Death Sentences for Protesters; Heavy Sentences Amid Legal Ambiguities and Human Rights Criticism
The issuance of death sentences for protesters in recent verdicts has widened shadows of ambiguity over judicial proceedings and intensified human rights criticism.
The issuance of death sentences and lengthy prison terms for several detainees from the December 2025 protests has once again brought discussions about how judicial proceedings handle cases related to public protests into the spotlight; verdicts that, according to human rights organizations, are accompanied by serious ambiguities in the judicial process and proportionality of punishment.
According to published reports, Branch 26 of Tehran’s Revolutionary Court has sentenced four of these detained protesters to death and issued prison sentences for other defendants.
According to released information, “Mohammad Reza Majidi-Asl,” “Bita Hamati,” “Behrouz Zamani-Nejad,” and “Kourosh Zamani-Nejad” have been sentenced to death for the charge of “operational action for a hostile foreign state and hostile groups.” These individuals have also each been sentenced to five years imprisonment for the charge of “assembly and conspiracy against national security,” and confiscation of all their assets has been considered as supplementary punishment.
In the same case, “Amir Hamati,” another defendant, has been sentenced to five years imprisonment for the charge of “assembly and conspiracy against national security” and eight months imprisonment for “propaganda activity against the system.”
An informed source stated on this matter: “Mohammad Reza Majidi-Asl and Bita Hamati are a married couple residing in Tehran, and Amir Hamati is also considered to be a relative of these two. Additionally, Kourosh Zamani-Nejad and Behrouz Zamani-Nejad were residing in the same residential building, and their arrest took place simultaneously.”
In the text of the verdict in question, examples such as “participation in protest gatherings on December 18 and 19, 2025,” “chanting protest slogans,” “throwing objects including bottles, cement blocks, and flammable materials from the roofs of buildings,” and “destruction of public property” are mentioned as evidence of accusations.
Additionally, in another section of the verdict, references are made to matters such as “use of explosive materials and unidentified weapons,” “harm to forces stationed at the location,” and “sending content aimed at weakening national security,” but no detailed and differentiated breakdown has been provided regarding how these charges are attributed to each defendant; an issue that, according to legal experts, constitutes one of the challenging aspects of this case.
According to released information, these defendants were under pressure during interrogation, and this very issue has raised concerns about the possibility of forced confessions.
Meanwhile, the absence of clear information regarding the defendants’ access to counsel of their choice, details of court sessions, and their conditions of detention has added to existing ambiguities.
Legal experts emphasize that in cases with severe sentences, particularly death sentences, full compliance with principles of fair trial and transparency in presenting evidence is a fundamental requirement.
In recent years, international human rights organizations have repeatedly warned against the issuance of death sentences in cases related to protests. According to international standards, death penalty can only be applied in cases of “most serious crimes” and with presentation of conclusive and clear evidence.
However, the combination of charges such as “assembly and conspiracy” or “propaganda activity” with death sentences is among matters that have consistently been criticized and raised questions about proportionality between crime and punishment.
These sentences have been issued while the December 2025 protests are considered one of the most widespread waves of discontent in recent years. These protests initially began with a strike by merchants and bazaar vendors in Tehran and rapidly expanded with the participation of students and other social classes.
Reports indicate that during the security forces’ response to these protests, many people were killed and wounded, and tens of thousands were also arrested or summoned.
The issuance of recent sentences has once again raised the question of whether the proceedings in cases related to protests comply with standards of fair trial or not.
Ambiguity in the details of charges, reports of pressure during interrogations, and lack of transparency in the judicial process are among the axes that remain subject to discussion and criticism; issues that, alongside the severity of the sentences, have doubled the sensitivity of this case.
