Abbas Abdi, a political analyst, wrote in a note entitled “My Suggested Lie” in the Etemad newspaper: Following Mr. Ejei, I offer my proposal to the reasons for not presenting a log of the people for freedom. It has been five years since the constitution is passed and there is still political disagreement about many of its materials. Substances that are not implemented in practice or are not supposed to be implemented. I have always said that the rule of law is a subject matter and its importance is far greater than the principle of content and bias of the law. This is another witness how the constitution was and is, but it is not implemented. First, the guarantee of law enforcement must be provided beyond the government. One of the cases is political crime. According to Article 4, political and press crimes were dealt with by the jury, 40 years ago the first post -revolutionary press law was passed, not for years. 30 years later the first law on political crime was passed; How many cases have been he reviewed since the approval?! They say we have 2 files. The question is, how many cases and verdicts have been issued? In the limit of no. Well, this is what has happened in the decades has nothing to do with what has been said in the constitution.

The reason is also clear; Nothing is accepted as a political crime. It may be difficult to define, but it is not abstain. If they wanted, they could do even in a limited size. People also have their own interpretation of political convicts in the face of government behavior and judge these individuals as they look at the government or the judiciary. In Iran, political convictions (including civil activists, journalists, party and trade activists) are usually cited on one or more of the following criminal materials and titles.

Article 2 of the Computer Crime Act: Publishing material against Islamic sanctuaries or the security of the country in cyberspace.

Article 2 of the Press Law: Publishing materials that are “disrupted by the foundations of Islam or public law”.

Article 2: Insulting the founder of the Islamic Republic and the Supreme Leader.

Article 2: Insulting government officials and agents while performing duties.

Society and collusion against the security of the country (Article 1).

Disruption of Public Order (Article 1).

Announce public opinion and false publication (Article 1).

Most interestingly, the jury should indicate fairness and average community, while the current jury is unlikely to represent 10 % of its city. If they are like representatives of Tehran, they represent 2 %

The important point is that these materials are often exported with widespread and extensive interpretations, and this is contrary to the common sense and the rule of the eagle because people do not have such perceptions, so that behaviors from participating in a peaceful rally and publishing a critical post on social networks may be armed and armed. More importantly, the verdicts are heavily influenced by the interests and preferences of judges, especially the judges of the Revolutionary Courts, some of whom defense of the revolution, of course, consider it an undeniable task, and the law is in the role of the means, and this is a departure from judicial neutrality. In the appeal process, it is usually referred to one or two certain branches of dozens of appeal and the Court, which is unacceptable at all.

In addition, how to handle most of them is an inorganic and with basic that is not fair. They don’t have a jury. Of course, I should emphasize that not all convicts are innocent and some are right, but for people’s trust in the verdicts, it is necessary to ensure that the verdicts are overwhelming. Like premeditated murder cases. But because there is no such thing, even the same sentences that the defendants have been convicted, they have the chance to be acquitted with public opinion.

One of the worst issues is the discriminatory judicial investigation and the lack of a single procedure. Action and work in Tehran are not prosecuted, but the farther away from Tehran, the more likely it is to deal with it. In Tehran, according to one’s power, influence and political credibility, the clashes are very different. There is no clear criterion in these cases.

Most interestingly, the jury should indicate fairness and average community, while the current jury is unlikely to represent 10 % of its city. If they are like representatives of Tehran, they represent 2 %.

In such a situation, anyone who criticizes the security apparatus or two people sit together and want to take a step towards improving the affairs of their country or city or class, or publishing news, or any other ordinary work can be immediately represented and accused of one of these materials. Even membership in the formalization parties costs. To protest that the legal path is not open. Also, any contact with foreigners can also be considered criminal behavior. The poll is also a crime.

The result of these behaviors has been that many of those who have been summoned, sentenced, detained and imprisoned have been from the same revolution. In addition, have you ever seen anyone want to release a thief, a killer and corrupt financially? Do they even protest their freedom and leave? Are they popular with people? So why is it the opposite for this kind of convicts and prisoners of political prisoners and often become more popular? It is not good for the country and the political system to be punished and punished. This does not mean that the positions and behavior of such convicts and prisoners are correct. But there is no way to deal with any words, even though they are incorrect to court, prison and flogging. I suggest re -examining all of these cases with a more modest approach that is compatible with public criteria and release the rest except for the legal sense that their conviction is their right. Its legal solution is also amnesty and does not require a re -hearing. These practices do not respond.

I saw after the recent war, a young educated (Kalhroodi) was arrested for rational criticism, and then released him, but they have the opposite. The political system must expand the circle of red lines for its survival. I have a relative confidence that Mr. Ajei understands them well. Many of the even inaccurate criticisms have been the product of their design in the past, which today is unable to respond. Many corruption and inefficiency are directly due to the obstruction of the past. Many of the wrong policies and decisions were also the product of past media restrictions. Today it is the maturity of the restrictions. It is fresh at any time. Take action today and don’t leave for tomorrow.