Islamic Republic of Iran's punishment code on Homosexuality

Complete Text of the Iranian Law on Homosexuality

Part Two: The Hadd of Lavat

Chapter One: The Definition of Lavat

Article 108: Lavat is an act of congress [vati] between males whether in [the form of] penetration or of tafkhiz (the rubbing of thighs/of the penis against thighs).
Article 109: Both the active and passive partners to lavat are subject to the hadd [punishment].
Article 110: The hadd [punishment] for lavat where penetration has occurred is death and the method of execution is at the discretion of the Sharia judge.
Article 111: Lavat is punishable by death so long as both the active and passive partners are mature, of sound mind, and have acted of free will.
Article 112: If a mature man commits an act of lavat with a minor the active partner [i.e. mature man] will be executed and the passive partner will, unless he has acted under duress, receive up to 74 lashes of the whip.
Article 113: Whenever a minor commits an act of congress [vati: i.e. whether penetrative or in the form of “tafkhiz or similar acts”] with another minor [both] will receive up to 74 lashes unless one of them has acted under duress.

Chapter Two: Methods of Proving Lavat

Article 114: The hadd [crime] of lavat is proven by confession repeated four times before a Sharia judge.
Article 115: Less than four confessions do not incur the hadd [punishment] and the person who confesses will be subject to a discretionary punishment [ta‘zir].
Article 116: Confession is valid when the confessor is mature, of sound mind, in control, has free will and [acts with] intention.
Article 117: The hadd [crime] of lavat is proven by the witness of four just men who have observed the act.
Article 118: The hadd [crime] of lavat is not proven by the witness of fewer than four just men and the witnesses will be subject the hadd [punishment] for slander (qazaf).
Article 119: The witness of women alone, or in conjunction with men, does not prove the hadd [crime] of lavat.
Article 120: The Shari’a judge may rule [issue a verdict] on the basis of the knowledge which he has acquired through generally accepted methods (i.e. his deductions and examinations).
Article 121: The hadd [crime] of tafkhiz and similar acts between two men, without penetration, will be punished by 100 lashes for each [party to the act].
Note to Article 121: If the active partner is non-Muslim and the passive partner is Muslim the punishment for the active partner is death.
Article 122: If tafkhiz and similar acts are repeated three times, and have each time incurred the hadd punishment on the fourth offence the hadd (punishment) will be death.
Article 123: If two men, unrelated to one another, lie, without necessity, naked under the same cover, they will each be punished by up to 99 lashes of the whip.
Article 124: If a man kisses another with lascivious intent they will be punished by up to 60 lashes of the whip.
Article 125: If a man who has committed an act of sodomy (lavat) or the rubbing of thighs (tafkhiz) or similar acts repents before witnesses have delivered their testimony he will not be subject to the hadd punishment. If the man repents after the testimonies have been delivered, he will be subject to the hadd punishment.
Article 126: If sodomy (lavat) or the rubbing of thighs (tafkhiz) or similar acts is established by confession, and the person who has confessed subsequently repents, the judge may request the Vali-ye Amr [the Supreme Leader] to exercise clemency.

Chapter Three: Lesbianism (mosaheqeh)

Article 127: Mosaheqeh is a same sex relationship between women with genital contact.
Article 128: The methods of proving mosaheqeh are the same as those for sodomy.
Article 129: The hadd punishment for mosaheqeh is 100 lashes of the whip for each party.
Article 130: The hadd crime of mosaheqeh may be proven in the case of those who are mature, of sound mind, and who have acted with intention.
Note: In the hadd crime of mosaheqeh there is no distinction between the active and passive party or between Muslim and non-Muslim parties [to the act].
Article 131: If mosaheqeh is repeated three times and the hadd has been carried out on each occasion, the hadd punishment on the fourth occasion will be death.
Article 132: If a person who has committed an act of mosaheqeh repents before witnesses have delivered their testimony she will not be subject to the hadd punishment. If the person repents after the testimonies have been delivered, she will be subject to the hadd punishment.
Article 133: If the act of mosaheqeh is established by confession, and the person who has confessed subsequently repents, the judge may request the Vali-ye Amr [the Supreme Leader] to exercise clemency.
Article 134: If two women, who are unrelated to one another, lie, without necessity, naked under the same cover, they will each be punished by less than 100 lashes of the whip. If the act is repeated and the ta‘zir punishment is in each case administered, on the third occasion the hadd punishment of 100 lashes will be incurred.

Source : IRQO (former PGLO)

Etre gay en Iran (1/3). Reportage réalisé en février 2007 par CBC News

Comments

Gov. Mike DeWine calls for Ohio to abolish the death penalty

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — Gov. Mike DeWine Tuesday morning called on Ohio to abolish the death penalty, citing data that he said proves it is no longer a deterrent to violent crime. “For the state to take a human life, there must, in my opinion, there must be evidence that in doing so it will help protect the public, that the threat of that action will deter someone from committing murder,” DeWine said. “I do not believe that argument today can be successfully made.” DeWine cited data showing a decline in the last four decades of executions being carried out and an increase in the time inmates spend on death row.

