Three dissident students receive six additional months in prison
Bahareh Hedayat, Mahdieh Golroo and Majid Tavakoli sentenced because of "propaganda against the regime"
The Iranian regime has once-again made an example of its imprisoned critics. The prison sentences of the prominent student activists Bahareh Hedayat, Mahdieh Golroo and Majid Tavakoli were each increased by six months. The reason was a letter made public under their names upon the International Day of Students on December 7, 2010. The International Society for Human Rights (ISHR/IGFM) believes this document is covered by the right to free expression of opinion and therefore calls the sentence "fully absurd and inhumane."
In the letter, which is possessed by the ISHR/IGFM, the authors call for academic freedom: "Universities are independent from state power and are home to criticism and questions everywhere in the world." In Iran, however, "the social atmosphere, especially concerning universities and students, is controlled by the religious police." The "academic freedom of universities," as well as of a number of independent professors, is "limited." Therefore, students around the whole world are announcing their solidarity with the Iranian student movement. The letter also calls the Iranian regime a "dictatorship," "despotism" and "tyranny."
The ISHR/IGFM considers the documents analysis of societal relations "fitting." ISHR/IGFM Spokesman of the Board Martin Lessenthin notes: "The sentence shows yet again the great brutality of the Iranian power apparatus. Instead of a constitutional state, there is a theocracy. President Ahmadinejad would rather collect a host of prisoners than loosen the screws of repression just one millimetre."
Bahareh Hedeyat, Mahdieh Golroo and Majid Tavakoli previously received high sentences because of peaceful protests against the regime. With the new sentence, Hedeyat’s imprisonment increases to ten years, Tavakoli’s to nine years and Golroo’s to two and a half years. According to information of the ISHR/IGFM, the Iranian judiciary abused its constitutional principles. The defendents were denied any legal assistance during their trials, including the presence of their lawyers.





