NCRI – Stefano Manacorda, Associate Professor of Criminal Law from Naples University, Italy, talked about the legal opinion submitted by Prof. Antonio Cassesse, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), saying: Prof. Cassesse has formulated his opinion on the basis of European human rights conventions.
Mr. Daniel Jacoby, Honorary President of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), also spoke at the event, saying: Violating the rights of refugees in order to appease dictators is shameful. Human rights advocates by no means take pride in what the French government has done. It is absolutely hideous to appease a rogue state instead of listening to people who seek justice. A case was opened against the PMOI in 2001 at the behest of the Islamic Republic, a case in which there has been no progress for eight years. I tell my Iranian friends and all refugees in France that France will continue to be the land of human rights and refugees. I also stress on behalf of the International Federation for Human Rights that we will be with you and we will stand with you. This great injustice, this huge humiliation, must come to and end.
Professor Bernard Bouloc, French expert on criminal law, who presented his legal opinion as the third opinion at the session, said: What we are faced with here is an old dossier formed on the basis of vague evidence. Most of the investigations and judicial controls resulting from it have been annulled. The basis of this case was that the PMOI is on the EU terrorist list. The European Court of Justice has ruled that the inclusion of this organization on the list was unfounded and the EU Council of Ministers has since removed the PMOI from the list. Therefore, a case standing atop this listing must be immediately closed and an order to end the investigations must be issued.
Next, PMOI lawyers for the June 17th case gave their remarks. Among them, William Bourdon, a French jurist, stated: We, along with Henry Leclerc who by the way could not attend this meeting because he is travelling abroad, will officially demand a closure of this case and if necessary we will take our case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Mr. Bourdon added: I think there is no case in which such large gulfs between its continuation on the one hand and the legal principles of Europe and opinions of prominent judicial experts on the other, have appeared. The rule of law and European laws are on the side of the Iranian Resistance. The French Judiciary must do as European judges have done. And it is the responsibility of lawyers to rally round so that France would uphold European values reflected in the ruling by the Court [of First Instance] in Luxembourg.
Philippe Champetier de Rabes, a lawyer and expert, said: I met my client on the very day the investigations began on June 17, 2003, and I said that the motivation for this attack and for this case is political and not legal. My client, who had lived as a refugee in France for the past 20 years and had not conducted any illegal activities, was arrested in order to appease the Iranian regime. It is shocking that throughout the past six years there have been no hearings. The one or two hearings that have taken place for my client have revolved around issues that are not even relevant to the case. French officials must learn the requisite lessons from European court judgments and stop trampling upon the fundamental legal principles in our country.
Thierry Lévy, legal expert and prominent French lawyer said in his remarks: The prolongation of this case is utterly startling. It is my opinion that the Counter Terrorism unit must act independently. … The situation we are witnessing with respect to this case is not at all reasonable. In an interview session, my client was asked questions which had no significance whatsoever for the case in question and I would even say were astonishing. The interviewer asked my client whether during his stay in Auvers-sur-Oise he was free to go wherever he wanted; Or, whether he would require written authorization to go shopping or to enter?!
I asked the interviewer what all these questions had to do with the terrorism accusation. But he continued to ask irrelevant questions. It appeared that such talk and accusations had originated from the Iranian regime’s intelligence services.
Thierry Lévy added: Such discarded talk is recycled. It is an astonishing situation where this case, which is analogous to a worn out car or a chicken with its head cut off, is continuously moving every which way. This is indeed one of the wonders of our time. The case is stranded and it is not clear why they are dragging it on. These are all questions to which I also do not have any answers.
Francoise Serre, also a lawyer defending the PMOI in the June 17 case, said: 20 years ago, when during the tenure of [Interior Minister] Charles Pascua, members of this resistance were sent to Gabon, the issue was later resolved in the span of several months. But this case has dragged on for six years now and makes serious accusations. In 2003 the accusation was terrorism, in 2007 it was money laundering, and now the case has focused on sect accusations. The case is pulled in every direction while not a single serious investigation has been conducted on the basis of the European Convention on Human Rights. They opened the case on the basis of the terrorist list, but after the removal of the PMOI from the list, they still want to keep it open, thereby leading to a sort of judicial hostage taking.
