Boroumand: It Is in our Interest to Know the Truth

The 1980s marked the Islamic Republic’s darkest period. In this decade, some 12,000 people were executed, and of this number, over 4,000 were executed in the summer of 1988 alone. Geoffrey Robertson, a renowned international judge and expert on crimes against humanity, recently published an article in The Guardian, citing a report by the Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation, a human rights organization, on the 1988 prison massacre. The Boroumand Foundation report includes many names of those responsible for or aware of these events, but Robertson’s article singles out three names: Khomeini, Khamenei, and Musavi.

The article angered fervent supporters of the Green Movement, who argue that publishing such an article under current conditions–near the one-year anniversary of Iran’s Green Movement–carries a political agenda. We sat down with Roya Boroumand to learn why they decided to investigate the 1980s period, and what they hope to achieve by publishing this report. The interview follows below: 


Why did you choose to study the 1980s?

We began working about ten years ago. We started by investigating the executions in the early post-revolutionary period in 1979, which, sadly, were not a small number. Our objective was to evaluate the observance of a judicial procedure code and human rights standards. Early trials at the revolutionary courts did not have a proper procedure code and consistently committed human rights violations. More importantly, the accused did not have the right to legal counsel and defense.

During these ten years, we never focused on a particular decade. Unfortunately, there was so much violence in the 1980s that we still don’t know its full extent. For instance, there is a great deal of information about this decade that we haven’t yet documented. Our goal is the documentation of executions as well as violence outside the judicial system, such as killings sponsored by the government.   

We did not choose a particular decade. In effect, the tremendous violence of the 1980s has kept us so busy, we have not yet moved on to subsequent decades.


Why did you choose Geoffrey Robertson to conduct this study, and what role did he play in writing this report?

Geoffrey Robertson is a renowned judge who specializes in crimes against humanity. He has written an excellent book on this subject. He is a figure whose opinion cannot be lightly dismissed. Different people have different views on the issue of the 1988 prison massacre.  We wanted someone who would judge without bias. We didn’t want to hire someone as a mouthpiece for our perspective; we wanted an independent lawyer to present his own opinion about the documents on hand. It was something of a risk, but we thought that if this report is presented by someone who is well-known, the results of the report will be harder to reject.

It is natural that this report will face criticism, because various individuals would like to present their own perspectives on this issue. An independent lawyer, however, presents an objective view; an independent lawyer refers only to documents and witness testimonies that constitute credible evidence. Therefore we considered Mr. Robertson’s neutrality a point of strength for this report. Another reason we chose him was that his writing style is very fluid. Legal reports run up to 200 pages, and only lawyers have the patience to read them. We wanted as many people as possible to read this report, and so we chose Mr. Robertson. He is an international judge who is periodically assigned to judge internal cases at the United Nations, and therefore enjoys great respect among the human rights community.


You mentioned fluidity in writing. Why have you chosen to present this report in English, when its subject concerns Iran?

We believe that the international community remained unresponsive to this crime and thus must read this report as a reminder of its failure to react to an atrocity of this magnitude. Such lack of reaction has encouraged and will continue to encourage the occurrence of similar atrocities. Thus, our primary target is the international community. Of course, this report will be translated into Persian, because it seems that many Iranians are unaware of the details of the events that took place. The 1980s particularly are full of information and misinformation on this issue. So I think that we, as a society inclined toward transitioning to democracy, cannot overlook the truths of our past. If we wish to achieve a peaceful transition to democracy, we cannot deny the reality of the several thousands of families who lost loved ones, because denial of this matter will lead to future tensions.   

We publish whatever we have. We’re not an embassy or ministry to keep classified documents. The international community, foreign states, the UN and human rights organizations, like all places that have power and influence, are affected by public opinion. Therefore our target has always been public opinion. If you file a report somewhere in a covert or underground manner, that report will wind up in a library–if not the trash bin! But when a report is published, the public is forced to acknowledge its existence and form an opinion about it, or at least admit that the problem exists.

Every successful political movement must own up to the truth. If this truth is damaging, then I think the problem stems from somewhere else. 

Political, civil, and human rights activists recognize the Boroumand Foundation as a human rights foundation. Publishing this report near the one-year anniversary of Iran’s popular movement, known as the ‘Green Movement,’ has caused some to speculate that your foundation is pursuing a political agenda in doing so. Do you have such an agenda?

