Kaveh Arabian, Ali Daneshparvar and Ismail Ramzanpour, three of the detainees of the 2025-2026 protests in Yazd, were sentenced to execution by the verdict of Branch One of the Revolutionary Court on the charge of “moharebeh”. Reports indicate deprivation of their chosen lawyer, long-term detentions in the IRGC intelligence detention center and extraction of confessions under pressure.
Iran Human Rights Society, Tuesday 9 June 2026 – Issuing execution verdicts for protesters arrested during nationwide protests continues. In the latest case, Kaveh Arabian, Ali Daneshparvar and Ismail Ramzanpour, three citizens arrested in connection with the 2025-2026 protests in Yazd, have been sentenced to execution by Branch One of the Revolutionary Court of this city on the charge of “moharebeh”. These verdicts have been issued while all three defendants have been held for months in the IRGC intelligence detention center and have been deprived of access to their chosen lawyer.
How were Kaveh Arabian, Ali Daneshparvar and Ismail Ramzanpour arrested?
Based on published information, Kaveh Arabian, 35 years old and father of one child, was arrested on 11 January 2026. He was arrested in the house of one of his relatives and then transferred to the IRGC intelligence detention center. He was under interrogation for 68 days and according to received reports, he had been put under pressure to confess against himself.
Ali Daneshparvar, 33 years old, was also arrested on 8 January 2026 and spent about three months in the IRGC intelligence detention center. Judicial authorities have charged him with the murder of one of the security forces and action against the country’s security.
Ismail Ramzanpour was also arrested on 9 January 2026. Previously, the news of Ismail Ramzanpour’s arrest and concerns about his situation had been published by human rights sources. Now reports show that he, like the other defendants in this case, has been under interrogation for months and has finally faced an execution verdict.
What do reports say about torture and forced confessions?
Sources close to Ismail Ramzanpour’s family have stated that he was subjected to torture and severe pressures during the detention period to confess against himself. His family, while denying the raised charges, have emphasized that Ismail had no role in the actions attributed to him and that the case against him has been formed based on fabricated charges.
Regarding Kaveh Arabian, it has also been reported that interrogators during weeks of detention tried to force him to accept the charges. Human rights institutions have repeatedly warned that confessions extracted in detention and under pressure lack legal validity and should not be the basis for issuing heavy verdicts, especially the death penalty.
Deprivation of chosen lawyer; Clear violation of the right to defense
One of the most important concerns raised in this case is the deprivation of all three defendants from access to their chosen lawyer. Based on available information, Kaveh Arabian, Ali Daneshparvar and Ismail Ramzanpour did not have the possibility of using their trusted lawyer in the interrogation and preliminary investigation stages.
Although Article 48 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has recognized the right to have a lawyer for defendants, the added note to this article in so-called security cases forces defendants to use a limited list of lawyers approved by the government. Human rights activists consider this restriction to be contrary to the principles of fair trial and effective defense.
What legal flaws does the process of arrest, interrogation and trial face?
The case of these three political prisoners is an example of a trend that is observed in many security and political cases. Arrest by security institutions, long-term detention in detention centers affiliated with IRGC intelligence, deprivation of chosen lawyer, pressure to extract confessions and finally issuing heavy verdicts based on general and security charges are among the cases that are contrary to recognized principles of fair trial.
According to international standards, every defendant must enjoy the right to immediate access to an independent lawyer, the right to silence, the right to be informed of the details of the charges and the right to an independent and impartial court. In such cases, failure to observe these rights puts the legitimacy of the trial process and the issued verdicts in serious doubt.
With the issuance of the execution verdict for Kaveh Arabian, Ali Daneshparvar and Ismail Ramzanpour, concerns about the fate of these three prisoners have increased. They are now being held in Yazd Central Prison and families and human rights activists demand the halt of the execution of the verdicts and retrial of the case within the framework of a fair trial.
Issuing execution verdicts for detainees of protests in recent years has repeatedly faced reactions from human rights institutions. These institutions have warned that using the death penalty in cases that are accompanied by serious legal ambiguities can lead to irreparable violation of the right to life.
Human rights violations; From security arrest to issuing execution verdict
The case of Kaveh Arabian, Ali Daneshparvar and Ismail Ramzanpour includes a set of human rights concerns; from long-term detentions and security interrogations to deprivation of chosen lawyer and issuing execution verdicts based on disputed charges.
Violated Articles:
Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: The right to life; issuing an execution verdict after a disputed process threatens this fundamental right.
Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Prohibition of torture and inhuman treatments; reports related to pressure to extract forced confessions conflict with this principle.
Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Prohibition of arbitrary arrest; long-term detention in security detention centers has created serious concerns.
Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: The right to an independent and impartial court; handling security cases in non-transparent conditions is contrary to this principle.
Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: The right to access to chosen lawyer and effective defense; deprivation of defendants from chosen lawyer is considered a clear violation of this right.
See also the below articles:
- Arrest of Borujen Psychologist Ahmad Seyedabdollahi Raises Concerns
- Alireza Peyghambari Sentenced to Execution Despite Weak Evidence
Follow Iran Human Rights Society on social networks:
Telegram /Twitter /Instagram / YouTube / Facebook
Join Iran Human Rights Society on Twitter
