IRAN: Court postpones eye-for-an-eye punishment for man who threw acid on woman

Iranian courts have delaying the punishment of a man who was sentenced to blinding by acid for his attack on a woman seven years ago.

Majid Movahedi, then 21, poured more than a gallon of sulfuric acid on Ameneh Bahrami in 2004 after she rejected his offer of marriage. 

Bahrami, who was a successful and ambitious engineer in Tehran, now lives in Spain where she has been undergoing a series of surgeries.

Movahedi, after Bahrami's relentless efforts to seek justice, went on trial in 2008 and was given the rare sentence of blinding. He was to have been placed under anesthesia and blinded at the Tehran prison where he is being held.

 
 
This form of qisas, or retributive justice, is allowed in the Islamic Criminal Code in Iran, under Islamc sharia law. It calls for the infliction of equal bodily harm on an aggressor. 

According to Islamic Studies scholar Ahmad Moussalli in Beirut, retributive justice is a common method for dealing with personal crimes. Families usually come to an agreement rather than appeal to court for a qisas punishment, but in this case Bahrami had pushed for the punishment. 

Amnesty International called on Iranian authorities on Friday to not carry out the punishment, equating it with torture and medical malpractice.  

The sentence created an international uproar. 

“Regardless of how horrific the crime suffered by Ameneh Bahrami, being blinded with acid is a cruel and inhuman punishment amounting to torture, and the Iranian authorities have a responsibility under international law to ensure it does not go ahead," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, deputy director of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Program. 

Many observers had expected the verdict to be set aside as Iran has become increasingly aware of its public image. The issue had not generated much domestic buzz before international human rights organizations vehemently denounced the verdict. 

Defusing domestic criticism is crucial in Iran today as the ruling structure faces a host of domestic and international challenges, which might explain why the courts handed down the  sentence only to show clemency by postponing the punishment. 

— Roula Hajjar in Beirut and Ramin Mostaghim in Tehran

Photos: Top: Ameneh Bahrami at her home in Tehran in 2010. Credit: Reuters

Below: Bahrami, in Barcelona in 2009, holds a photo of herself before the attack. Credit: Lluis Gene/AFP/Getty Images

 

Comments

[Joanne]

Okay, how about 30 years in prison instead?

[eric d]

While the White House & the American People gloat over killing Bin Laden, Iran gives a perfect example of how revenge killing & extrajudicial revenge killing work: by the "old law" of "an eye for an eye" (literally?) which demands revenge by blood for past crimes. But the Western secular humanist rule of law & Christian morality explicitly repudiated that "old law" when the Christian dispensation began & Greek & Roman constitutional law were established. Revenge should never be a motive in carrying out the judgment of law. Because revenge killing & blood guilt simply lead to a self-perpetuating cycle of killing after killing, crime after crime, because each new crime justifies the next. And the next... Without end. So the White House "war on terror" & the CIA revenge killings against their former employees, Al Qaeda, have given US & the world ten years of futile killing of innocent civilians & have simply bred more terrorism. As the extrajudicial kiling of Bin Laden will now spawn a new generation of fanatic jihadis & suicide bombers obsessed with revenge for Bin Laden. When will it ever stop? When we decide to stop it. By ceasing the futile pursuit of revenge & instead pursuing "suspected terrorists" & suspected criminals under the rule of international law. And, after two thousand years, finally following "the new law."

[Sean7k]

How is this cruel and unusual punishment? It didn't seem to bother him when it was being done to her. It is allowable under sharia law. Isn't that the law in Iran?
No, it would be better to put him a prison, at additional cost to the whole population so he can inflict some economic damage as well?
You could take all of his earnings and wealth, leaving him just enough to survive on until he had paid to have her face restored, the pain and suffering he inflicted compensated and compensation for those that were also affected(Family, etc) and lost wages while she has had to recover.
This would be a great resolution to the problem, but do rights organizations ever suggest this line of reasoning?
Rights organizations are worthless.