Aliens imprisoned for 6-8 years and expelled from Denmark for terror supp.

Case no. 30/2024
Judgment delivered on 5 December 2024

The Prosecution Service
vs.
T1, T2 and T3

The High Court had found T1, T2 and T3 guilty of having assisted a Saudi-Arabian intelligence service in operating in Denmark, e.g. by disclosing information on individuals in Denmark and on Iranian military affairs, cf. section 108 of the Danish Criminal Code, in the period 2012-2020 from different locations in Denmark. They had also been found guilty of promoting the activities of the Martyr Muhyiddin Al-Nasser Brigade (the Brigade) and Jaish al-Adl, cf. section 114e of the Criminal Code, as members of the ASMLA (Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahwaz). The defendants had also been convicted of terrorist financing, as they had procured DKK 15 million and attempted to procure DKK 15 million for the ASMLA and the Brigade, cf. section 114b of the Criminal Code, and for having expressly approved of a terrorist attack in public, cf. section 136(2) of the Criminal Code.

The issue for the Supreme Court to consider was whether the acts (i.a. a bomb attack) committed by the ASMLA, the Brigade and Jaish al-Adl in Iran were to be regarded as terrorism or as a lawful fight for freedom against the Iranian regime, as one of the conditions for convicting defendants for violation of sections 114b and 114e is that the organisation receiving financial support or whose activities are promoted is committing terrorist acts covered by section 114. Other issues were whether the defendants had expressly approved of a terrorist attack in public, their sentences, revocation of T3’s Danish nationality and expulsion of all three defendants.

The Supreme Court stated that the fact that an act targeted a country which is not a democratic society, but is ruled by a totalitarian regime that does not respect the rule of law, does not in itself imply that the act is not covered by the scope of section 114(1) of the Criminal Code. Rather this question must be based on an overall assessment of all elements of the case. 

In making this assessment, the Supreme Court referred to the evidence on the organisations concerned relied on by the High Court. The High Court had given importance to the following evidence: that the Brigade was part of the ASMLA, that the ASMLA’s sole or main purpose was not to promote democracy in Iran, that the ASMLA had close alliances with anti-democratic forces, that the ASMLA planned and carried out armed attacks that hit or could hit both military and non-military targets, and that the ASMLA carried out attacks on the Iranian oil industry and Iranian banks. 

With regard to Jaish al-Adl, the High Court had considered that the organisation did not promote democratic values, that it primarily attacked government targets, that the attacks resulted in fatalities, and that the organisation took hostages.

Against this background, the Supreme Court agreed that the organisations concerned committed terrorist attacks in Iran that were covered by section 114(1) of the Criminal Code, regardless of the fact that Iran was not a democratic society, but was ruled by a totalitarian regime that does not respect the rule of law. 

As mentioned above, the High Court had found the defendants guilty of having expressly approved of a terrorist attack against a military parade in the city of Ahwaz (Iran) on 22 September 2018 by posting the following on social media: 

(Post no. 1): “To target the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as part of the Ahwazi national resistance in connection with the military parade in Ahwaz should be considered an act of self-defence against the military militia that is categorised internationally as being a terrorist organisation” 

and 

(Post no. 2): "Had it not been for the coordinated precise and swift media reaction for the Ahwazi yesterday following the heroic action by the Ahwazi National Resistance, today all media, especially the Iranian media, would have been talking about a ‘Daesh action in Ahwaz’, and then all Ahwazi activities would have been categorised as ‘Daesh action’, just as it did in Syria”

The Supreme Court took the view that post no. 1 could not be regarded as expressly approving of the terrorist attack against the military parade, but that describing the attack as “the heroic action” in post no. 2 did amount to express approval of the terrorist attack.

The Supreme Court found that the sentences handed down by the High Court of imprisonment for 6, 7 and 8 years, respectively, were appropriate. In respect of section 108 of the Criminal Code, the Supreme Court considered that the case involved the prolonged, extensive and systematic collection and disclosure of information about, i.a., individuals in Denmark and abroad and Iranian military affairs to a Saudi Arabian intelligence service. With regard to the violations of sections 114b and 114e of the Criminal Code, the Supreme Court put particular emphasis on the fact that the financing and promotion of terrorist activities were of a prolonged, extensive and systematic nature. On the other hand, the Supreme Court gave importance to, among other things, the background to the defendants’ actions, including the fact that they were resisting and fighting against the Iranian regime, which cannot be considered democratic and which, among other things, uses the death penalty, torture and arbitrary detention and oppresses ethnic minorities.

Considering the nature and seriousness of T3’s crimes and his ties to Iran and Denmark, the Supreme Court found that the conditions in the Danish Nationality Act for revoking T3’s Danish nationality were met and that this revocation did not go against, among other things, the requirements arising from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in cases concerning revocation of nationality.

With regard to the question of expulsion, the Supreme Court stated that it followed from section 26(2) of the Danish Aliens Act, cf. section 22(i), (ii) and (iv), that the defendants must be expelled unless this would be contrary to article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the right to respect for private and family life and, insofar as T3 was concerned, also article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as his minor children were Danish citizens. 

Considering the nature and gravity of the crime, T3’s ties to Denmark and Iran, and his two minor children who were Danish citizens, the Supreme Court found that expelling T3 with a permanent entry ban was not contrary to the EU law principle of proportionality or article 8 of the ECHR. 

Having weighed the nature and gravity of the crimes against T1’s and T2’s ties to Denmark and Iran, the Supreme Court found that expulsion with a permanent ban on re-entry was not contrary to article 8 of the ECHR. 

The Supreme Court thus affirmed the judgment of the High Court, but acquitted the defendants of the offence relating to post no. 1 as mentioned above.