The Suspicious Death of Khosrow Alikordi: “Heart Attack” or “An Open Case”? S. Rouzbeh ۱۴۰۴/۰۹/۲۴ This article outlines the legal and professional procedures for investigating deaths outside hospital, and asks how the cause of Khosrow Alikordi’s death was established before the investigation process was made clear. S. Rouzbeh – This article seeks to offer readers a clear, concise framework for reaching their own judgement, from the perspective of the law and the professional process for investigating deaths outside hospital. Over the past week, Khosrow Alikordi’s death has been examined from various angles in public and in the media, with differing accounts of its cause. This piece does not aim to pass judgement or make accusations; its purpose is to explain the “scientific determination of the cause of death” and the “legal process” in order to dispel public uncertainty and confusion. Khosrow Alikordi, senior lawyer Two accounts, one central question The official account very quickly declared the cause to be a “heart attack” and deemed it non-criminal. By contrast, the questions and demands of lawyers and part of the public revolve around one issue: where is the “investigative process”? In other words, how, and on what basis, were the scene report, the details of the external examination of the body, the process of collecting samples and the test results brought together? Here, the issue is a simple question: When a death occurs outside hospital, why does the “announcement of the cause” come “ahead of the investigation”? Everywhere in the world, a death outside hospital is a “case”, not “news” In forensic science and in the professional practice of the police and forensic medicine, a sudden death at home, at work, in the street or in a place of detention is considered an open case until the standard procedures have been completed. These procedures are broadly similar in almost all professional systems: 1) The presence of the police and law-enforcement officers, and securing the scene 2) Preserving the scene to prevent tampering, uncontrolled access and the loss of possible traces 3) Photographing and documenting the scene and the body before it is moved 4) Collecting samples and traces (from fingerprints and fibres to DNA under the fingernails, cigarette ends, stains, tools and any evidence that can be tested) 5) Coordinating with the judicial authority and preparing a detailed official report 6) Referral to forensic medicine for an autopsy and further tests, such as toxicology; in some cases, if the family objects, permission may even be granted to exhume the body and conduct further tests. These are not “administrative formalities”; the validity of the conclusion depends on the validity of the process. Iranian law, too, has adopted this logic. In Iran, the law and regulations also set out specific duties: Article 28 of the Criminal Procedure Code states: “Judicial officers are required, under the supervision of the prosecutor, to act in detecting crimes, preserving traces and signs, and collecting evidence.” Article 46 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that “the officer must report the results of their actions to the prosecutor, and the prosecutor may request that the investigation be completed.” The “preservation of the scene” is precisely defined in the Crime Scene Regulations: preventing the destruction or alteration of traces, cordoning off the area, and preventing unauthorised access. Definition of the preservation of a crime scene During an examination of the scene, sealing it off to preserve evidence that cannot be moved is also provided for. Article 135 of the Criminal Procedure Code So the issue is not that “there is no law”. The issue is that, in sensitive cases, the implementation of procedures—or the transparency of those procedures—is not evident in a way that can be independently verified; and it is precisely this gap that is the main source of public distrust. Why “heart attack” may be correct, but is not the “first conclusion”. In many deaths, it may at first appear that a “heart attack” has occurred. But criminology and forensic medicine ask a more precise question: Why did the heart attack occur? Sometimes tests make the answer clear: The cause of the heart attack may be a drug or substance. A combination of drugs or an overdose (for example, stimulants that disrupt the heart’s rhythm) may cause cardiac arrest. The person may have been poisoned, so reaching a definitive conclusion before toxicology testing itself raises questions. These are not “storytelling”; this is the nature of forensic medicine: to get from appearances to the actual cause, rather than presenting appearances as the definitive cause. There is also a key point: Cardiac arrest is not a “cause”; it is the mechanism by which life ends. Everyone’s heart stops at the end of life; the legal question is, “What caused the heart to stop working?” In addition to known factors such as high blood pressure, diabetes and obesity, blocked arteries and cardiac arrest can also result from other causes, including cardiac arrhythmias (rhythm disorders), cardiomyopathies (diseases of the heart muscle), valvular disease, sleep apnoea, stimulant use (cocaine), infections, congenital abnormalities of the coronary arteries, and even severe stress or sudden shock. Lifestyle factors such as smoking, inactivity, high cholesterol and family history also increase the risk, along with dozens of other causes. “Suicide” is not a diagnosis made for the news; it is a scene-based determination. Whenever the official account moves very quickly towards “suicide”, the first professional question is: on the basis of what evidence at the scene? Suicide (such as hanging) cannot be concluded without a technical examination of the scene and the body: the type of knot, the angle of pressure, the pattern of bruising, scratches, signs of a struggle, the condition of the surroundings, the timeline, and forensic findings. Criminal investigations have repeatedly shown that the “appearance of the scene” can be staged; for example, in cases of falls from a height, it has also been established that the person was strangled or poisoned before the fall. That is precisely why