Mario Stasi, Former Chairman of the Paris Bar, said in his remarks: Mrs. Rajavi, speaking out against this case is an honor. We must not forget those in Iran who are suffering under the suppression of the Iranian regime. This is a regime which uses all sorts of deceptions and pressures against its own people and the residents of Ashraf [City in Iraq]. As Thierry Lévy so aptly put it, must we not ask what interests are involved in this case – which ‘stinks of oil’? A few days ago, AFP reported that Iranian officials are relying on this case in order to impose pressure for the extradition of Ashraf residents. This has led to circumstances where the lives of nearly 4,000 people are at risk.
Senator Jean-Pierre Michel, member of the French Senate and founder of France’s Syndicate of the Magistrate, expressed delight over the rulings of the European Court of Justice and removal of the PMOI from the terror list. He added: The French government cannot drag this case further based on specific interests. The lack of independence in the proceedings is not exactly a matter for pride. We will continue this battle on the side of the PMOI and the lawyers. Appeasement, participation and cooperation with the religious fascism must not continue. A majority of the French Parliament has advocated the removal of the PMOI from the list. More than 100 senators and more than 1,000 French mayors have signed similar statements demanding respect for the rights of the PMOI. I must say with pleasure and delight that after recent victories, we have more triumphs ahead of us.
Morton Hoglund, member of the Norwegian Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee, said in his remarks: As an outsider looking into the situation, I must say that it is regrettable that economic deals and interests reveal themselves through injustice against the Iranian Resistance and Ashraf City. What is happening in France will inevitably effect what goes on in Ashraf City. I hope for the closure of this case so that the Iranian Resistance would be able to freely continue its efforts toward establishing freedom in Iran.
The final speaker, Lady Odile Slynn, read a message from Lord Slynn of Hadley, saying: It is time for the French government to end the injustice against the Iranian Resistance. The continuation of this case since 2003 up to now is the most revealing example of its violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. The UK Court of Appeal and the European Court of Justice have concluded that there is no evidence. And it was for this reason that both the UK and the EU Council of Ministers delisted the PMOI.
At the end of the session, the President-elect of the Iranian Resistance thanked the jurists and all the session’s participants and assured everyone that the Iranian Resistance would overcome obstacles with their help and with the assistance of other human rights advocates.
After the “Justice for the Iranian Resistance” conference ended, the President-elect of the Iranian Resistance took part in a news conference in the presence of French and international reporters and spoke with them about issues such as the injustice against the Iranian Resistance in France, the Iranian situation, the crises, plots and dangers posed by the religious fascism ruling Iran against the Resistance and the status of PMOI members in Ashraf City.
In recent days, students at Polytechnic University, teachers in four provinces of the country, workers at Isfahan’s Steel Mill factory, and thousands of followers of a religious minority have conducted acts of protests in the course of which dozens were injured and hundreds more were arrested.
Mrs. Rajavi highlighted “the popular boycott” of the regime’s presidential elections face by the Iranian people, saying: Whoever’s name that would come out of the ballot box would be in charge of advancing the nuclear weapons program, export of terrorism abroad and domestic suppression. If the regime were to agree to free elections in accordance with democratic standards it would be toppled.
She stressed that experience shows that negotiations with this regime prove to be futile, adding: The Iranian dilemma has one solution and that is democratic change by the Iranian people and the Iranian Resistance. We have repeatedly asked for free elections under UN auspices. We are fighting for a democratic, peaceful and non-nuclear Iran; We are fighting for a republic based on the separation of church and state, pluralism, gender equality, and one without torture and capital punishment.
We want the West to remain neutral when it comes to the Iranian people and the ruling religious fascism. We want an end to the West’s participation in suppression of the opposition. The discredited dossier against the Resistance in France is one of the most important examples of such suppression.
The mullahs use this case as a significant document claiming the PMOI to be terrorists. They rely on the same accusation to strive for the extradition and execution of 3,500 Iranian opposition members in Ashraf.
On February 28, 2009, the mullahs’ Supreme Leader, [Ali] Khamenei, said at a meeting with the Iraqi President that, “The bilateral agreement on the expulsion of the PMOI from Iraq … must be implemented and we are awaiting this to take place.”
