Turkish complicity in the Iranian death penalty: The case of Amir Tataloo

In January, it was reported that Amirhossein Maghsoudlou, better known as Amir Tataloo, had been sentenced to death by a court in Iran on charges of ‘sabb al-nabi’, or insulting the Prophet Muhammad. The case attracted attention in Western media outlets because Tataloo is a popular musician, known for his extensive facial and body tattoos and his controversial engagement with political issues. There is another aspect of the case, though, which the media have not explored in depth, but which warrants attention. Tataloo was only in Iranian custody because Turkish authorities had extradited him in December 2023. As a country that has abolished the death penalty, it appears that Turkey has violated a clear legal obligation to not extradite people without assurances that that person will not be sentenced to death.

On at least two occasions, the European Court of Human Rights (which Turkey is party to) has ruled that states which have abolished the death penalty must refuse extradition to a retentionist state if they do not receive adequate assurances that a death sentence will not be imposed. The first occasion was in 1989, in the case of Soering v UK. British authorities had agreed to extradite Jens Soering to Virginia, USA, where he was facing capital charges, but Soering argued that this would violate his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The European Court of Human Rights held that although the death penalty was permissible under the ECHR, death row conditions in Virginia amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, and thus held that the UK could not extradite him without firm assurances that he would not be subject to the death penalty. In Al-Saadoon v UK, decided in 2010, the same court went a step further and said that the death penalty itself, and not just conditions on death row, now constituted inhuman and degrading punishment, and thus all state parties to the Convention are prohibited from extraditing individuals to retentionist states absent assurances that the death penalty will not be sought or imposed.

The rule extends beyond European states that have abolished the death penalty. At the international level, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) stated in Judge v Canada (2003) that “[f]or countries that have abolished the death penalty, there is an obligation not to expose a person to the real risk of its application.” In 2018, the HRC updated its General Comment on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which protects the right to life, to reflect the principle that abolitionist states must not expose a person in its jurisdiction to the risk of capital punishment.  

Domestic authorities have issued similar rulings, including the South African Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Canada, both in 2001. In 2016, the Australian Government expressed its belief that current domestic arrangements relating to extradition were consistent with its obligations to not expose people within its jurisdiction to the risk of a death sentence.

These are just some examples of international, regional and domestic rulings and statements that outlaw extradition without ‘no death penalty’ assurances. There are two principles that underpin these positions: (1) a jurisdictional principle: that no abolitionist state should expose someone within its jurisdiction to the risk of a death sentence, and (2) a non-complicity principle: that no abolitionist state should be complicit in a punishment that it has outlawed. With all this in mind, we should be enquiring whether Turkish authorities sought such assurances, and if not, why not. To answer this, we ought to be clear about the sequence of events that led Tataloo from Istanbul to Tehran. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is difficult to secure accurate information, but this adds to the reasons why Turkey might have breached its legal obligations.

Tataloo moved to Istanbul in 2019 in an effort to further his career, but he was arrested because of an INTERPOL request that had been raised by Tehran. According to the newspaper Turkey Today, the request related to a charge of “encouraging drug use”, but it was also known that there had been a number of private complaints submitted to the Iranian authorities about him, including accusations of sexual assault and violence. When he was detained, Turkish authorities also discovered that he had overstayed his visa. It appears that he was then extradited on 6 December 2023, at his own request. During his trial in Iran, he faced multiple legal charges. According to some reports, he was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for "encouraging people to corruption and debauchery," two years for "inviting people to gamble," and five years for "propaganda activities contrary to and disrupting the sacred law of Islam." He was initially acquitted of insulting the Prophet, but this was appealed by the prosecutor, and the death sentence was imposed after the case was reopened.

At this point, then, Turkish authorities ought to reveal what they knew about the offences he was to be charged with, and the possible punishments he faced. It is widely known that Iran has a lengthy list of crimes that are punishable by death, and it would therefore not be acceptable for the authorities to say that they were unaware that Tataloo faced a possible death sentence. And it would also not be possible to use the excuse that, since Tataloo requested to be extradited, Turkey was absolved of any of its obligations under European or international law, outlined above. After all, abolitionist states are not permitted to impose a death penalty if a convicted person requests to be executed. Indeed, it does not appear that Turkish authorities have complained about the death sentence at all, suggesting that they are at best ambivalent, or worse satisfied, that they have been complicit in the administration of the death penalty.

What this case shows, therefore, is that the current legal framework still needs strengthening. Perhaps an international body needs to be set up to consider extradition requests between abolitionist and retentionist states, so that a person’s life is not at the whim of domestic authorities. Perhaps abolitionist states should now take the view that, in some instances and with some countries which are particularly notorious for handing down death sentences, extradition should always be denied notwithstanding the provision of assurances. These suggestions might seem a step too far, but the law on extradition and the death penalty has evolved over several decades and there is no reason to expect it to stop evolving.

Bharat Malkani is a Reader in the Law Department at Cardiff University. His research and teaching is focused on the intersection of criminal justice and human rights, with a particular focus on the death penalty, miscarriages of justice and racism in the criminal justice system.