As Iran continues to carry out executions linked to recent protest movements and national security cases, a growing coalition of political parties, civil society activists, prisoners, lawyers, and human rights advocates has spoken out against the use of capital punishment and is calling for greater judicial transparency and restraint. As previously reported, Iranian authorities have accelerated the implementation of death sentences against individuals accused of involvement in protest activity, espionage, or collaboration with foreign actors. Overall, human rights organizations estimate that at least 1,500 executions were carried out in Iran during the previous year, with dozens of individuals still at risk of execution in politically-sensitive cases. Concerns have intensified due to allegations of torture, coerced confessions, limited access to legal counsel, and the rapid pace of judicial proceedings.
Yet, public criticism from within Iran’s own political establishment is increasing. On June 3, the reformist Islamic Iran Nation Party (Ettehad Mellat) issued a strongly worded statement condemning the continuation of executions and urging Iranian authorities to respond to what it described as the “logical, moral, religious, and national” demands of concerned citizens seeking a halt to irreversible death sentences.
The party argued that Iran currently faces a highly sensitive political environment marked by ongoing security concerns, regional tensions, and diplomatic engagement with the United States. Under such circumstances, the statement asserted, national unity, public confidence and social cohesion should be strengthened rather than undermined through controversial executions and other punitive measures.
According to the statement, party officials had previously written to President Masoud Pezeshkian and Judiciary Chief Gholam-Hossein Mohseni Ejei, urging authorities to exercise maximum caution in capital cases and ensure that defendants receive fundamental fair-trial protections. These include access to independently chosen legal counsel, public trials, transparent presentation of evidence and meaningful opportunities for judicial review before irreversible sentences are carried out.
The statement warned that continued executions risk deepening social divisions, increasing public distrust, and damaging Iran’s international standing. It also expressed concern regarding other measures viewed by critics as legally questionable, including widespread property seizures and other punitive actions.
Opposition to executions has also continued from inside Iran’s prisons through the long-running “No to Executions Tuesdays” campaign. In its latest statement, the campaign reported that prisoners in 56 prisons across Iran participated in coordinated hunger strikes for the 122nd consecutive week in protest against the death penalty. Participants called on international human rights organizations and global public opinion to take meaningful action to stop what they described as the ongoing tragedy of executions in Iran.
The campaign also highlighted the role of women prisoners in anti-execution protests. According to campaign organizers, several women detained in Evin Prison and other facilities have faced disciplinary measures, including restrictions on family visits and telephone calls, because of their participation in demonstrations against executions. Activists involved in the campaign stated that women prisoners have remained among the most vocal advocates for the right to life and the abolition of capital punishment, despite increasing pressure from prison authorities.
The growing criticism reflects a broader trend within Iranian society. Lawyers, families of death-row prisoners, civil society activists, and former political prisoners have increasingly questioned the fairness of judicial proceedings in capital cases. In several recent executions, defendants and their families publicly disputed the evidence presented against them and alleged that confessions had been obtained through coercion or torture. Human rights advocates have argued that such concerns require independent review and greater judicial transparency before irreversible punishments are carried out.
The emergence of opposition from multiple sectors - including reformist political parties, prisoners’ rights campaigns, civil society activists, lawyers, and international human rights organizations - suggests that criticism of Iran’s execution policies is becoming broader and more organized. While Iranian authorities continue to defend executions as necessary for national security and public order, critics argue that the use of capital punishment in politically sensitive cases, particularly where serious questions remain regarding due process and evidentiary standards, risks undermining public trust, weakening social cohesion and further isolating Iran internationally.