The idea of commissioning this report struck me in January 2009, when Iranian authorities bulldozed part of the Khavaran mass graves site to construct a park. I found this alarming because our foundation’s work is documentation. Over the past years, we came to realize the scope and magnitude of the ’88 prison massacre by speaking with many of the victims’ families. What happened in 1988 is a source of shame for the society that allowed such events to occur. Many families’ lives were shattered, and those who survived the ordeal are deeply traumatized. As members of civil society, we cannot ignore these events. Khavaran graveyard is all that remains to these victims’ families. If Iran’s government sees that it can demolish Khavaran and similar sites at will, it means that no trace of the victims of the massacre will remain.

Thus we believe it is our duty to produce this report. Today, the families of the young people who died in the course of the Green Movement last year are in mourning. Some victims were buried without their families’ knowledge, and this is a major concern for families who wish to at least know where their children are buried. Everyone knows that we must not stand by and allow the remains of these victims to be destroyed.


So it took a year and half to produce this report?

It took a long time because Mr. Robertson and his colleague Ms. Jennifer Robertson, who collaborated on the report, do not speak Persian. We had to conduct much of the research ourselves and translate it for them. The translations were time-consuming. A few relatives of the victims helped us a great deal. We had to locate eyewitnesses–this also took time to do. Though many witnesses live outside of Iran, they are scattered across Europe and other parts of the world and so it took time to interview them and submit their translated transcripts to our lawyers. We also translated the speeches of Iranian officials published in newspapers of the period. All of this was a lengthy process.

This report was published because we felt we had a responsibility toward those who assisted us in preparing the report. I’d like to stress once more that the basis of our work is not about politics, and that our role is not political. Naturally, human rights reports are published once they are completed. This report took a long time to complete. We receive financial support from other foundations besides our own and are expected to present an annual output. We can’t tell them, “Sorry, it’s not a good time in Iran right now.” In Iran, it’s never a good time! If we’d published this report six months earlier or three months later, we would be at equal risk of “damaging” the course of events.

It’s not our job to do political work. Political work belongs to governments, parties, and diplomats. We are in the business of human rights and publishing realities. You can never escape the truth. If a reality is damaging to a political movement, then the problem rests with the movement for denying or being blind to that reality. Every successful political movement must own up to the truth. If this truth is damaging, then I think the problem stems from somewhere else. 


To conclude that this is a human rights report without a political agenda, we must look to the details of the report, since individuals from various groups were executed in the 80s, ranging from the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MeK) to leftist groups to monarchists. Does your report focus on a particular group?

This report does not cover the entire period of the 1980s. It exclusively examines the massacre of the summer of 1988, and as such it includes all persons killed in that period. It is not selective by any means; it’s a report about an incident and the forces behind it. In the end, 88 was the result of the ideas and actions of a circle of individuals who collectively committed this atrocity. We did not single out any one person.

One reason it’s important to clear up this matter is that those who criticize us refer only to Mr. Robertson’s article–that is, the controversy is over his article, rather than the report itself. It was Mr. Robertson’s personal decision to write that article. Mr. Robertson did not mention them all, but the report names several individuals involved in the events of 1988.

Many of the people cited in the report are judicial officials who currently hold various posts. One of the prison wardens of the period was Mr. Nasserian. He’s now called Judge Moghiseh, and has issued sentences for post-election detainees and students who fall to the mercy of the Islamic Republic’s justice for their ideas, writings, and unions. It must be said that these officials not only go unpunished, but are encouraged to continue their violations of justice.   
In his article, Mr. Robertson named Mr. Khamenei and Mr. Musavi. Musavi was then Iran’s prime minister and in charge of the Intelligence Ministry. Prisoners lost their lives on the basis of their responses to a few questions. Khamenei, who was president at the time, said in a visit with university students that the executions were not his responsibility, but fell under the jurisdiction of the judiciary. Now, Mr. Khamenei appoints the head of the judiciary and still the courts are full of unjust trials. Notably, defendants stand trial without defense attorneys. The supreme leader of the Islamic Republic is the ultimate authority; as we saw during the 2009 presidential election, his judgment trumps the vote of the people. Therefore, he can easily steer the judiciary to a path of justice and reform Iranian law so that legal procedures are respected. If Khamenei claims that he was not involved in decision-making at the time of the 1988 massacre, he can no longer say the same today. As we see, there are still show trials, televised confessions, severe torture, and people who are killed for their beliefs.

