Death Sentences in the Shadow of Closed Courts; From ‘Moharebeh’ to Exclusion of Independent Lawyers

The issuance of death sentences in the shadow of closed courts represents a narrative of “moharebeh” (waging war against God) and the deprivation of defendants of their chosen lawyers by the Islamic Republic.

Continuing the wave of heavy sentences for those arrested during December 2024 protests, names such as “Mohammad Abbasi,” a protester arrested in Mallard; “Mobin Baziyar” from Rasht who is deaf; “Mohammad Amin Biglari,” 19, from Karaj; “Shervin Baqerian,” 18, from Isfahan; “Ehsan Hoseini Pour,” 19, from Pakdasht; “Matin Mohammadi”; “Erfan Amiri,” who was not present at the protest sites at all but had charges fabricated against him; “Saman, Arman, and Rahman Kianiafa,” three brothers from Shahin Shahr, Isfahan; “Shayan Shakibai,” 29, from Kerman, whose forced confessions were broadcast on IRIB Channel 2 by “Ameneh Alsadat Zobihpour”; “Najmeh Amini,” 23, from Mashhad; “Mastoure Narimani,” for sending posts and materials to foreign media; “Meysam Hoseini,” 25, from Sari; “Mohammad Hossein Shekari,” 16; “Arin Mofaghi,” 17, from Borujerd, have been tied to death sentences on charges of “moharebeh.” These sentences face serious criticism not only due to the charge of “moharebeh,” but also because of the trial process and obstruction of the entry of family-chosen lawyers.

Among these, there are many other Iranian children whose names have not been disclosed due to security concerns and pressure and threats against families, and who are waiting in secret for death sentences on charges of moharebeh or await the execution of their sentences. Many of these individuals are even below the age of majority and are considered children, yet they face flagrant and widespread human rights violations by the Islamic Republic; children charged with moharebeh and awaiting execution.

“Ali Sharifzadeh Ardakani,” a lawyer, has announced that Branch 15 of the Revolutionary Court, headed by Judge Selavatipour, sentenced Mohammad Abbasi to death and his daughter Fatima Abbasi to 25 years in prison. The case was referred to Branch 39 of the Supreme Court of Justice after an appeal, but according to the lawyer, this branch has refused to accept new lawyers at the appellate stage.

Sharifzadeh Ardakani clarified: “I was told the case is about to be decided and there is no possibility of accepting representation.” He also deemed the invocation of Note to Article 48 of the Criminal Procedure Code to obstruct the entry of chosen lawyers as incorrect, emphasizing that this restriction applies solely to the preliminary investigation stage in security crimes, not to proceedings in the Supreme Court of Justice.

Mohammad Abbasi’s primary charge is labeled as “moharebeh”; a religious term in the laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran that carries a death sentence and is interpreted as “waging war against God.” However, the lawyer in this case has reminded that in a matter involving the killing of one person, the civil rights aspect and the charge of murder should first be examined, not a charge of a divine nature such as moharebeh.

According to official reports, this case relates to the death of “Shahin Dehghani Kakavandi” during December protests at Argavan Square in Mallard. Media affiliated with the judiciary identified Mohammad Abbasi as the primary defendant and claimed that this police officer died from blows of a cold weapon. In the published indictment, Abbasi, in addition to the charge of murder, was also charged with cooperation with Israel, America, and hostile groups; charges that have been repeatedly leveled against protesters in recent years and, according to observers, carry significant political weight.

One of the controversial aspects of this case is Branch 39 of the Supreme Court’s refusal to accept family-chosen lawyers at the appellate stage. According to Sharifzadeh Ardakani, his colleague, upon attempting to declare representation, was told that there is no possibility of entering the case. He himself, after waiting approximately one hour, was told that due to the approaching time of issuing the verdict, accepting representation is not possible.

This is while the Abbasi family has spoken of multiple suspicions in the case, but due to lack of access by new lawyers to the case file contents, independent review has not been possible. In the view of critics, such a process challenges the principle of fair trial and the right to a chosen lawyer.

Mohammad Abbasi’s case does not occur in a vacuum. In recent years, a number of protesters have been sentenced to death on charges of “moharebeh” or “corruption on earth,” and some have been executed; including Mohsen Shekari and Majid Reza Rahnavard, whose sentences were carried out in previous years and sparked waves of international reactions. Death sentences were also issued for individuals such as Tomaj Salehi (which was later overturned) and several other protesters, and due to public pressure and human rights organizations, some of these were overturned or suspended in the Supreme Court.

In the Mallard case, the victim’s family has demanded the execution of the death sentence, and the legal representative of Faraja in court has requested “the most severe punishment” and the execution of the sentence at the location where this officer was killed. However, on the other hand, the Abbasi family says that without free and complete access to a chosen lawyer and thorough examination of evidence, the execution of such a sentence could result in irreparable injustice.

In addition to these individuals, one can also refer to doctors and nurses who, as a result of providing medical services to injured protesters, have been arrested and charged with moharebeh. Among them, the name “Alireza Golchini,” a surgeon from Qazvin, and “Mohammad Reza Abdollahpour,” 28, from Tehran, a healthcare worker, stands out among those sentenced to death, an individual who, due to performing his professional and humanitarian duty and treating injured protesters, has been sentenced to death by the Islamic Republic and awaits its execution.

International human rights organizations have repeatedly warned that the widespread use of labels such as “moharebeh” against protesters is a tool for political suppression. These organizations emphasize that the trial process in many of these cases has been accompanied by limited access to lawyers, forced confessions, and expedited trials.

From the perspective of independent observers, what makes this case emblematic of concern is not only the severity of the verdict, but the pattern of gradual elimination of the right to defense; a process that, if institutionalized, exposes every political or ideological defendant to a verdict whose path has been predetermined.

For the Christian community and defenders of freedom of conscience, these developments are not merely a judicial news story, but a sign of the expansion of a space in which security labels and religious charges can lead to the issuance of death sentences. In such circumstances, the fundamental question is: “Can justice, behind closed doors and without independent legal representation, mean anything other than confirmation of a pre-written verdict?”