Twenty-nine Iranian political activists, academics, and civil society figures have issued a joint statement calling for an immediate and unconditional halt to executions, particularly in political and ideological cases. The appeal comes amid mounting concerns over the execution of people detained during Iran’s January 2026 protests and the increased use of capital punishment in national security cases following the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran. The statement reflects a broader domestic debate over whether harsh judicial punishments can deliver security in a country already facing war, economic hardship, and deep political and social divisions.
The signatories include prominent figures from different political and intellectual backgrounds, among them historian and political activist Hashem Aghajari, sociologist Asef Bayat, veteran political activist Habibollah Peyman, journalist and activist Taghi Rahmani, former political prisoner Issa Saharkhiz, former parliamentarian Parvaneh Salahshouri, lawyer and women’s rights advocate Mehrangiz Kar, religious scholar Mohsen Kadivar, political activist Abdollah Momeni and Islamic scholar Sedigheh Vasmaghi.
Their participation is significant because these individuals do not necessarily share the same views about Iran’s political system or its future. Some have longstanding ties to reformist politics, others to religious reform movements, and still others to independent human rights advocacy. Their common position highlights the extent to which opposition to politically motivated executions has become a point of convergence among different segments of Iranian civil society.
According to the statement, the signatories are particularly concerned about executions involving individuals arrested during the January 2026 protests, including defendants in the Ali-Khani Square case in Isfahan. They argue that death sentences and executions have intensified in recent months, especially following the war involving the United States, Israel, and Iran.
The statement also raises concerns about the independence of the judiciary and the absence of adequate fair-trial protections. Its authors argue that executions, including those imposed in cases involving alleged espionage or cooperation with foreign governments, do not necessarily deter future offenses and may instead deepen political polarization and perpetuate cycles of violence.
The central argument is that protecting national security and protecting fundamental legal rights should not be treated as competing objectives. The signatories describe an immediate and unconditional halt to executions as a necessary step toward securing citizens’ rights and achieving lasting, comprehensive security.
The Ali-Khani Square case in Isfahan illustrates the controversy surrounding the recent executions. The case stems from clashes during the January 8, 2026 protests in which, according to Iranian authorities, four law enforcement and security personnel were killed. The judiciary has accused defendants of involvement in armed violence, attacks on security personnel, and acts that disrupted public security.
On November 3, Iran’s judiciary-affiliated Mizan News Agency announced the executions of Amirhossein Maleki and Amirhossein Ebrahimi. The two had been convicted of moharebeh (enmity against God) and efsad-e fel-arz (corruption on Earth), charges that can carry the death penalty under Iranian law. Mizan maintained that their convictions were supported by evidence and had been upheld by the Supreme Court. The judiciary’s account was also reported by Iranian outlets Entekhab and Khabar Online.
Their executions brought the number of people executed in the Ali-Khani Square case to nine. Iranian human rights organizations have raised concerns about the treatment of defendants, access to legal representation, and allegations of coerced confessions. Several other defendants have faced death sentences, including individuals whose appeals have reportedly been rejected. The authorities maintain that the case concerns serious criminal violence rather than peaceful protest, while rights advocates argue that the severity of the accusations does not eliminate the obligation to provide transparent proceedings and effective legal safeguards.
The controversy extends well beyond Isfahan. In an October 9 report, Human Rights Activists in Iran, the organization associated with the Persian-language HRANA news agency, documented 2,003 executions between October 10, 2025, and October 7, 2026, including 69 people executed on political or security-related charges. These figures cover different categories of criminal offenses and should not be interpreted as exclusively protest-related executions. They nevertheless demonstrate the scale of capital punishment in Iran.
Another report by Human Rights Watch and the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center documented at least 59 executions on politically motivated or national security charges between March 18 and the end of August 2026. At least 29 involved people arrested in connection with the December 2025–January 2026 protests. The organizations found that in 16 of the protest-related cases, defendants had not even been accused of killing anyone.
The acceleration of executions has occurred alongside the expansion of security-related prosecutions following the war. Iranian authorities have repeatedly emphasized the threat of espionage, sabotage, and cooperation with foreign intelligence services. From the government’s perspective, these threats require strong security and judicial responses, particularly during an ongoing military confrontation.
Critics, however, argue that wartime conditions increase rather than diminish the need for judicial safeguards. They warn that broad national security provisions can blur the distinction between violent criminal conduct, political dissent, and activities protected under civil and political rights.
This is one of the most consequential aspects of the 29 signatories’ statement: their appeal is not confined to people arrested during street demonstrations. By explicitly addressing espionage and alleged cooperation with foreign governments, they challenge the broader use of capital punishment as an instrument of national security policy.
The statement also belongs to a wider pattern of opposition emerging from within Iranian society. Prisoners participating in the No to Execution Tuesdays campaign have repeatedly protested death sentences, while lawyers, families of defendants, and political prisoners have raised concerns about judicial procedures. In October, 14 political prisoners and activists issued a separate statement warning about the possibility of a death sentence against social media activist Amir-Hossein Mousavi. That appeal similarly emphasized the danger of normalizing capital punishment and the use of security charges against individuals engaged in political expression.
These initiatives are not necessarily coordinated, nor do they represent a single political movement. Their significance lies in the emergence of overlapping concerns about the right to life, judicial accountability, and the use of capital punishment during a period of heightened national insecurity.
Iran is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which imposes strict limitations on the use of capital punishment in countries that have not abolished it. Under the interpretation of the UN Human Rights Committee, the death penalty must be restricted to the most serious crimes involving intentional killing and cannot be imposed following proceedings that fail to meet fundamental fair-trial standards. International law also prohibits executions for offenses committed by individuals under the age of 18.
The signatories’ argument goes beyond the legal questions. They suggest that lasting security cannot be achieved solely through punishment and coercion, particularly when public confidence in judicial institutions is already strained. Their position reflects a broader concern that the expansion of executions could deepen mistrust between the state and society at a moment when Iran faces extraordinary political, economic, and military pressures.
For the United States and other international actors, these developments highlight the human rights consequences of a prolonged conflict. Continued military confrontation can trigger a harsher security environment inside Iran and make independent scrutiny of judicial proceedings more difficult. At the same time, the Iranian government retains responsibility for protecting fundamental rights, ensuring fair trials, and complying with its international legal obligations regardless of external threats.
The statement ultimately continues a debate that extends beyond the near-term risks facing prisoners in Iran: whether Iran’s long-term stability is better served by expanding the state’s punitive powers or by strengthening the rule of law, judicial accountability, and public trust.
For these 29 Iranian political and civil society figures, an immediate and unconditional halt to executions is not merely a humanitarian demand. It is a necessary step toward protecting citizens’ rights, reducing social divisions, and establishing a more sustainable foundation for national security.