Kar v. Islamic Republic of Iran

• Decision Date: 30 September 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 19-2070 (JDB),19-2602 (JDB)
• Parties: MEHRANGIZ KAR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al. Defendants. BANAFSHEH ZAND, Plaintiff, v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

MEHRANGIZ KAR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al. Defendants.

BANAFSHEH ZAND, Plaintiff, v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al. Defendants.

Civil Action Nos. 19-2070 (JDB), 19-2602 (JDB)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

September 30, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JOHN D. BATES United States District Judge

Plaintiffs Mehrangiz Kar, Azadeh Pourzand, and Banafsheh Zand are respectively, the spouse and two daughters of Siamak Pourzand (“Siamak”). Kar Mot. for Default J. [ECF No. 20] at 5-6; Decl. of Mehrangiz Kar [ECF No. 20-11] (“Kar Decl.”) ¶ 3; Decl. of Azadeh Pourzand [ECF No 20-12] (“Azadeh Decl.”) ¶ 3; Zand Mot. for Default J. [Zand ECF No. 13] at 5; Decl. of Banafsheh Zand [Zand ECF No. 13-6] (“Zand Decl.”) ¶ 3.^[1] Plaintiffs allege that Iran is liable for the hostage taking, torture, and extrajudicial killing of Siamak, and they have filed suit under the terrorism exception to sovereign immunity in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1605A. See Kar Compl. [ECF No. 1] ¶¶ 1, 4; Zand Compl. [Zand ECF No. 1] ¶¶ 1, 4.

Plaintiffs have filed two substantively identical motions for default judgment. See generally Kar Mot. for Default J.; Zand Mot. for Default J. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant plaintiffs' motions in part and deny them in part.

Background

I. Factual Background

Siamak Pourzand was “a renowned Iranian journalist, cultural figure, and recipient of numerous awards from international institutions.” Kar Mot for Default J. at 2; see also Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, Mockery of Justice: The Framing of Siamak Pourzand 8-9 (2008) [ECF No. 20-42] (“The Framing of Siamak Pourzand”) (describing Siamak's career as a journalist and film critic)^[2]; Drewery Dyke, Siamak Pourzand: Persecuted to Death, Harassed After Death, Amnesty Int'l, May 6, 2011, at 1 [ECF No. 20-43] (“Siamak Pourzand: Persecuted to Death”).^[3]He was married to plaintiff Mehrangiz Kar a prominent human rights lawyer and activist working to empower women and democracy in Iran. Kar Mot. for Default J. at 2; Kar Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5-7; see Mehrangiz Kar Bar License [ECF No. 20-5]. Siamak and Kar had two daughters: Lily Pourzand (“Lily”) and plaintiff Azadeh Pourzand (“Azadeh”). Kar Mot. for Default J. at 5; Kar Decl. ¶ 3; Azadeh Decl. ¶ 3; Azadeh Pourzand Birth Certificate [ECF No. 20-7]. Plaintiff Banafsheh Zand is Siamak's daughter from an earlier marriage. Zand Mot. for Default J. at 5; Zand Decl. ¶ 3.

Siamak became a target of Iran due to, among other things, his public criticism of the government and the interviews he conducted with prominent Americans. Kar Mot. for Default J. at 2; The Framing of Siamak Pourzand 8-9 (stating Iran was skeptical of Siamak because he had interviewed U.S President Richard Nixon, he had served briefly as the deputy of the General Manager of the Ministry of Education, and his brother had been a colonel in the Shah's armed forces). Kar's activism also put her and Siamak at risk of persecution. See Kar Mot. for Default J. at 2, 12; The Framing of Siamak Pourzand 9. After Kar publicly criticized the Iranian government while presenting at a conference in Germany in 2000, she was arrested and charged with crimes such as “acting against national security” and “spreading propaganda.” Kar Decl. ¶ 10; Kar Mot. for Default J. at 2; The Framing of Siamak Pourzand 9 & n.32. Kar was sentenced to four years imprisonment in January 2001, but, due to international pressure, she was released after 54 days so that she could obtain medical treatment for her breast cancer. Kar Mot. for Default J. at 2; Kar Decl. ¶¶ 10-11; The Framing of Siamak Pourzand 9. Kar and her daughter Azadeh traveled to the United States in late summer or early fall of that year. Kar Mot. for Default J. at 2-3; Kar Decl. ¶ 11; Azadeh Decl. ¶¶ 16-17 (stating Azadeh arrived in the United States in the fall of 2001); The Framing of Siamak Pourzand 9 (stating Kar left Iran in August 2001). Siamak remained in Iran. See Kar Mot. for Default J. at 3; Azadeh Decl. ¶ 17; The Framing of Siamak Pourzand 10.

