Execution of Hamidreza Sabet Esmaeilpour After Closed and Rushed Trial

Iran executed Hamidreza Sabet Esmaeilpour for alleged espionage for Israel after a closed, rushed trial. The case raises serious concerns about fair trial rights, transparency, and human rights violations in security-related death sentences.

Iran Human Rights Society, Wednesday, January 28, 2026 – The judiciary-affiliated Mizan News Agency has reported the execution of the death sentence of Hamidreza Sabet Esmaeilpour. According to the report from this agency, the death sentence was carried out at dawn on Wednesday, January 28, 2026. This sentence was issued and executed following a closed trial and confirmation by the Supreme Court.

The Judiciary’s Media Center announced the charge against this prisoner as “espionage for Israel” and claimed that he had established contact via cyberspace with an individual introduced as a Mossad officer and engaged in intelligence cooperation. According to these claims, his missions included photographing classified documents and relocating vehicles connected to the concealment of explosive materials.

Announced Charges and Allegation of Cooperation with the Enemy’s Intelligence Service

According to the Judiciary’s statement, Hamidreza Sabet Esmaeilpour was arrested on April 29, 2025. The statement claims that after his arrest, his communications with the introduced individual continued, and under intelligence supervision, it led to the discovery and neutralization of several alleged operations.

In the Judiciary’s statement, it is stated that after the case was formed and judicial proceedings were completed, citing the report of the special law enforcement officer, security documents, and the defendant’s statements, the court sentenced him to death on charges of “espionage,” “cooperation with the Israeli regime,” and “acting against national security,” along with the confiscation of assets obtained through illicit means. This sentence was ultimately confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Independent sources and human rights observers have so far had no access to further details about the raised claims, as the trial process and hearings were conducted in closed sessions, and there is no possibility of reviewing or accessing defense documents or independent reports on the proceedings.

Closed Trial and Lack of Judicial Transparency

One of the prominent points in this case is the holding of the trial in a closed manner. While in many legal systems, especially in security cases and sensitive accusations, holding public trials and allowing media access to the proceedings and evidence is one of the principles of due process, in this case, complete information about the proceedings and defenses presented in the court sessions has not been published, and the public remains uninformed about its details.

This type of non-transparent adjudication has drawn criticism from human rights organizations, as it limits or makes impossible the independent verification of the accuracy of security claims and evidence presented by judicial authorities.

Legal Context and International Reactions

The execution of death sentences in such cases usually provokes widespread international reactions, especially when security charges are involved and the trial process is held confidentially. Human rights organizations have repeatedly emphasized that transparency in the trial process and access to fair defense are fundamental principles of criminal justice, and their absence can lead to violations of the defendant’s basic rights.

In cases related to executions, the international community is increasingly focusing on the necessity of adhering to human rights standards in the proceedings and preventing politically motivated or charge-based executions.

Violation of Transparency, Right to Fair Trial, and Ruthless Execution of the Death Penalty

The execution of the death sentence without a public and transparent trial, and without access to effective defense, conflicts with the fundamental principles of criminal justice and human rights.

Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Right to Life

Executing the death penalty in cases where the interpretation of charges and the trial process is ambiguous violates the right to life, which must be protected by the highest standards of justice.

Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Right to Fair Trial

Holding a closed and confidential trial, without public access and independent scrutiny, violates the principle of a fair trial.

Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Prohibition of Arbitrary Detention

Using vague security charges without publicly presenting provable reasons and evidence can lead to arbitrary detention and punishments.

Legal Concerns in the Execution of the Death Penalty

The execution of the death sentence of Hamidreza Sabet Esmaeilpour, while his trial was held in closed sessions, once again highlights concerns about adherence to human rights principles and judicial justice. In cases involving security charges, transparency in the trial process and the possibility of independent review are of double importance—something that has not been provided in this case so far.

Despite the claims of the judicial authorities, execution remains one of the most controversial punishment tools, criticized in interaction with international human rights standards, and observers emphasize the need for thorough scrutiny.

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