Nadarkhani: The Iranian Embassy makes a statement

Iranian Court of Appeal still to issue final verdict.

The Iranian Christian Yuseuf Nadarkhani still awaits the decision as to whether he will be hanged for apostasy.

The background to this horrific case is that Nadarkhani was arrested in 2009 following his attempt to register a Christian Church. In September 2010 he was sentenced to "hang until somehow his soul is taken from him". The Iranian Supreme Court largely upheld this ruling in July 2011.

Nadarkhani has now been given four opportunities to recant his Christianity; on each of those occasions he is reported to have refused. It is now understood that the sentence is being reconsidered. The sentence has been condemned by both the US State department and the UK Foreign Office.

Following a protest at the London Embassy earlier today, the following official statement has now been released:

The Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in London renounces the published news regarding the death penalty for Mr Yousof Nadarkhani and announces that the Court of Appeal in the Islamic Republic of Iran has not issued any verdict on his case.

Accordingly, the allegations to the issue of the death penalty for the above mentioned, is unsubstantiated.

It is not clear what published news is being renounced, and it seems that the message is that we should wait and see what the Court of Appeal will decide (presumably on their second consideration).

But what is clear is that the London Embassy is taking the campaign against the hanging sufficiently seriously to make a formal statement. It also appears that the various representations being made to the London Embassy are being passed on.

The CSW campaign website against this pending execution is here.

 

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and author of the Jack of Kent blog.

His legal journalism has included popularising the Simon Singh libel case and discrediting the Julian Assange myths about his extradition case.  His uncovering of the Nightjack email hack by the Times was described as "masterly analysis" by Lord Justice Leveson.

David is also a solicitor and was successful in the "Twitterjoketrial" appeal at the High Court.

(Nothing on this blog constitutes legal advice.)

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Donald Trump's inauguration signals the start of a new and more unstable era

A century in which the world's hegemonic power was a rational actor is about to give way to a more terrifying reality. 

For close to a century, the United States of America has been the world’s paramount superpower, one motivated by, for good and for bad, a rational and predictable series of motivations around its interests and a commitment to a rules-based global order, albeit one caveated by an awareness of the limits of enforcing that against other world powers.

We are now entering a period in which the world’s paramount superpower is neither led by a rational or predictable actor, has no commitment to a rules-based order, and to an extent it has any guiding principle, they are those set forward in Donald Trump’s inaugural: “we will follow two simple rules: hire American and buy American”, “from this day forth, it’s going to be America first, only America first”.

That means that the jousting between Trump and China will only intensify now that he is in office.  The possibility not only of a trade war, but of a hot war, between the two should not be ruled out.

We also have another signal – if it were needed – that he intends to turn a blind eye to the actions of autocrats around the world.

What does that mean for Brexit? It confirms that those who greeted the news that an US-UK trade deal is a “priority” for the incoming administration, including Theresa May, who described Britain as “front of the queue” for a deal with Trump’s America, should prepare themselves for disappointment.

For Europe in general, it confirms what should already been apparent: the nations of Europe are going to have be much, much more self-reliant in terms of their own security. That increases Britain’s leverage as far as the Brexit talks are concerned, in that Britain’s outsized defence spending will allow it acquire goodwill and trade favours in exchange for its role protecting the European Union’s Eastern border.

That might allow May a better deal out of Brexit than she might have got under Hillary Clinton. But there’s a reason why Trump has increased Britain’s heft as far as security and defence are concerned: it’s because his presidency ushers in an era in which we are all much, much less secure. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.