A Name-Based Reckoning: Documented Fatalities and State Responsibility in Iran’s 1404 Uprising
In the aftermath of Iran’s nationwide uprising of Dey 1404, the question of how many lives were lost has emerged as one of the most contested and consequential dimensions of the crisis. In the weeks following the crackdown, sharply divergent figures circulated across political, media, and official channels. By early Bahman 1404, reported estimates ranged from approximately 3,400 fatalities to claims exceeding 33,000. These sweeping numbers, however, were largely presented as aggregate totals without publicly verifiable, name-based documentation, making independent assessment difficult and leaving the factual record deeply disputed.
Amid this landscape of competing narratives, the Iranian government announced that 3,117 individuals had been killed during the events of 18 and 19 Dey and subsequently published a list containing identifying details, including first name, last name, father’s name, and partial national identification numbers. Initially, 2,986 names were released, with the remaining cases listed as unspecified. In a subsequent update, the number of published names rose to 3,038. The government described this release as part of an effort to increase transparency and assume responsibility in accounting for the events, inviting citizens to report omitted names or procedural irregularities and pledging that a formal review mechanism would examine such submissions. The publication of a name-based official list marked a significant departure from previous protest cycles, in which comparable public disclosure had not occurred.
Within this environment, the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) released its 1,350-page report, “Crimson Winter,” documenting the first fifty days of protests from 7 Dey to 26 Bahman 1404. While HRANA notes that its broader documentation framework records 7,007 fatalities during this period, the report’s most concrete and publicly verifiable contribution lies in the publication of 4,555 named individuals who were killed during the uprising.
These 4,555 names include children, protesters, non-protesting civilians, and members of government or security forces. The importance of this figure is not merely quantitative but evidentiary. Name-based documentation enables cross-referencing, independent scrutiny, and comparative analysis. Unlike abstract totals, identifiable records form a dataset that can be examined, reconciled, and methodologically evaluated.
The difference between HRANA’s 4,555 publicly released names and the government’s 3,117-name list amounts to 1,438 additional identified individuals. This discrepancy represents a substantive divergence between two name-based datasets. When the comparison involves named and identifiable individuals rather than broad numerical estimates, a discrepancy of this magnitude requires a clear explanation of the criteria, sources, and verification standards used in compiling each list, so that the differences can be understood through evidence rather than debate.
Beyond fatality counts, “Crimson Winter” documents the nationwide scope and structural dimensions of the unrest. According to HRANA’s findings, protests occurred in 682 locations, across 203 cities, spanning all 31 provinces of Iran, underscoring the nationwide character of both the demonstrations and the state response. The report further records 55 university protests across 36 campuses, highlighting the central role of students and academic institutions in the movement.
In addition to documented fatalities, HRANA reports 25,846 civilians were injured and 4,884 security personnel were injured. The report records 53,777 documented arrests, including 555 detained children and minors and 147 detained university students. It further documents 369 cases of forced confessions and 11,053 summons notices. These figures broaden the scope of analysis beyond deaths alone, illustrating the wider scale of coercive measures and the societal impact during the fifty-day period under review.
Yet beyond methodology and statistical comparison lies the human dimension. Each name among the 4,555 publicly-documented deaths represents a life ended - a child, a student, a worker, a parent. Each name reflects a family facing grief, uncertainty, and unresolved questions. The shift from abstract totals to identifiable individuals transforms the discussion from numerical scale to lived human loss.
The existence of two independently compiled name-based datasets differing by more than 1,400 individuals makes clarification necessary. At this juncture, the government can be pressed to explain how its list was compiled, what inclusion criteria were applied, and whether it needs to be expanded based upon new, publicly-available data. Clarification regarding definitions of protest-related deaths, temporal scope, geographic coverage, and evidentiary standards would help narrow the gap between records. Greater methodological transparency would contribute to a clearer and more reconciled understanding of the events.
The broader debate over casualty estimates may continue, and figures may evolve as further documentation emerges. At present, however, the most analytically-grounded comparison rests not in headline totals but in the names that have been made public. In contexts where information access remains constrained and narratives sharply diverge, name-based documentation offers a stable foundation for accountability, historical record, and acknowledgment of human loss.
Ultimately, the state bears responsibility for the deaths that it inflicted. Ensuring that all documented deaths are accounted for, clearly classified, and transparently reviewed is not merely a matter of statistical reconciliation. It is a matter of institutional responsibility, public trust, and respect for the dignity of those who lost their lives. A credible process of clarification and reconciliation would strengthen the integrity of the public record and help honor the memory of the victims of the 1404 uprising.