I watched Ohio's last execution. Here's what it was like

As Gov. DeWine calls for Ohio to end capital punishment, the state’s last execution remains the one I witnessed in 2018 Inside Ohio's death house, there is a room for executions and separate witness rooms: one for those connected to the victim and another for those connected to the inmate. Windows separate the death chamber from those watching, the condemned from the living. I was there on July 18, 2018 – during Ohio’s most recent execution. Robert Van Hook was put to death that day for killing David Self in 1985. He sat on death row for three decades. I was one of three media witnesses to the execution.

Kansas AG urges governor to deny clemency to 8 sentenced to death

TOPEKA — Attorney General Kris Kobach on Tuesday urged the governor to deny clemency to Kansas inmates who have been sentenced to death. Eight of nine people sentenced to death in Kansas formally filed clemency requests in May, according to a press release from the Attorney General’s Office. Kobach urged Gov. Laura Kelly to reject them.

20 Minutes to Death: Witness to the Last Execution in France

The following document is a firsthand account of the final moments of Hamida Djandoubi, a convicted murderer executed by guillotine at Marseille’s Baumettes Prison on September 10, 1977. The record—dated September 9—was written by Monique Mabelly, a judge appointed by the state to witness the proceedings. Djandoubi’s execution would ultimately be the last carried out in France before capital punishment was abolished in 1981. At the time, President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing—who had publicly voiced his "deep aversion to the death penalty" prior to his election—rejected Djandoubi’s appeal for clemency. Choosing to let "justice take its course," the President allowed the execution to proceed, just as he had in two previous cases during his term: Christian Ranucci , executed on July 28, 1976 and Jérôme Carrein , executed on June 23, 1977. Hamida Djandoubi , a Tunisian national, was sentenced to death for killing his former lover, Elisabeth Bousquet. He was execu...

New Mississippi billboard warns criminals: ‘Firing squad is legal’

DESOTO COUNTY, Miss. (WREG) — A billboard standing on Interstate 55 southbound as you cross the Tennessee state line and enter Mississippi from Memphis is sending a grim message to those coming into the state. DeSoto County District Attorney Matthew Barton recently announced the new billboard campaign, which features the sign reading, “WELCOME TO MISSISSIPPI. WHERE THE FIRING SQUAD IS LEGAL. THINK TWICE.” It references Mississippi’s law permitting execution by firing squad under certain circumstances for inmates sentenced to death. Barton says this campaign is aimed at deterring violent crime and sends a direct message to criminals entering Mississippi.

SCOTUS: Alabama can’t execute Jeffery Lee by nitrogen; Thursday execution called off

After a week of legal volleyball, Alabama death row inmate Jeffery Lee’s execution—scheduled for Thursday evening—was called off after federal courts called the state’s nitrogen gas execution method “likely unconstitutional.” The state took the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, hoping Lee could still be put to death tonight. In an order issued at 8:10 p.m., the U.S. Supreme Court ordered that it would not lift a ban on Alabama executing Lee via nitrogen . In a short court order, the justices denied Alabama’s motion to go ahead with the execution. Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch would have granted the appeal and let the execution proceed, according to the order.

With nitrogen gas blocked, Alabama seeks to execute inmate by lethal injection

Jeffery Lee, who successfully challenged his scheduled Thursday execution by nitrogen gas, argued that execution by firing squad would be less painful. The Alabama Attorney General’s Office Friday sought to put an Alabama death row inmate to death by lethal injection a day after the U.S. Supreme Court rebuffed the state’s attempt to execute him by nitrogen gas. In a filing with the Alabama Supreme Court Friday afternoon, the state sought an expedited motion to set a new execution date for Jeffery Lee, 49. The state said that with a permanent injunction in place against nitrogen gas, the method by which the state intended to execute Lee on Thursday, it could execute him by lethal injection or the electric chair.

Alabama | Judge bars nitrogen gas execution, says method is unconstitutionally cruel

MONTGOMERY, Ala. -- A federal judge on Tuesday permanently blocked Alabama from executing an inmate with nitrogen gas after declaring it violates the ban on cruel and unusual punishment. U.S. District Judge Emily Marks issued the ruling hours after an appeals court reversed her initial finding that the method was constitutional. Marks permanently enjoined the state from executing Jeffrey Lee, 49, by nitrogen gas. He was scheduled to be executed Thursday. The decision, for now, blocks the use of the controversial new execution method that the state has championed since 2024, but the issue will likely end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Idaho will soon turn to firing squad executions. Police will pull the triggers

Trained members of Idaho law enforcement with demonstrated firearms proficiency are expected to fill slots for carrying out the death penalty by firing squad as the state prison system transitions to the controversial execution method next month. Six volunteers certified for no less than three years apiece through Peace Officer Standards and Training, or POST, will be recruited to ensure the Idaho Department of Correction is ready to comply with a state law that prioritizes shooting prisoners to death over lethal injection starting July 1. No one on the team may have faced disciplinary action over firearms, use of force, or related conduct over the prior year, according to new execution protocols the prison system released this week.

Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch wanted an execution that a Trump judge deemed illegal

The Supreme Court these days is generally in the business of helping executions go forward. But on Thursday night, the court did something notable: It told Alabama no. Even then, the court wasn't unanimous. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the refusal to let the nitrogen gas execution of Jeffery Lee proceed. What prompted the rare rejection? In line with the typical shadow docket practice, the court didn't explain itself. Nor did the dissenters, who merely noted their disagreement. But a deeper look at the case helps us understand why a majority of the court was unwilling to help the state this time.

Death Penalty News

Search This Blog