Execution of Ali Fahim in a Highly Ambiguous Case; Contradictory Narratives of the Basij Base Arson

Execution of Ali Fahim, One of the Detainees of the 2026 Protests, Carried Out While the Basij Base Arson Case Was Accompanied by Serious Ambiguities, Forced Confessions, and Contradictory Narratives

Iran Human Rights Society, Monday, 6 April 2026 – This morning, political prisoner Ali Fahim, one of the detainees of the nationwide 2026 protests, was executed; an execution that took place as part of the implementation of death sentences for the defendants in the case of the arson of a Basij base in eastern Tehran. This is while reports and videos published from this incident present narratives different from the official narrative, and this very issue has created serious ambiguities about the judicial process and the issuance of the death sentence for the defendants in this case.

Transfer to Solitary Confinement; an Indication of the Imminent Execution

At dawn on Tuesday, 1 April 2026, Ali Fahim along with several other political prisoners including Mohammad Amin Biglari, Shahin Vahedparast, Abolfazl Salehi Siavashani, and Amir Hossein Hatami were transferred to solitary cells in Ward 3 of Section 35 of Qezelhesar Prison in Karaj. This transfer took place in conditions where, in the days prior, several other political prisoners had been executed after being transferred to solitary confinement.

Based on numerous reports, the transfer of death-row prisoners to solitary confinement is usually considered one of the stages prior to the execution of the sentence. This very issue had increased the concern of the families of these prisoners. Concerns increased when, shortly after these transfers, death sentences for some of these prisoners were carried out.

In the following days, Mohammad Amin Biglari and Shahin Vahedparast were executed on Sunday, 5 April 2026, and Amir Hossein Hatami on 2 April 2026, and finally Ali Fahim was also executed.

Charge of Arson of the Basij Base and Issuance of Death Sentence

The main charge against these prisoners has been stated as “setting fire to the Basij base and seizing weapons and military equipment.” This charge goes back to the incident of the arson of Basij Base 185 in eastern Tehran on the evening of 8 January 2026. After this incident, seven people were arrested in connection with it, and a death sentence was issued for all of them on the charge of “moharebeh.”

The issuance of a death sentence for all defendants in one case, especially in a case accompanied by numerous ambiguities, from the very beginning brought about many legal reactions and criticisms. Some legal sources announced that in cases with heavy punishments such as execution, precise, independent, and transparent examination must be carried out and all evidence must be fully reviewed.

Different Narratives of the Arson Incident

Despite the official narrative about setting fire to the Basij base, the films that have been published from this incident and have been examined by the lawyers of the case present a different narrative of the event. In these films, it is seen that individuals in civilian clothing push people into the building, close the door, and after that the building catches fire.

In these images, the voices of people are heard shouting “Don’t push,” and also a woman is seen shouting “Open the door.” The people who had been pushed into the building managed to save themselves by breaking the windows from the upper floor, but after the fire was controlled by the firefighters, those same individuals were immediately arrested.

These narratives have caused serious ambiguities to be raised about the manner of the occurrence of the incident and the role of different individuals in this arson. Some legal sources have emphasized that the precise examination of these films and the role of the individuals present at the scene has never been transparently reviewed in the court.

Forced Confessions and Disputed Documents

Based on the published reports, the main reliance of the case has been on the confessions of the defendants. In many similar cases, the defendants have announced that these confessions were obtained under pressure and in conditions of prolonged interrogation.

Legal sources say that in cases where the death penalty is at issue, confession alone cannot be the basis for issuing a sentence and independent and documented evidence must exist. However, in this case as well, it has been said that a significant part of the case was prepared based on confessions and reports of security institutions.

This very issue has caused many legal observers to describe this case as a highly ambiguous case; a case in which the manner of the occurrence of the incident, the role of the defendants, and the judicial process face serious questions.

Executions in a Short Time Interval

The execution of Ali Fahim took place while, in a short time interval, several other prisoners in this case were also executed. The carrying out of death sentences in a short time interval, especially in a case whose ambiguities are still raised, has increased concerns about the judicial process.

The families of these prisoners had repeatedly announced that they demanded a re-examination of the case and the suspension of the execution of the sentences until the ambiguities are clarified, but these requests were not heeded.

Ambiguities That Were Never Answered

The case of the arson of the Basij base was accompanied by many questions from the beginning; including exactly how the fire started, who was present at the location, what the role of the individuals in civilian clothing was, and why the people who were trapped inside the building were arrested after being rescued.

Some jurists believe that in cases where a death sentence is issued, all ambiguities must be resolved and no unanswered question should remain, because the death sentence is irreversible. However, in this case, many questions remained unanswered.

Human Rights Violations in the Issuance of the Death Sentence for Ali Fahim

The issuance of a death sentence in a case that was carried out based on forced confessions and without transparent examination of all evidence can be considered a violation of the principles of fair trial and the fundamental rights of the defendants. Some of the violated articles are as follows:

Violation of the Right to Life – Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: The issuance and execution of a death sentence in a case that has been accompanied by serious ambiguities, forced confessions, and lack of clear evidence is considered an example of threatening and depriving the right to life.
Violation of the Prohibition of Torture – Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Reports about obtaining confessions under pressure and long-term detention in solitary confinement can be considered an example of inhuman treatment and torture to obtain confessions.
Violation of Liberty and Personal Security – Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: The arrest of the defendants after the incident without transparency in the arrest and detention process can be considered an example of arbitrary arrest.
Violation of the Right to Fair Trial – Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: In cases where the death penalty is issued, the defendants must enjoy the right to full defense, access to a lawyer, and independent examination of evidence; while reports indicate the lack of a fair trial.
Violation of the Principle of Innocence – Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: In cases with the death penalty, the principle of innocence and proof of guilt without doubt must be observed; the existence of ambiguity in the case shows that this principle has not been fully observed.

The execution of Ali Fahim, along with the execution of the other defendants in the case of the arson of the Basij base, took place while this case is still accompanied by serious ambiguities. Different narratives of the incident, reliance on confessions, and lack of transparency in the judicial process have caused this case to become one of the controversial cases.

In cases where a death sentence is issued, transparency, fair trial, and precise examination of evidence have vital importance, because such a sentence is irreversible. However, in this case, many of the ambiguities were never fully clarified.

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