The 29th session of the trial against 104 members of the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK), also known as the Monafeqin (Hypocrites), was held publicly at Branch 11 of Tehran's Criminal Court. Presided over by Judge Hojatoleslam Amirreza Dehghani with advisors Mortaza Turak and Amin Naseri, the session included representatives from the prosecutor's office, families of victims, and defense lawyers. The plaintiffs' lawyer, Hojatoleslam Masoud Maddah, presented legal arguments regarding the MEK's leadership responsibility for criminal acts under Article 130 of Iran's Islamic Penal Code, focusing on their organizational structure and terrorist activities including safe houses, assassinations, and torture. He cited a 2019 judicial opinion stating that leaders need not physically participate in crimes to be held accountable, and presented confessions from MEK member Mehran Asdaghi who admitted the organization ordered attacks on civilians to maintain its existence. Internal MEK documents distributed among members were also submitted as evidence.
The plaintiffs' lawyer Masoud Maddah presented internal MEK training manuals as evidence, including one titled "Familiarization with Tactical Training for Armed Struggle" which instructed members to sever all emotional and familial ties. The manual stated that eliminating human emotions would enable members to indiscriminately kill children, pregnant women, and young people. Another document from 1981 titled "Stages of Forming and Developing an Operational Team" outlined recruitment criteria requiring complete obedience, revolutionary courage, and readiness to join terrorist cells.
Maddah highlighted how MEK indoctrinated members by portraying itself as society's savior despite the Islamic Republic's popular support, claiming Iran was "on the brink of uprising." The "Offensive Operations Training" manual justified attacks as necessary to "tear the veil of terror," with Maddah questioning whether killing civilians constituted liberation. The manuals contained detailed operational instructions, including: requiring cyanide pills and weapons at all times; using religious figures and veiled women as "practice targets" to prepare for larger attacks; and strict selection criteria for operatives covering weapons training, safe house maintenance, and security protocols. One particularly disturbing section from a 1981 document explicitly described killing religious citizens as training exercises to prepare members for major operations.
The court heard further details about MEK's highly organized operational structure from internal documents. Prospective members had to complete questionnaires and undergo vetting before being assigned to 3-4 person cells operating from residential safe houses, which included women and children to maintain cover. Each cell had clearly defined roles: an operations commander, lookout, intelligence officer, and a "normalizer" to maintain appearances. The lawyer questioned how bombings could liberate people, citing manuals that required detailed operational reports and justified stealing civilian vehicles as "revolutionary confiscations." One manual admitted stolen cars, while useful, often caused operational failures due to inexperience. In a particularly revealing exchange, the lawyer confirmed these "confiscated" vehicles were in fact stolen, recounting an instance where a member stole a car to escape a compromised safe house. The documents also contained meticulous security protocols, including 15-minute watch rotations and specific instructions about window coverings for operational houses.
The court examined additional MEK operational manuals revealing meticulous details about terrorist activities. The documents specified exact protocols including 11 PM curfews for operational units, placement of surveillance tables in courtyards, and methods for renting safe houses under civilian cover - suggesting members pose as construction workers or bring women/children when visiting real estate agents. The manuals identified suitable neighborhoods in Tehran, advising against religious areas. Another document covered forgery techniques and operational structures, detailing how motorcycle teams operated in pairs while car teams used 3-4 members. Each safe house contained a commander, deputy, driver, and "fire officer" responsible for shooting during escapes. The lawyer noted these organized military structures peaked after 1981 when key members fled Iran, with the group increasing attacks on civilians to maintain relevance. When questioned about the manuals' dates, the lawyer confirmed they primarily dated to 1981. The judge referenced the lawyer's earlier argument that MEK's military activities intensified after their electoral defeat, to which the lawyer agreed, citing member confessions that the organization escalated attacks on ordinary citizens both to evacuate leaders and assert presence within Iran.
The court proceedings continued with arguments about the authenticity of MEK documents presented as evidence. Prosecutor Masoud Maddah asserted that Rajavi's disqualification from elections and public rejection led MEK to turn to terrorism, questioning their claim of "liberating people" when over 98% had voted for the Islamic Republic. Defense lawyers for defendants 89-107 challenged the documents' origins, arguing the prosecution hadn't properly sourced materials bearing MEK's emblem. Maddah countered that some manuals were seized from safe houses while others were excerpted from MEK publications, citing as example a manual titled "Experiences of Mujahideen Fighters and How to Deal with Unwanted Confrontations" taken from their December 1982 publication. The judge instructed the prosecution to clearly footnote all document sources, though books like "Executioner of the 60s" containing unpublished internal documents lacked legal standing as evidence. The exchange highlighted evidentiary disputes while revealing MEK's detailed training on responding to safe house raids.
The court examined additional MEK training manuals that revealed sophisticated operational methods. Prosecutor Masoud Maddah presented a manual titled "Destruction of Enemy Vehicles" from MEK publication, detailing car bombing techniques and explaining how commanders distributed coded instructions to operatives. Another document, "Characteristics and Duties of an Operations Commander," emphasized requiring actual combat experience rather than just theoretical knowledge. When challenged by the judge about linking these materials to defendants, Maddah cited their discovery in MEK safe houses and vehicles, along with member confessions about receiving such training materials.
The prosecution introduced a manual called "How to Establish Military Resistance Bases" that instructed members to disguise themselves as mechanics when renting safe houses. While the judge questioned the relevance of such disguises to terrorism charges, Maddah argued these were preparatory steps for violent operations, supported by confessions like that of Parvin Partovi (alias "Maryam"), who described MEK's urban warfare plans targeting government buildings, printing houses, and homes of religious citizens during protests. Partovi's testimony revealed pre-protest surveillance procedures and orders to attack both security forces and ordinary religious citizens, including using crowds as cover for assassinations. The judge repeatedly pressed for clearer documentation of sources beyond the disputed book evidence, with Maddah promising to supplement the record with supporting materials.
The prosecution presented detailed accounts of MEK's failed armed demonstrations in September, revealing a stark contrast between the group's expectations and reality. Members had been indoctrinated to believe public gunfire would spark mass uprisings, but their attacks - including Molotov cocktails, bus burnings, and grenade throwing in Valiasr Street - only resulted in civilian casualties and public resistance. One operation involving 40 members lasted just 8 minutes, leaving 12 operatives dead/captured and 10 civilians wounded as locals fought back against the terrorists.
The prosecutor systematically connected MEK's actions to Article 130's criteria for organized crime (formation, design, organization, and management), while invoking criminologist Sutherland's theory of "differential association" to explain how group dynamics override societal norms. He described the systematic destruction of members' humanity through psychological manipulation that enabled cold-blooded murder, requesting psychological evaluation of defendants to understand this transformation. The presentation concluded by emphasizing the need for expert analysis of the mental conditioning that turns individuals into violent extremists.