I believe it’s always the “right time” for the truth of events like the 1988 massacre to be made public. In any event, the officials who helped cover up or provide justification for this event must own up to the truth someday. If we don’t acknowledge the reality of what happened, such incidents and atrocities will continue to occur without anyone ever accepting any responsibility. 


The report names Khomeini, Khamenei and Musavi. Mr. Khomeini is no longer alive, and Mr. Khamenei is universally condemned by opposition groups. That leaves Musavi. Some believe that publishing this report has damaged the Green movement and that the Boroumand Foundation could have opted to delay its publication–at least until after the movement’s anniversary on June 12, 2010 in the interest of avoiding controversy. What is your response to these criticisms?

The controversy is over an article written by Mr. Robertson. Several points need to be clarified.
Firstly, the report must be regarded as separate from Mr. Robertson’s Guardian piece. Secondly, the report cities all of the individuals involved in the 1988 trials, to the best of our knowledge, including Messrs. Nayri, Eshraghi, Raesi, Shushtari, Pour-Mohammadi, Mohammad-Gilani, Musavi-Arebili and Nasserian (a prison warden who was actively involved in the killings, now known as Judge Moghiseh of Revolutionary Court no. 26). The report also names Khamenei, Zamani and Rafsanjani, and includes a short paragraph about Musavi as well. So we have not singled out Mr. Musavi; we have named all the officials known to have been involved in the massacre as well as those who covered up the incident or attempted to justify it.  

The objective of the report is to shed light on parts of the truth that are unknown. You must ask Mr. Robertson why he insisted on naming Mr. Musavi . In light of the fact that Mr. Musavi has not held public office for over twenty years now and has not been involved in government, Mr. Robertson perhaps wonders why no official has spoken publicly about the 1988 slaughter and how it was ordered and executed, even after 22 years have passed. As a judge, Mr. Robertson may find it surprising that not a single person has had the courage and conscience to acknowledge this matter and to explain what happened.

We know that the 1988 Prison Massacre was ordered by a fatwa, and that there must have been degrees of leadership between this fatwa and the implementation of executions in prison. We have no knowledge of the details of the killings, except for some minor information recorded in Ayatollah Montazeri’s memoirs. Mr. Robertson possibly emphasized Musavi’s name because he knows that Mr. Khamenei is in power and will not acknowledge anything that could damage his reputation. But Mr. Musavi is not currently in power.

Thirdly, if the Green Movement depends solely on one figurehead, and a single report can tarnish that person’s reputation, then it seems the movement has a problem. I don’t think the Green movement can be reduced to the person of Mr. Musavi. Indeed, by gaining awareness of what happened under Mr. Musavi’s watch as prime minister, the Green movement can challenge Mr. Musavi and emerge from this test even stronger than before. It can rise above being a movement that goes forth with its eyes closed to the truth. You can never truly move forward by ignoring the past and the atrocities committed in the past.

Therefore, this report is a healthy report and it is not up to us to judge whether it was helpful or hurtful for the movement. For us, expediency is defined in that our people and our society stay exposed to the truth. Our effort is to know what happened in Iran and to move forth armed with that knowledge. I believe that the truth is always in our interest.


We’ve come to the question of reality and best interests. The reality is that Mr. Musavi was Iran’s prime minister at the time that these crimes occurred. But during his candidacy in last year’s elections, when he was repeatedly asked about the  1980s, he maintained that he had no knowledge of these events. In your view, is it possible that a country’s prime minister would not be aware of the execution of more than four thousand people?  

It is impossible that Musavi would not have known about the events. There was such a commotion surrounding the 1988 massacre that it’s impossible for someone like him not to have heard about it. After all, Musavi controlled the Intelligence Ministry. Even if we suppose that his friends in the Intelligence Ministry were not involved in this event, killing 4,000 prisoners is not something that a top official fails to hear about. Therefore his response is not right, if he denies responsibility.