the scene report and forensic findings must be transparent and open to assessment, rather than replaced by a single label in the news. How long does toxicology testing take in Iran, and why does it matter? According to the reported timetable for forensic laboratory work, toxicology can take up to 30 working days from receipt of a request to the issue of a final result. In most cases, forensic laboratory investigations—which examine samples such as stomach contents, bladder contents, liver, blood and saliva, depending on what is considered necessary—take more than two months. Therefore, if a case really is one of “natural heart attack”, the best way to establish that is not to declare it definitively within the first few hours; the best way is to complete the entire process and make at least a summary of the steps and results available for assessment. Only after all these stages have been completed can the main cause of death be stated definitively. The Legal Medicine Organisation, as the specialist authority, is responsible for determining the cause of death. Under the current regulations, any suspicious death, murder, suicide, death resulting from accidents or unusual incidents, sudden unexplained death, or death where poisoning is suspected must be referred to Legal Medicine by order of a judicial authority so that, after examination and the necessary tests, the cause of death can be determined. By contrast, a death is considered “natural” only when the treating doctor issues a death certificate stating a specific cause on the basis of the person’s medical history—something that is generally not possible in deaths occurring outside hospital. Why does public opinion not believe that everything is always due to an “underlying illness” or “suicide”? This question is the product of “historical experience”. In the public memory and in numerous media and human rights reports, there are many cases in which the official account has been in clear conflict with the accounts of families, witnesses or independent reports. For example, in cases of deaths in custody, cases such as Sattar Beheshti’s have for years been accompanied by serious questions about the investigation and accountability. There have also been government lies about the deaths of Mahsa Amini, Nika Shakarami, Zahra Kazemi, Sarina and others… When experiences like these accumulate, society reaches a simple conclusion: if the process is not transparent, even a correct finding will not be credible. If the government trusts its own account, the way forward is clear and simple If the cause of death is genuinely clear and natural, transparency should work in the government’s favour, not against it. Here is a practical, low-cost proposal: 1) Grant controlled, formal access to the case file for two representatives of the Bar Association and several officially certified judicial experts, so they can examine the process: the scene report, minutes, sampling procedures, autopsy and toxicology results. 2) Publish a non-confidential summary of the key findings: the timeline, cause of death, whether signs of assault were ruled out or confirmed, and the toxicology result (without personal or confidential information). If there is nothing to hide, this should be simple. If it becomes difficult, the public has the right to ask: then what is the problem? If everything is clear, why is the unedited camera footage with the timecode on screen not being released, while an edited version with no time information is given to the public instead? And why is there a date discrepancy on the same evidence handover record (the text states “18 Azar 1404”, while “1404/10/18” appears beside the signature)—a discrepancy which, even if caused by a clerical error, must be transparently and documentarily resolved in a death case occurring outside hospital, not simply passed over in silence. Yet what the Mashhad Prosecutor’s Office emphasises is not the provision of verifiable documentation, but the familiar, threatening language of “publishing falsehoods” and “disturbing public opinion”—language that erodes trust rather than strengthening it. This very lack of trust shows why an independent, impartial investigation is necessary: a fact-finding committee including representatives of the Bar Association and officially certified judicial experts, with controlled access to the unedited footage, the scene report and the chain of custody of the evidence. And one point must be stated precisely: to say that people’s suspicions have “always” been more accurate than the official account is an absolute claim that cannot be proved; however, the historical experience of the Islamic Republic in numerous cases has shown that whenever transparency and independent access to evidence have been restricted, the gap between the government’s account and public perception has widened, strengthening the grounds for doubt. Conclusion: Questions that must be answered! Where is the official scene report, and does it contain a precise record of the body’s visible condition (bruises, scratches, signs of pressure on the neck)? And can the filming and photographs be made available? Who entered the premises before they were officially recorded, and how was the chain of scene preservation documented? Was the deceased brought any sweets or flowers by anyone? What about the secretary, their statements, and the people who visited that day? Many questions remain… Was the site examined, were detailed minutes recorded, and were the measures taken by the law enforcement officer in accordance with the law and open to assessment? Articles 28 and 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Were an autopsy and supplementary tests, including toxicology, carried out? If so, why was the cause of death announced before the final results were complete? The toxicology test takes 30 working days! And the final question: if the government trusts its own account, why does it not allow representatives of the Bar Association and officially certified experts to review the process and results and give their professional opinion? Source: https://srouzbeh.com/en/posts/archive-86e0745a-ad4c-0d2f-db0d-029ac6c131b1 Please credit the author and link to this edition.