15-Year Prison Sentence for Abol-Fazl Damanjani, Protester Detainee

Abol-Fazl Damanjani, one of those arrested during the December 2025 protests, has been sentenced to a total of 15 years in prison. This ruling once again raises concerns about the judicial treatment of protesters and the use of security charges to restrict citizens’ freedoms. According to reports, with the application of sentence aggregation laws, his eight-year sentence will be enforceable; however, the fundamental question remains: what evidence has been presented for these charges, and has he had access to fair defense?

Abol-Fazl Damanjani, a resident of Mashhad and an inmate held in Vakilabad Prison, has been sentenced to a total of 15 years in prison by the Fifth Branch of the Revolutionary Court of Mashhad, presided over by Judge Yazdankhah. The sentence was issued in connection with three charges: “gathering and conspiracy,” “propaganda against the system,” and “action against national security.”

According to reports from human rights organizations and sources informed about his case, the imposed sentences include five years imprisonment for the charge of gathering and conspiracy, two years for propaganda against the system, and eight years for action against national security. With the application of sentence aggregation law, the most severe penalty, namely eight years imprisonment, will be enforced.

Abol-Fazl Damanjani was arrested on Saturday, December 20, 2025, corresponding to January 10, 2026, by security forces at his workplace in Mashhad. After interrogation proceedings, he was transferred to Vakilabad Prison.

The arrest of citizens in connection with protests, particularly when accompanied by families being kept in the dark, restrictions on access to case file information, and security charges, underscores the necessity for careful examination of judicial proceedings. The issuance of a heavy sentence against Damanjani raises serious questions about the substantiation of charges, the nature of judicial review, and the possibility of effective defense on his behalf.

Charges such as “gathering and conspiracy” and “action against national security” are titles that can lead to lengthy sentences. However, merely announcing the charge title is insufficient to judge whether an individual is guilty. The public has the right to know what specific behavior has been attributed to him, what evidence was examined in court, and whether the accused had a genuine opportunity to respond to the charges.

In reports published about Damanjani’s case, sufficient details about the evidence substantiating each charge and how they were evaluated in court have not been provided. This lack of information does not mean proof of innocence or judicial misconduct; however, it highlights the necessity for transparency. In a case where the outcome could result in years of a person’s life spent in prison, transparency and respect for the right to defense must be fundamental principles of judicial proceedings.

Protest and expressing dissatisfaction with the country’s situation should not, in itself, be a pretext for depriving citizens of their fundamental rights. The government and judicial system are obligated to distinguish between peaceful activity, expression of views, and specific criminal conduct, and to provide clear and verifiable reasons for each charge.

When cases related to protests are accompanied by broad security titles and heavy sentences, questions about proportionality of punishment, independence of judicial proceedings, and adherence to fair trial rights become unavoidable. Lasting security is not achieved by silencing the voices of critics; rather, it depends on rule of law, accountability of authorities, and guarantees of rights for all citizens.

Abol-Fazl Damanjani now faces a sentence that could cost him eight years of his life behind prison bars. In such a case, the announcement of charges and issuance of a sentence should not be the end of inquiry. It must be made clear what evidence formed the basis of conviction and how his defense rights were respected. Justice is only meaningful when no citizen is deprived of transparent and fair judicial review simply because they are involved in a case labeled as involving security matters.