Judiciary Announces Execution of Erfan Kiani’s Sentence; No Details Published on Trial Process, Access to Lawyer, or Judicial Proceedings
Iran Human Rights Society, Saturday 25 April 2026 – Governmental media have reported the execution of the death sentence of Erfan Kiani in Isfahan; an individual accused by the judicial apparatus of participating in the December 2025 protests and committing violent acts. However, no transparent information has been published about the court process, the manner of handling the case, the accused’s access to a lawyer, and the details of the trial stages, and this very issue has increased concerns about haste in issuing and executing death sentences.
Execution of Erfan Kiani in the Shadow of Judicial Ambiguity
According to official sources, Erfan Kiani was executed this morning after the sentence was confirmed by the Supreme Court. Governmental media have introduced him as one of the “main elements of the riots” and have raised accusations against him including destruction of public property, carrying cold weapons, and setting fires. However, no independent information has been published about the details of the case, the evidence proving the accusations, the manner of judicial proceedings, and the quality of the trial. It is also not clear whether this accused enjoyed the right to access a chosen lawyer and effective defense during the proceedings or not.
Ambiguity in the Court File and Trial Process
While official media have spoken of “following the legal procedure,” no report has been provided about the time of holding court sessions, the number of sessions, the possibility of defense, and the manner of examining the evidence. The lack of transparency in the trial process, especially in cases accompanied by the death penalty, creates serious questions about observance of the principles of fair trial. In such cases, merely publishing the claims of the judicial apparatus without providing independent documentation eliminates the possibility of evaluating the correctness of the proceedings.
Increasing Executions in the Shadow of an Intimidation Policy
The execution of Erfan Kiani’s sentence takes place in conditions where, in recent months, the trend of issuing and executing death sentences for those arrested in protests and defendants in security cases has increased. Observers believe that the judiciary, by intensifying executions, is trying to use the death penalty as a tool for public intimidation; an approach whose goal is evaluated as increasing the cost of protest and preventing the formation of widespread protests in the future.
Hasty Courts; Practical Implementation of “Field Courts”
The increase in the speed of handling security cases has intensified after the statements of the head of the judiciary about the necessity of extraordinary acceleration in cases related to “elements accompanying the enemy.” Critics consider this trend as an example of the formation of hasty courts outside conventional judicial standards; courts which, according to them, operate more in the direction of quick implementation of security sentences rather than being based on precise and impartial examination. In such an atmosphere, concerns about the reduction of judicial precision and the increase in the possibility of issuing sentences based on confessions under pressure or security case-building have increased.
Similar Cases and Continuation of the Security Pattern
Simultaneously with the announcement of Erfan Kiani’s execution, official media have reported the issuance of sentences for 15 other people in cases related to “cooperation with the enemy” in Isfahan. This simultaneity shows that judicial confrontations in security cases are continuing extensively and there is a possibility of issuing heavier sentences in similar cases as well.
Reactions and Concerns Regarding the Intensification of Punishments
The intensification of the use of the death penalty in cases related to protests and security accusations has caused an increase in concerns about the judicial process in the country. Critics warn that using the death penalty in an atmosphere where the trial process is not transparent and the details of the cases are not published increases the danger of serious violation of the rights of the accused.
Violation of Fair Trial in Cases Leading to Execution
The execution of death sentences in conditions of lack of transparency about the trial process conflicts with the fundamental principles of fair trial.
Violated Articles:
- Violation of the Right to Fair Trial – Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Lack of transparency about the trial process and access to a lawyer distorts judicial justice.
- Violation of the Presumption of Innocence – Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Presenting definitive accusations by governmental media without providing independent documentation violates the presumption of innocence.
- Violation of the Right to Life – Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Executing the death penalty in cases lacking judicial transparency puts the fundamental right to life at risk.
- Violation of the Prohibition of Arbitrary Punishment – Article 5 and Fundamental Principles of International Trial: Issuing and executing death sentences in hasty processes increases the danger of arbitrary punishment.
See also the below articles:
- Transfer of Mehdi Vafaei Sani to Ghezel Hesar;
- Miryousef Yunesi Transferred to Qezl-e-Hsar Prison; Intensification of Pressure on Political Prisoners in the Shadow of War
Follow Iran Human Rights Society on social networks:
Telegram /Twitter /Instagram / YouTube / Facebook
Join Iran Human Rights Society on Twitter
