15 years.” (Amnesty International, May 16, 1975).
The defendant, now having been sentenced, is allowed to appeal to the
Military Court of Appeal. This court has the power of judicial review and of
confirming, reducing or increasing the sentence of the lower court. The defense has
the opportunity to raise the issues of jurisdiction and the competence of the
lower court or the issue of torture. However, since the sentence was predetermined
from the beginning by SAVAK, these arguments are invariably doomed.
The only way for a prisoner to “win” an appeal is to recant before the courts
which will often then grant clemency. However, people who have withstood
torture, have refused deals and have defended their beliefs refuse to “win” in this
way.
Thus the whole ordeal ends. In overview, we see a country whose Constitution
states that constitutional law supercedes all other laws but where the system
of “justice” breaks constitutional law providing for civil and open trials to
be held in the presence of a jury. We see a government which places itself in the
limelight of the defense of human rights but which, behind closed doors, breaks
international law protecting the rights: to be presumed innocent, to have a fair
and public trial, to be able to communicate with Counsel, to be tried without
delay, to examine witnesses and to the more general rights of freedom of thought
and association. What is the secret to this hypocricy? A set of special military
laws which legalizes everything illegal and protects the blatant system of
injustice.
When the Shah praised the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the
“new moral code of the world” and when he proclaimed his hope that “the total
and unconditional realization of human rights will spread to all the corners of
the world,” some may have believed him. However, the evidence has now been
placed on the table for everyone to see, and the evidence has stripped the Shah
of his cover. He stands convicted by the jury of the Iranian people as a fraud.
He is not the champion of human rights; he is the nursemaid of injustice. We
have only one choice now. “Only the most intensive pressure of world public
opinion can move the Iranian authorities to return to the principles of a civilized
nation in their treatment of their supposed political opponents.” (Report by Dr.
Hans-Heinz Heldman, Assistant Professor of Frankfurt University and Amnesty
International Representative.)
EXECUTION
Execution is the ultimate fate of a political prisoner who is considered very
“dangerous.” These prisoners are mainly those who resist under torture and make
no concessions to SAVAK or the Shah. If the prisoners can tolerate SAVAK’s
tortures up to the trial and even after “conviction,” they are considered for death
by firing squad. There have been many reports indicating that some of the prisoners,
after trial and conviction are still brutally tortured. Post-trial torture is
mainly designed to force the prisoners to appear on television to denounce their
former beliefs and show them as being loyal to the Shah.
The firing squad is made up of six men. They are told that the prisoners are
criminals and drug pushers. They are usually low ranking soldiers who have been
brainwashed about political prisoners.
Executions ordered take place in the prison yard during the early morning.
This serves to put more pressure upon the other prisoners who hear the sound of
machine gun bullets striking the body of the victim. The bodies of martyred
prisoners are not delivered to their families nor are the families told where they
are buried.
CONCLUSION
Lawyer John Thorne, after having made several trips to investigate human
rights in Iran, has called the Iranian regime “a police state, that does not have
the slightest respect for the most basic human rights.” “I find it tragic,” he
continued, “that the government of the United States would give so much support
to such a dictatorship, but the reason is obvious—Iran is rich in oil and material
wealth takes such great precedence over human rights.”
The unhappy fact is that ever since the CIA-engineered coup of 1953 which
restored the Shah to power, the U.S. has supported the Shah’s regime. A
decision by President Nixon in 1972 allowed the Shah to buy virtually any weapons
he wanted. U.S. arms sales to Iran are now “the largest of any country, both in
dollar volume and the number of Americans involved in implementation abroad.”
(Washington Post, Aug. 2, 1976). Iran and the U.S. have also signed a trade
agreement “that is expected to lead to $40 billion in trade between the two
countries in the period 1975 to 1980. The figure does not include U.S. arms sales to
Iran, which are expected to run at $2 billion to $3 billion a year.” (Washington
Post, Aug. 8, 1976). These close ties are in keeping with the Nixon Doctrine of
establishing, supporting and arming friendly regimes abroad to act as local
gendarmes.
Yet is it right that the United States support the government of the Shah of
Iran? The people of Iran oppose the Shah’s regime, for while most people live in
poverty, ignorance and fear, the Shah spends oil revenues on sophisticated
weaponry, not on much needed legal reform or social services. In the face of
absolute oppression by the regime, the Iranian people bravely resist and struggle
for their basic human rights. The Shah’s rule of terror is such that the Iranian
people have had to take up arms to defend themselves. Is it the will of the
American people to support the Shah and his barbarous oppression of the people of
Iran? We think not. Nor is it in the interests of the American people to lend the
Shah their support through their government.
The Senate Foreign Assistance Subcommittee’s staff report on U.S. arms sales
to Iran states: There is general agreement among U.S. personnel involved with
the Iranian programs that it is unlikely that Iran could go to war in the next
five to ten years with its current and prospective inventory, i.e. purchases to date
of sophisticated weapons (as distinct from some of the less sophisticated ground
equipment) without U.S. support on a day-to-day basis.” (Washington Post, Aug.