Khamenei’s insistence on expelling the PMOI while saying at the same time that other countries are not prepared to accept them, smacks of setting the stage for their mass murder or surrender to the mullahs’ regime.
At the press conference, Senator Jean-Pierre Michel stressed the backing of 290 French MPs and more than 100 French senators from all political parties in the country for the Iranian Resistance and the proposed third option by Mrs. Maryam Rajavi. He added: The Foreign Ministry ignores the extensive backing for the PMOI, the Iranian Resistance and their leaders at both houses of the French parliament, in effect strengthening the notion that the real French foreign policy leadership is exercised by the Total oil company.
William Bourdon, a member of the legal counsel for the PMOI in the June 17th case, explained the legal proceedings of the case and said: This case must either be immediately closed or brought in its entirety to court. The contents of this case will place the French government in opposition to public opinion.
Jean-Pierre Spitzer, counsel for the PMOI at the European Court of Justice, explained that European laws and judicial rulings take precedence over national courts and laws. The implementation of European court rulings with respect to the PMOI and the Iranian Resistance is binding for France. The highest UK tribunal reviewed all the evidence including evidence submitted by France and said that there is no evidence demonstrating involvement in terrorism. France must also come to the same conclusion.
Sid Ahmad Ghozali, former Algerian Prime Minister, stated that in view of the courts, the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran is not considered to be a terrorist organization. The PMOI is the prime victim of terrorism. It is shocking that with regards to Iran, everything is discussed except the Iranian people and Resistance. Without the involvement of the people of Iran and their representatives, it is impossible to reach a solution for Iran, and consequently for the region, including Iraq and Palestine.
Ms. Anissa Boumediene, jurist and former Algerian First Lady during the presidency of Houari Boumediene, also spoke at the press conference. She talked about some aspects of the fundamentalist ideology exported by the mullahs’ regime to Algeria as well as the regime’s role in crimes committed there.
At the press conference, the Iranian Resistance’s President-elect responded to questions from reporters regarding issues involving Iran, and called the West’s policy of constraining the Iranian Resistance a symbol of violating the right of resistance of the Iranian people to obtain freedom. She stressed that in Iran there is a resistance capable of changing the regime and that is why the mullahs persistently seek to destroy it however they can. As such, we see that the terrorist label against the Iranian Resistance takes place at the direct request of the mullahs’ regime. In the June 17, 2003 dossier, we also witness the striking of a huge deal between French stakeholders and the mullahs’ regime.
Regarding the new U.S. administration’s policy towards the Iranian regime, Mrs. Rajavi told reporters: A real change would demand an end to the policy of appeasement, and replace it with a firm policy vis-à-vis the mullahs and their program to obtain nuclear weapons and export of terrorism and fundamentalism.
The President-elect of the Iranian Resistance highlighted the threat posed by the religious dictatorship in Iran for the region and the world at large, as a new phenomenon which has not been experienced thus far. She elaborated on the characteristics of this phenomenon and said that the religious fascism does not have the will or the ability to retreat since it fears an overthrow. As such, it insists on the policy of declaring war against the people of Iran and the international community. Our movement represents the Iranian people’s resistance against the religious dictatorship and enjoys the support of the French people’s elected representatives and members of parliaments in other countries. We believe in the role of the media in spreading information in a free world and expect them to block the mullahs’ efforts in pressuring and censoring the media.
Regarding Khamenei’s remarks at the meeting with the Iraqi President in Tehran, the Iranian Resistance’s President-elect said that the presence of Ashraf residents in Iraq is completely legal and in accordance with international laws and conventions. Mrs. Rajavi added: Ashraf residents must determine their own fate. They have said on a number of different occasions that they want to remain in Iraq. But in a new development, during his meeting with the Iraqi President, the regime’s Supreme Leader issued an order to [Iraq] that it must implement the agreement signed between Iraq and Iran. What was the nature of this agreement? It talked about expelling the PMOI from Ashraf City. On the other hand, they say that it is clear that no other country is willing to accept the PMOI. Therefore, Khamenei is in effect saying that they must be destroyed and eliminated.
I must add that a great number of Iraqi people have backed the PMOI in Ashraf City. Three million Shiites and 5.2 million Iraqi citizens have supported this organization in their statements. Many Iraqi political parties have also declared their support for the continued presence of Ashraf residents in Iraq.