Following the district court’s judgment, both the prosecutor and the convicted appealed. Today, the Svea Court of Appeal has announced their verdict in the case. In today’s judgment, the Court of Appeal has found that a significant number of persons have been executed in accordance with the prosecutors’ claims. Specifically, regarding several persons with connections to the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran who the prosecutor claimed were executed in the Gohardasht prison.
- Our assessment is that the prosecutor’s case is robust and overall compelling and that the district court was correct to find the prosecutors charges largely substantiated, says Robert Green, Court of Appeal Judge and reporting judge.
As opposed to the district court, the Court of Appeal has in some cases found that the evidence has not been sufficient in proving that certain persons have been executed as specified by the prosecution. The charges in these parts have subsequently been dismissed. Regarding the murder charge the Court of Appeal has ruled that the act is to be considered several acts of murder rather than one crime.
- The main body of evidence in the case is built on extensive oral testimony with plaintiffs and witnesses that have made observations of dramatic events more than 30 years ago, which makes the case rather unique in a national context, says Robert Green.
The Court of Appeal concurs with the district courts assessment that the act as specified in the prosecutors first charge has a connection to the conflict between Iran and Iraq as stipulated for the act to be regarded as a breach of international humanitarian law. In agreement with the district court, the Court of Appeal has found that the act is to be considered grave.
Regarding the murder charges brought against the defendant, one of the members of the court is of the dissenting opinion that the defendant is guilty of several counts of aiding and abetting murder. However, the majority of the court has found him guilty of murder as the perpetrator.
Regarding sentencing, choice of penalty, deportation, detention, and damages the Court of Appeal has affirmed the district court’s judgment in significant parts. Consequently, the defendant has been sentenced to life in prison and surviving plaintiffs as well as relatives of deceased persons have been awarded damages for mental suffering.