Mahdieh Golroo Awaits Court Decision on Statement Allegedly Issued In Prison

Apr 25, 20110 comments

In an interview with the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, Amir Raeesian, Mahdieh Golroo’s lawyer, talked about the new case raised at Branch 28 of Tehran’s Revolutionary Court against his client and two other prisoners of conscience, Bahareh Hedayat, and Majid Tavakoli. “In her first case, a verdict was issued and she was sentenced to prison, but the case that is currently under review in Branch 28 is raised against her along with Ms. Bahareh Hedayat and Mr. Majid Tavakoli on the charge of ‘propagating against the regime.’ We continue to await hearing about the court date,” Raeesian told the Campaign. “She was previously sentenced to two years and four months in prison, and after appeal, the ‘propagating’ charge was dropped and four months were reduced [from her sentence] at the appeals stage. She is now serving the remaining 2 years,” said Raeesian. “The new case is related to a statement published on 7 December 2010 on the occasion of Student’s Day. Apparently, the university and the people who published the statement, claimed that it was signed by Mahdieh Golroo, Bahareh Hedayat, and Majid Tavakoli. The case was established after this statement was published on 7 December,” said Raeesian, adding that he was not sure the exact date the new case was formed. Mahdieh Golroo and her husband, Vahid Lalipour, were arrested on 2 December 2009. Lalipour did not have any prior political or civil activities and was apparently only arrested to put Golroo under pressure to confess to her charges. He was released on bail three months later, but Golroo was sentenced to two years and four months in prison on charges of “interviewing with foreign media,” “acting against national security,” and “relations and cooperation with the Mojahedin Khalgh Organization (MEK).” Immediately after her trial, in a call to her family, Golroo called the charge of relations with the MEK “ridiculous.” “I have not been able to have a meeting with her to see if she issued that statement or not,” said Raeesian. “I don’t believe she issued the statement. At any rate, the subject of the statement is not ‘propagating against the regime,’ as the statement’s subject is paying tribute to Student’s Day, and this cannot be construed as propagating against the regime. I hope that Branch 28, with Judge Moghisseh presiding, will dismiss this case and issue exoneration,” he concluded.