Manoochehr Fallah Faces Imminent Execution Risk as Supreme Court Reaffirms Death Sentence

Iran’s Supreme Court has once again upheld the death sentence of Manoochehr Fallah, a political prisoner held in Lakan Prison in Rasht, and his case has been referred to the criminal enforcement unit for execution. Human rights organizations warn that this transfer has increased the risk of imminent execution of a sentence issued in connection with a small sound-producing device explosion and reported financial damage to a courthouse building.

According to human rights organizations, the country’s Supreme Court has reaffirmed the death sentence of Manoochehr Fallah. Following the confirmation of the sentence, the case of this prisoner has been referred to the criminal enforcement unit in Rasht—a step that has heightened concerns about the possibility of the sentence being carried out.

Fallah, a 43-year-old citizen of Rasht and father of one child, had previously faced a death sentence. His initial sentence was overturned upon review by the Supreme Court, and his case was referred to another branch of the Revolutionary Court in Rasht for reconsideration. However, the first branch of the Revolutionary Court in Rasht, headed by Ahmad Darvish-Goftar, issued a new death sentence, which has now been upheld by the Supreme Court.

This repetition of the judicial process has occurred while his defense lawyer has challenged the legal basis of the sentence and questioned the proportionality of the punishment to the act attributed to his client.

According to reports from Hrana and citing news agency Emtedad as well as published human rights reports, Fallah is accused of detonating a small sound-producing explosive device in front of the entrance to the courthouse building of Gilan Province on the morning of June 11, 2023, corresponding to Khordad 11, 1402.

According to information cited from expert opinions, this incident resulted in no fatalities or injuries, and the damage to the metal door and stone facade of the building was estimated at approximately 15 million tomans.

The court issued the death sentence based on Article 687 of the Islamic Penal Code, charging him with “moharebeh” (taking up arms against the state) and destruction of public property with intent to oppose the government. However, according to reports by Iran Wire and Iran International, Fallah’s lawyer has objected to the legal basis used by the court and has raised questions regarding its applicability to the damage caused to the building’s door and facade.

These details have been stated based on media reports and information related to the case file; the complete and independent text of judicial documents for examining all aspects of the case has not been made publicly available.

Manoochehr Fallah was detained at Rasht Airport in summer 1403 and transferred to Lakan Prison. In a separate case, he had been sentenced to imprisonment on charges including “propaganda against the system” and “insult to the supreme leader,” with the sentence from that case ending in 1403.

His case has, since his detention, been accompanied by multiple phases of issuing rulings, confirmations, and subsequent judicial overturns. Iran Wire had also reported that these judicial back-and-forths have placed severe psychological pressure on him.

Iran Human Rights Organization has also stated in a report that with the referral of Fallah’s case to the criminal enforcement unit in Rasht, he faces serious and imminent execution risk. Hengaw and Hrana have also reported the reaffirmation of the sentence and the referral of the case for execution.

As of the time of publication of this report, no specific date for carrying out the sentence has been announced. However, the transfer of the case to the criminal enforcement unit has heightened concerns and drawn the attention of human rights organizations to the situation of this prisoner.

Fallah’s case once again raises discussion about the use of capital punishment in security-related cases, the proportionality of punishment to the alleged act, and the necessity of ensuring effective access to fair trial proceedings for the accused. In such cases, transparency regarding the evidence of charges, judicial reasoning, and the possibility of effective defense are of particular importance—especially when the outcome of proceedings could result in the loss of a human life.