Iran | From Checkpoint Arrest to Death Row: Inside the Flawed Trial of January Protester Mahnaz Chardoli
According to a copy of the ruling obtained by IranWire, Salavati initially writes that 22 Molotov cocktails were seized from a vehicle belonging to Mehdi Nazer. A few lines later, he records the count as 20. On the same page, while ordering the formal confiscation of the vehicle, he writes that it was carrying 25 Molotov cocktails.
This numerical discrepancy carries fatal significance: the Molotov cocktails serve as the primary factual anchor for a verdict sentencing Mehdi Nazer and Mahnaz Chardoli to death. All three defendants—Mehdi Nazer, his sister Atefeh Nazer, and her friend Mahnaz Chardoli—were also sentenced to 10 years in prison.
Numerical contradictions, however, represent only a fraction of the procedural irregularities. The three co-defendants were arrested on January 11, after the peak of the street protests, at a security checkpoint in Khavarshahr, outside Tehran. They were not apprehended while throwing incendiary devices or setting fire to public property. An informed source disclosed to IranWire that all self-incriminating confessions cited by the court were extracted under severe physical and psychological coercion.
Crucially, to hand down death sentences, the court invoked a statute that explicitly dictates that the mere possession or transportation of weapons is legally insufficient for capital punishment, requiring clear proof of an “intent to cooperate with the Zionist regime or hostile states.”
The January 11 Arrest: The Court’s Narrative
Mehdi Nazer, Atefeh Nazer, and Mahnaz Chardoli were intercepted inside a single vehicle at the Khavarshahr checkpoint on Sunday, January 11, 2026.
The timeline is critical. While the court’s indictment centers on actions during the peak of the Dey protests, none of the three were detained during an active demonstration. Furthermore, according to information obtained by IranWire, none of the Molotov cocktails found inside the vehicle had been thrown or used.
The verdict also lists charges including “membership in a three-person group with the intent to cause riots in Heravi Square,” carrying and possessing Molotov cocktails, “inciting the public,” chanting anti-regime slogans, and setting fire to trash cans.
Beyond Ministry of Intelligence reports and forced confessions, the court relied on unspecified “technical data” from an intelligence system to place the defendants at alleged “riot locations,” alongside data extracted from their electronic devices. The ruling provides no explanation regarding the nature of this data, its exact timestamps, coordinates, or specific content.
“Confess, and We Will Release Your Sister”
A cornerstone of Salavati’s verdict is the “explicit confessions” of the accused.
However, an informed source close to the case told IranWire that these statements were extracted under duress during interrogation. Interrogators informed Mehdi Nazer that if he confessed, they would release his sister, Atefeh. Atefeh Nazer and Mahnaz Chardoli were subjected to similar psychological pressure to give matching statements.
This revelation is vital given that the court relied heavily on these coerced confessions alongside intelligence reports to justify capital charges.
From Molotov Cocktails to “Cooperation with Israel”
The fundamental legal breach lies in how the court bridged the gap between alleged protest activities and treason: even accepting the prosecution’s factual claims, how did the court determine an “intent to cooperate with the Zionist regime”?
Salavati invoked Article 3, Paragraph (A) of the “Law on Severe Punishment for Espionage and Cooperation with the Zionist Regime and Hostile States against National Security and Interests.” Under Article 3, manufacturing, supplying, transferring, carrying, possessing, or using weapons carries the death penalty only if performed “with the intent to cooperate with the Zionist regime, hostile governments, or affiliated hostile groups.”
Note 2 of the same article specifies that if such acts are committed without such intent, they fall under general penal laws rather than capital espionage statutes.
Therefore, applying the death penalty required the court to independently prove an explicit “intent to collaborate” with a foreign enemy.
Throughout the ruling obtained by IranWire, Salavati lists conventional protest-related acts: attending rallies, chanting slogans, carrying Molotov cocktails, and lighting fires. Yet nowhere does the document explain what evidence demonstrates that Mahnaz Chardoli or Mehdi Nazer acted with the intention of assisting Israel.
The vehicle carrying the devices belonged exclusively to Mehdi Nazer. Consequently, a vital link in the judicial reasoning remains completely missing: any substantiated connection between the domestic protest acts of January 2026 and an “intent to cooperate with Israel.”