We saw similarly disappointing statements made by the shah’s former prime minister. Mr. Hoveyda, would always say “I’m not in charge” and that “the decisions come from above.” He maintained that the SAVAK executed the Shah’s orders and that he was unaware of the tortures and executions. But naturally, Mr. Hoveyda knew that torture occurred in Iran’s prisons. A prime minister cannot say he had no say in the matter: he has the option to resign. And if he does have a say in the matter it is his duty not to remain silent and to take action, if he is against what is happening–just as Mr. Montazeri gave up his position as next in line to become supreme leader to protest the prison massacre. Mr. Musavi should not say he “was not responsible” for the killings in 1988. He can at least explain what his role was and also tell us who was responsible.


Mr. Tajzadeh recently published a letter, in which he acknowledges and apologizes for the events of the 1980s. Will his apology help others open up on this issue?

Yes. I think Mr. Tajzadeh’s letter and apology is highly significant, because he was an important actor of that period. If you accept that a process was wrong, or at least what was done with mistakes –it’s important for this debate to open up. For years and years, we have wanted a series of laws to be reformed, and for the judicial system to change. Until officials fail to recognize that mistakes were made in the past, the likelihood that this regime will be reformed is low. So this is an important talk to have, and I’m very happy Mr. Tajzadeh has started it. I hope other officials will join the conversation.

One point I’d like to make is that Mr. Tajzadeh stresses in his letter that the regime “was facing war and blind terrorism.” I think that neither of these conditions justifies what took place. It would have been better if Mr. Tajzadeh, as the first to speak publicly about this matter, had pointed out what mistakes were made in the course of this event, since many innocent people were killed even before the onset of “war and terrorism,” for homosexuality and other pseudo-crimes.


Do you think your report affected Mr. Tajzadeh in writing his letter?

I don’t know if he saw the report or not. But in any event, reports of this kind stimulate people –for instance, the debate on truth versus expediency that is going on among people on the web right now is an important issue to explore.


Everyone knows that some reformist figures presently hold key government positions or held such posts in the past, including during the 1988 massacre. For example, Kurdistan, which had the highest number of executions, was governed by one of today’s fieriest reformists. Can apologizing  restore society’s trust in these reformist statesmen?

Apology and acknowledgement of having made mistakes is one of the factors that helps secure the future. The trend of truth-telling has strengthened: for instance, consider  South Africa. This is what keeps public officials who have committed violence from committing violence again. 

Kurdistan is a good example, because right after the revolution violence was committed in Kurdistan, if those responsible at the time do not speak out on this matter and admit to the mistakes that were made, there is no guarantee that if they do return to power, they would not consider it necessary to repeat such violence in the event of a crisis. We’ve seen that every time a crisis has occurred in the Islamic Republic, the  response has been severe violence. Until the day that officials step up and unequivocally say that “violence is not the answer to resolving a crisis,” it is possible that they will continue to react with violence to future such cases.


Everyone knows that the 1988 massacre was enacted on the basis of a fatwa issued by Mr. Khomeini.  Today, a core slogan of the reformists is a “return to the Khomeini era,” which they refer to as a “golden era.” Do you think that promoting a return to the 1980s means putting a stamp of approval on that period, even if apologies are made for the mistakes that happened?

I think that’s right. If the 1980s were the “golden era,” then these gentlemen need to explain for whom the times were golden? For the majority of people in Iran back then, it was an era of fear, terror, sorrow and loss of loved ones.


Lastly, what is your main aim in publishing this report? Do you think that with the help of a renowned judge like Mr. Robertson, you will succeed in taking those your report cite as responsible for the 1988 massacre to international courts?

Our job is to document human rights violations. Beyond that, our work is not about courtrooms or seeking justice. It is up to the victims who live in different parts of the world to pick up this report and use it to demand justice. Our job is done, more or less, once the report is published. If it sparks a debate, we will gladly participate in the conversation. But our job is the documentation. This report was one of our projects, and we will continue to complete other projects. We will record the histories of persons who were executed, so that our society will be informed about the causes these persons lived for, how they died, and the process that led to their executions. So, our job is not to go to court. This report simply provides a means to help the victims’ families pursue bringing those responsible to justice.