31, 1976).
The American people do not want to give their name, tax dollars or possibly
their lives, to support the Shah’s dictatorship. The American people have
opposed their government’s support of one of, if not the most brutal, dictatorships
of the world by supporting the struggle of Iranian people for human and democratic rights.
A good example of this support was the recent action by four universities and colleges
in Baltimore in holding "the Joint Session of American Communities to Support Political
Prisoners in Iran," at Johns Hopkins University, on May 14, 1976.
It is through the support of the freedom loving people of the world and
specially the American people, that the Iranian people can expose the nature of the
Shah’s regime and bring about a change.
APPENDIX
SAVAK EXPANDS
Daily increasing of people’s discontent and struggle requires daily growing of
SAVAK. Its unlimited budget has made it easy for SAVAK to greatly expand.
The only problem is to find new agents and informers. Since with almost no
exception all of the Iranian people terribly hate SAVAK and its agents, it is not
very easy for SAVAK to get more people to work for it, and it has either to
deceive them, or force them to do so.
People from low income families, who have no jobs and no political knowledge
are falling prey to SAVAK. They are told that they are going to be recruited for
work in government departments. Eventually, they may really work in those
departments, but meanwhile they are trained to work for SAVAK and are brainwashed
with such ideas as “life has no meaning but to serve the Shah.” However
SAVAK’s most effecting weapon is threatening people, especially those who have
engaged in some political activities, although usually insignificant. SAVAK
reminds them that without its approval, no institution in the country will hire
them. Moreover, without its permission, they will not be able to leave the country.
In other words, they have only one way to live: to work for SAVAK. But these
victims do not satisfy SAVAK’s insatiable appetite. Therefore other prey is
needed, and different methods are used. A classical approach is as follows.
The carefully chosen victim is personally handed a letter by a special SAVAK
postman. The letter, although very simple, is probably the most shocking and
terrifying letter the victim has ever received. It says, “You are supposed to meet
us at such and such address, at a certain day and time. Bring the letter with
yourself and do not talk about it to anyone. Signed by SAVAK!”
No matter what he had planned to do that day, the frightened victim goes
to meet them. The place, usually not larger than a house, is filled with SAVAK
agents, and although they are civilians, the victim can see that some of them
are armed. None of his wondering questions are answered, and instead he is
given a long questionnaire to answer. The emphasis is on this famous question:
“Are you willing to cooperate with us in order to serve your country and
also to amend your former (political) mistakes?” “But I’ve done nothing
wrong to amend,” the victim says. “Even so, how about serving your country?”,
the agents asks. The victim makes a lot of excuses of not being able to
work for them and, if he dares, not being interested in doing so. After the
interview, he is usually allowed to leave the place with no harm, while he
is warned not to talk to anyone about it. However, this is not the end of the
story. A month or so later, he receives another letter, calling him to another
place. A new interviewer wants him to fill out a new questionnaire containing
the same key question. Unless the interviewee shows no sign of fear (which
is not usually the case), and says no very firmly, in the first few interviews,
he will have more such interviews, while the atmosphere grows more tense.
The third or fourth letter orders him to get some specific, rather unimportant
and nonpolitical information about where he works or studies, while he is
still refusing to cooperate with them. SAVAK does not need such unimportant
information, but it prefers to start asking the victim for simple information
that he does not hate to give them. At this stage, SAVAK is trying to get
him into the habit of spying. Of course, the method does not often work easily,
and frequently all kinds of threats and promises are used. And although they
try to be nice to their future informers, he might be beaten in the office of the
interviewer, in case of his opposition.
Now let us try to understand his situation. He has been humiliated in such
a way that he cannot recall anything worse, while he knows it can happen
again and again in the future. He has been beaten, but he has nowhere to go
even to report it; SAVAK is beyond the Ministry of Justice, it is a law unto
itself; here is the land of the Shah of Iran, and SAVAK is accountable to no
one but him. He has been told he has done something against the regime, while
he is not given any details about it. Of course, it is not usually true and it is
just a part of the threats. The victim fearfully starts to recall what he has done
in the past, and finally he remembers that, for example, at some private gathering
he had said a few words of discontent, which is true in the case of almost all
Iranians. And now he is afraid that SAVAK might have heard it and therefore he
is in trouble. Finally, under all kinds of pressure, a man who had never
thought of politics has to sign to work for SAVAK. They give him special training,
and remind him that the slightest slip will be seriously punished.
It is following these procedures that, created in 1956, SAVAK now has more
than 100,000 (and according to some reports, as many as 200,000) agents and
informers, and has developed into one of the most formidable and feared secret
police forces in the world.
• [Transcribed and annotated by Arash Norouzi]
Related links:
Status of Human Rights In Iran | House of Representatives, July 25, 1977
Iranian Students Association Protests Shah’s U.S. Visit (Aug. 1967)
The Power and Position of the Shah of Iran (State Dept. Report, Jan. 1973)
MOSSADEGH t-shirts — “If I sit silently, I have sinned”