Even Judges Disagreed on Molotov Cocktails
Ambiguity surrounding the legal basis for processing Molotov cocktail cases was not limited to this case alone.
A few months after the January protests, structural disagreements emerged among judicial branches regarding whether the manufacturing, possession, transport, or use of Molotov cocktails should be handled under laws regulating illegal arms or under national security laws. This dispute eventually reached the Legal Department of the Judiciary.
The official inquiry noted that while certain judicial branches evaluated Molotov cocktail cases under the Law on Punishment of Traffickers of Arms and Ammunition and Holders of Unauthorized Weapons, other branches cited Article 3, Paragraph (A) of the Law on Intensifying Punishment for Espionage.
In its advisory opinion, the Legal Department of the Judiciary clarified that a Molotov cocktail does not automatically fall under the Espionage Law in all circumstances. Instead, determining the applicable criminal offense must depend on the precise nature of the device, the statutory elements of the alleged crime, and the specific facts of the case. This indicates that even within the judicial system of the Islamic Republic, there was no uniform legal interpretation regarding which statute to apply in such cases.
However, Branch 15 of the Revolutionary Court opted for a law carrying the death penalty for Mahnaz Chardoli and Mehdi Nazer once its statutory elements were deemed to have been met.
A 10-Year Prison Sentence for a Charge Capped at Five Years
The verdict in this case extends beyond the death sentences handed to Mahnaz Chardoli and Mehdi Nazer.
Judge Salavati sentenced all three defendants, including Atefeh Nazer, to 10 years in prison, factoring in time served, on charges of “assembly and collusion against national security in wartime.”
This sentencing occurred despite Article 610 of the Islamic Penal Code, which establishes a statutory penalty of two to five years in prison for “assembly and collusion” intended to commit crimes against internal or external national security, provided the conduct does not constitute Moharebeh (enmity against God). Thus, the maximum statutory penalty under this article is five years, half of the sentence imposed by Salavati on each of the three defendants.
In the written verdict, the court cited Article 18 of the Islamic Penal Code, pointing to the “manner of commission, extent of breach of duty, and harmful consequences of their actions against the country during security and war conditions.”
Nevertheless, the judgment fails to clarify which specific statutory provision Branch 15 relied upon to double the sentence for a charge that carries a five-year legal ceiling.
The court also ordered the confiscation of mobile phones belonging to all three defendants. Additionally, a vehicle owned by Mehdi Nazer was confiscated “in favor of the government.” The court stated that no other assets were identified or seized for confiscation.
A Mother Who Worked in South Tehran Garment Workshops to Raise Her Children
Mahnaz Chardoli, born in 1980 (1359), had no prior judicial record before this case. She is a mother of two and has served as the sole provider for her family for many years.
Her youngest daughter, Hosna, was born in 2013. Mahnaz separated from her husband when Hosna was just two months old and took full responsibility for raising her children.
A relative told IranWire that Mahnaz worked in garment workshops in southern Tehran to support her family. When no one was available to care for Hosna, she took her young daughter to work with her.
Years later, Mahnaz partnered with another individual to establish a small fabric business.
Her arrest on January 11 abruptly halted this life.
Since then, Hosna has split her time between living with her aunt and her grandfather. A family relative noted that her emotional state has been severely impacted by her mother’s prolonged legal uncertainty.
Recently, Hosna told her aunt that she was tired of moving between relatives’ homes and wanted to return to her own home, even if she had to live alone.
Her mother now faces execution.
For Mahnaz Chardoli, the case culminated in a death sentence. The court cited her presence at protests, chanting slogans, constructing and carrying Molotov cocktails, and setting trash cans on fire, ultimately invoking a statute related to “cooperation with the Zionist regime.”
The verdict against Mahnaz Chardoli reflects a broader pattern of heavy sentences issued against detainees in the months following the January 2026 protests, part of an ongoing, violent crackdown on protesters. UN fact-finding bodies previously characterized this crackdown as a “crime against humanity,” a dynamic that continues through the severity of these judicial rulings.
Source: Iran Wire, Solmaz Eikdar, September 18, 2026
"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed,
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted."
— Oscar Wilde
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted."
— Oscar Wilde
Death Penalty News
For a World without the Death Penalty
Comments
Post a Comment
Offensive pro-DP comments will not be published.