In November 2001, while Kar and Azadeh were still in the United States, Siamak was arrested outside his sister's apartment in Iran. Kar Mot for Default J. at 3; Kar Decl. ¶ 16; The Framing of Siamak Pourzand 11; Nov. 27, 2001 Appeal from Amnesty Int'l [ECF No. 20-30] at 1. His captors took him to his apartment, searched it, and seized property. Kar Mot for Default J. at 3, 39; Kar Decl. ¶ 16; The Framing of Siamak Pourzand 11. For at least two weeks, Siamak's family did not receive any news about him. Kar Decl. ¶ 17; The Framing of Siamak Pourzand 11. On December 7, Siamak's sister received an anonymous phone call instructing her to bring a change of clothes for Siamak to the office of Amaken, an Iranian institution responsible for investigating moral crimes. Kar Mot for Default J. at 11-12; Kar Decl. ¶ 18; The Framing of Siamak Pourzand 12. Siamak's sister asked for information about his location and the charges against him, but she was told that was none of her business. Kar Decl. ¶ 18. For months, Siamak's family did not know where he was being held or what crimes he was accused of committing. Kar Mot for Default J. at 3; Kar Decl. ¶ 20; Zand Decl. ¶ 18; Azadeh Pourzand, Tell Me, Where Is My Father?, Wash. Post, Dec. 30, 2001 at ¶ 7 [ECF No. 20-25].^[4]

Siamak's detention received substantial international attention. See The Framing of Siamak Pourzand 12 (explaining that the Legal Director of the Islamic Human Rights Commission of Iran requested information about Siamak's case); Feb. 1, 2002 Appeal from Amnesty Int'l [ECF No. 20-31] at 1 (“Amnesty International is concerned that Siamak Pourzand is being ill treated and possibly tortured in custody, possibly with the aim of obtaining a ‘confession' in advance of a trial. No charges have been made against him and he has been denied the right to legal representation.”); Feb. 2, 2002 Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations from Associate Professors of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars [ECF No. 20-36]; Kar Decl. ¶ 27 (stating that the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention asked Iran about Siamak's detention on February 14, 2002). After “intense international pressure,” Siamak was permitted to briefly meet with his sister at the Amaken office. Feb. 2, 2002 Letter from the Woodrow Wilson International Center to the Secretary-General of the United Nations; Feb. 1, 2002 Appeal from Amnesty Int'l at 1. During one of their few meetings, Siamak told her that “Iranian authorities wanted to ‘blackmail,' ‘humiliate,' and ‘disgrace' the family.” Kar Decl. ¶ 21; accord The Framing of Siamak Pourzand 14. Kar also received a voicemail from Siamak one day that stated: “Please, please with no one .... You do not know, I do not know . . . so do not talk with anyone.” Kar Decl. ¶ 28; see also The Framing of Siamak Pourzand 17 (describing a similar call with Lily).

Judicial proceedings against Siamak began in March 2002. Kar Decl. ¶ 31; The Framing of Siamak Pourzand 21. On March 9, “the conservative newspaper Iran” announced that Siamak's trial had begun on charges related to crimes against national security and that Siamak had confessed. The Framing of Siamak Pourzand 21. Siamak's family claims that he was denied an adequate defense during his trial in violation of the Iranian constitution. See Kar Suppl. Br. [ECF No. 21] at 13; Kar Decl. ¶ 31 (describing the trial as a “sham” in “flagrant breach of international and domestic legal standards” and stating that Siamak was denied counsel of his choice and never presented with formal charges); The Framing of Siamak Pourzand 22; see also July 31, 2002 Appeal from Amnesty Int'l [ECF No. 20-33] at 1 (“Amnesty International considers that the trial proceedings did not meet the minimum international standards for a fair trial [and] that there was a lack of adequate legal representation ....”). In May 2002, Siamak was sentenced to 11 years in prison for several crimes including spying for a foreign country, provoking and deceiving the masses, and encouraging and persuading others to commit acts of corruption and moral turpitude. Kar Mot. for Default J. at 3; The Framing of Siamak Pourzand 25. To this day, the full terms of Siamak's charges remain unknown. Kar Mot. for Default J. at 3; The Framing of Siamak Pourzand 23 (“The newspaper, however, still did not detail all nine charges brought against [Siamak], and four of these charges remain a mystery to this day.”). Furthermore, after he was convicted, Iran maintained a charge against Siamak for “apostacy,” which was punishable by death. Kar Mot. for Default J. at 3; Kar Decl. ¶ 32; The Framing of Siamak Pourzand 27.

In July 2002, Iranian state television broadcasted a press conference with Siamak and other government officials, during which Siamak publicly confessed to his crimes and condemned family and friends. Kar Mot. for Default J. at 3; Kar Decl. ¶ 33; The Framing of Siamak Pourzand 29-30. In his confession, Siamak denied that he had been subjected to torture, but his family and others have questioned the willingness and truth of his confession. Kar Mot. for Default J. at 3; Kar Decl. ¶¶ 33-35; The Framing of Siamak Pourzand 29-30; July 31, 2002 Appeal from Amnesty Int'l at 1 (“[T]he circumstances in which the ‘confessions' were obtained are a cause for concern.”). As a result of Siamak's confession, Iran opened many cases against other critics of Iran's government, including a new case against Kar. Kar Mot. for Default J. at 13-14; Kar Decl. ¶¶ 35-36.

In fall 2002, the European Union pressured Iran to release Siamak amidst broader political negotiations. Kar Mot. for Default J. at 3; Decl. of Lily Pourzand [ECF No....