Ashkan Maleki and Mehrdad Mohammadi-Nia in Danger of Execution

With the publication of reports about the confirmation of the death sentences of Ashkan Maleki and Mehrdad Mohammadi-Nia, two detainees of the nationwide protests of December 2025 – January 2026, concerns about the sudden implementation of these sentences have increased. Human rights activists have considered the process of handling this case as lacking fair trial standards and have warned about the ambiguities present in the interrogation, trial, and sentencing process.

Iran Human Rights Society, Sunday 31 May 2026 – Ashkan Maleki and Mehrdad Mohammadi-Nia, two political prisoners arrested during the nationwide protests of December 2025 – January 2026, are facing a serious danger of the implementation of the death sentence. Published reports indicate that the issued death sentences against these two prisoners have been confirmed and there is a possibility of their implementation in the coming days. This case, which is known as the “Nasr Neighborhood Case,” has three defendants and Arman Ma’refati is also facing similar dangers as the third defendant of the case. At the same time, numerous ambiguities about the trial process, the method of evidence collection, the quality of the defendants’ access to a lawyer, and the extensive reliance of the case on confessions have increased human rights concerns.

What Is the “Nasr Neighborhood Case” and Why Is It Important?

The case of Ashkan Maleki, Mehrdad Mohammadi-Nia, and Arman Ma’refati goes back to incidents that occurred after the nationwide protests of December 2025 – January 2026. These three individuals have been accused of having a role in the “arson and destruction of Jafari Mosque and Imam Hadi Seminary” in Nasr Neighborhood in Tehran.

The protests of December 2025 – January 2026 were one of the most extensive waves of public discontent in recent years, which faced severe suppression by security forces. After these protests, a large number of citizens were arrested and faced heavy security cases.

The Nasr Neighborhood case was also formed in this context and became one of the important security cases; a case that has now placed the lives of its defendants in serious danger.

What Charges Have Been Brought Against Ashkan Maleki and Mehrdad Mohammadi-Nia?

According to the published report, Ashkan Maleki, Mehrdad Mohammadi-Nia, and Arman Ma’refati have been tried on charges including acting against national security, destruction of public property, and participation in the arson of Jafari Mosque and Imam Hadi Seminary.

The representative of the prosecutor in the court session raised charges such as operational action for “hostile states and groups,” creating fear and terror in society and the community, and collusion against the internal security of the country against them.

During the proceedings, the judge of the case, citing Article 280 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, expanded the scope of the charges of one of the defendants and added the issue of cooperation with the Zionist regime and the United States of America to the case as well.

Also, in the indictment, it is claimed that the damage caused to Jafari Mosque and Imam Hadi Seminary is about 50 billion Tomans.

What Have Been the Ambiguities in the Trial and Proceedings Process?

One of the most important concerns raised about this case is the numerous ambiguities in the trial process and the method of judicial handling.

In the official published report, no precise information has been provided about the method of evidence collection, the manner of investigations, the duration of detention before trial, and the quality of the defendants’ access to a lawyer.

Although the report refers to the presence of lawyers, it is not clear whether these lawyers were chosen or appointed, and it is also not clear at what stage of the case the defendants were given the possibility of access to them.

Human rights activists believe that in cases where punishments such as execution are raised, full compliance with fair trial standards is necessary, and any ambiguity in the proceedings process can call into question the validity of the issued sentences.

What Has Been the Role of Forced Confessions in Issuing Sentences?

According to the published report, a significant part of the indictment has been prepared based on the admissions and confessions of the defendants.

In the court session, images from the night of the incident were broadcast, but the representative of the prosecutor has built a significant part of his argument on statements attributed to the defendants.

However, the official report provides no explanation about the conditions of obtaining these forced confessions. It is also not clear whether the defendants had access to a lawyer during the interrogation or not.

The lack of transparency about the interrogation process and the method of obtaining confessions has created serious concerns about the possibility of applying pressure, coercion, or the use of illegal methods to obtain admissions.

Why Have Concerns About the Implementation of the Death Sentence Increased?

In recent days, reports about the confirmation of the death sentences have been published, and this very issue has increased concerns.

Human rights activists have warned that given the history of sudden implementation of death sentences in political and security cases in Iran, there is a danger of quick and without prior notice implementation of these sentences.

In such circumstances, Ashkan Maleki and Mehrdad Mohammadi-Nia are facing the danger of losing their lives more than ever.

Families and human rights institutions have demanded the stopping of the implementation of the sentences, an independent review of the case, and re-handling of the existing ambiguities in the trial process.

Human Rights Violations in the Case of Ashkan Maleki and Mehrdad Mohammadi-Nia; Ambiguity in Proceedings and Threat to the Right to Life

The case of Ashkan Maleki and Mehrdad Mohammadi-Nia is accompanied by serious concerns about compliance with the principles of fair trial, judicial process transparency, and the right to life of the defendants from a human rights perspective. Human rights institutions emphasize that in cases leading to the death penalty, all legal standards must be fully observed.

Violated Articles

Violation of the Right to a Fair Trial – Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:The lack of transparent information about the method of evidence collection, the proceedings process, and the quality of the defendants’ access to a lawyer has created serious concerns about compliance with fair trial.
Violation of the Right to Access to a Lawyer – Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:The unclear status of the case lawyers and the time of the defendants’ access to them is among the important ambiguities in this case.
Concern About Forced Confessions – Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:The extensive reliance of the indictment on the defendants’ admissions, in circumstances where no information about the method of obtaining these confessions has been published, increases concern about the possibility of pressure or coercion.
Violation of the Principle of Judicial Transparency – Fundamental Principles of Fair Trial:The non-publication of sufficient details about the investigations and documents of the case has limited the possibility of independent evaluation of the trial process.
Violation of the Right to Life – Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:The confirmation of death sentences in a case that is accompanied by numerous legal and judicial ambiguities places the fundamental right to life under serious threat.

See also the below articles:

Follow Iran Human Rights Society on social networks:
Telegram /Twitter /Instagram / YouTube / Facebook

Join Iran Human Rights Society on Twitter