Iran: Parliament VP, Criticizes Judicial Approach in Khamenei's Office Corruption Case
- Thursday, 03 November 2016 03:17
NCRI - Iran regime has been shaken by scandalous allegations against a Qur’an reciter affiliated with the office of Supreme Leader, called Saeid Toosi, who is accused of abusing underage trainees
The Vice-President of the Iranian regime’s Parliament has stated that the lengthy investigation of Saeid Toosi’s case ‘does not seem normal’, a ‘negligence’ has taken place and that an ‘improper judicial approach’ regarding the case has been adopted.
The Vice-President of the Iranian regime’s Parliament has stated that the lengthy investigation of Saeid Toosi’s case ‘does not seem normal’, a ‘negligence’ has taken place and that an ‘improper judicial approach’ regarding the case has been adopted.
Regarding Saeid Toosi’s case and the remarks suggesting that its media coverage will weaken the regime, Ali Motahari said: “apparently, the judicial authorities have been acting with respect to their self-made expediency so that, for instance, since the defendant is a Quran-reciter, it would be better not to seriously prosecute him, which is a wrong approach and does not comply with Islamic and Alavi justice.”
He added: “prolongation of investigating Saeid Toosi’s case does not seem to be normal. Besides, it has forced some plaintiffs to resort to foreign media and then be accused of complicity in the crime.”
He added: “why should someone with such a case be invited to an official ceremony, like the opening of the tenth Parliament, in order to recite Quran? Naturally, a suspicion arises that they are going to scare the plaintiffs to withdraw their complaints.”
On the media coverage regarding the case, Motahari said that “the nature of media is discovering the truth and realizing the rights of the victims, although some media are seeking their own goal of hitting the system.”
The Vice-President of the Iranian regime’s Parliament said: “it seems that a negligence has taken place with regard to Toosi’s case which has caused the case to be open for five years, whereas the plaintiffs and their families should have been provided with some sort of consolation much sooner, whether the outcome was an acquittal or a conviction.”
