What Role Does the Supreme Court Play in Executions in Iran?

Matters have passed beyond legal concerns in the Islamic Republic. On the other hand, it is equally clear that as long as the Islamic Republic remains standing, regardless of the degree of instability and political lawlessness, the performance of its institutions must be examined. One cannot ignore and leave unspoken a reality that cuts to the bone and inflicts open wounds until the day of reckoning arrives. The institutions of this regime pretend to adhere to the rule of law before the international community. It would be naive to assume that without efforts to expose this lie, global circles will believe otherwise. Before thousands more protesting Iranians are killed, the struggle must continue so that international judicial bodies might better understand these criminals masquerading as lawful authorities, read their hands, and confront them.

In judicial systems worldwide, an authority is established to oversee the preservation of the law and the proper execution of legal procedures during court proceedings. This authority exercises the utmost rigor and scrutiny, especially regarding verdicts that entail severe penalties and irreparable harm, refusing to sacrifice accuracy for speed. It combs through the finest details so that whenever lower trial courts fail to exercise sufficient care, it orders the rectification of investigative defects or vacates the issued sentence entirely, declaring it void.

The underlying premise and assumption is that the judges presiding over the branches of this supreme authority are chosen for their honor, conscience, and commitment to the law to such a degree that, in issuing final rulings, they do not succumb to political demands, corruption, or outside influence. Most importantly, they do not fear falling out of favor with those in power. This courage stems from an independent judicial system in which a judge enjoys tenure and security. They are not dismissed or appointed at the whim of political power centers, nor are they demoted or forced to relocate at the will of the head of the judiciary. A judge’s independence is directly tied to the establishment of an independent judicial branch.

In a judiciary bound to absolute, ideological power, the judge’s fate is tied to that power. Particularly in cases involving critics, protesters, political opponents, and the press, the judge remains subservient to the policy of repression and possesses no independent agency. Thus, an honorable defense attorney faithful to their sworn oath, assuming they are not barred from taking political and press cases, becomes a firsthand witness to the denial of the defendant’s rights by the judiciary. Despairing of an effective defense within the courtroom, the attorney is forced to take risks, sharing the obstacles faced during these trials with the public by any means necessary, thereby surrendering their own professional security.

Every dawn, citizens’ execution warrants are carried out under the seal and signature of the Supreme Court.

Although the Constitution of the Islamic Republic and other laws do not recognize the judiciary, judges, or lawyers as structurally independent, they ostensibly assume fairness and human integrity on the part of judges, emphasizing the importance of the opinions of Supreme Court justices who can prevent sentences plagued by flaws, errors, and trial court bias from becoming final and enforceable.

The duties of the Supreme Court in the Islamic Republic are defined by Article 161 of the Constitution. This essay focuses on two of the Court’s five core powers and duties:

Supervising the proper enforcement of laws in the courts (procedural review). Approving requests for retrials in criminal verdicts (substantive review).

In the Islamic Republic, where every supervisory and justice-enforcing mechanism has been reduced to a hollow shell and crippled under the control of overt and covert security apparatuses, a high authority like the Supreme Court has not been immune to this decay. Every dawn, citizens’ execution warrants are carried out under the seal and signature of the Supreme Court. Due to the lack of transparency and the deliberate obfuscation of proceedings from public view, alongside the disregard for laws governing the rights of the accused and their counsel, society has been left terrified, intimidated, and increasingly enraged.

While the spread of fear and intimidation is viewed by despotic regimes as an ideal tool for survival, accumulated anger, erupting unpredictably at an unannounced time, surpasses fear and terror. It sets fire not only to the tyrannical regime but also to much of what stands in its path, as Iranian society has demonstrated on several occasions.

The current situation demands that, prior to structural collapse and with the explicit goal of protecting human lives at risk, we analyze the performance of the Supreme Court. We must hold accountable an institution that is, in any event, charged with safeguarding the law, protecting the rights of the accused, and preserving the lives of citizens. This institution, particularly following the January 2026 massacre, which culminated directly in the US attack, has not only rubber-stamped flawed and deficient death sentences and long-term prison terms with a clear conscience but has also turned a blind eye when lower courts disregard its own corrective opinions.

In all circumstances, and despite defense attorneys’ awareness of the lack of judicial independence, whenever they realize that a client’s rights have been trampled during the investigative and trial stages, they do not abandon hope. Out of necessity within an unfree judicial system like present-day Iran, they enter the Supreme Court with a thread of hope for judicial fairness to seek compensatory justice.

What Legal Facilities Has the Lawmaker Placed at the Disposal of Judges for Repression?

Amid the public’s protests against living crises, the imposed lifestyle, and the denial of citizenship rights, a directive was issued to “raise the cost of protest” for citizens, an order that was likely approved by the Supreme National Security Council.

“Haqq Allah” (Rights of God) is a jurisprudential concept integrated into criminal legislation following the revolution. For crimes where punishment is deemed to be set by “God,” reflected in Islamic jurisprudence as execution or amputation, the judge is legally precluded from granting any mitigation. While establishing these offenses according to strict religious standards is intrinsically difficult, obedient and hand-picked judges, aided by interrogators who extract confessions during pre-trial investigations without defense counsel present, routinely manipulate the findings to serve the orchestrators of repression. They act with impunity, fully aware that oversight bodies like the “Judicial Disciplinary Court” have been rendered dysfunctional, existing merely as ornamental facades. No matter how many complaints are lodged against judges serving repression, they face no accountability or summons, leaving victims in an even more precarious state.

In this structure, the Supreme Court, charged with overseeing the preservation of the law and the execution of justice, is responsible for reviewing appeals (Farjam-khwahi) and retrial applications (E’adeh-ye Dadrasi) submitted by convicted defendants. This mandate entails reviewing verdicts issued by trial courts for compliance with statutory and religious criteria (vacating or affirming rulings) or undertaking substantive reviews when a retrial request is accepted.

While the Supreme Court is required during appellate review to ensure procedural compliance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, it overwhelmingly affirms death sentences without genuine review.

In both capacities, decisions rendered by Supreme Court judges and consultants remain dominated by a ruthless security apparatus, systematically confirming severe sentences illegitimately handed down by Revolutionary Courts. Offenses such as Baghy (armed rebellion against Islamic governance), Moharebeh (waging war against God), and Efsad-e Fel-Arz (corruption on Earth) are established without adherence to statutory or religious evidentiary standards. Authorities justify the refusal of sentence mitigation under the rationale that these offenses constitute Hudud punishments falling within the domain of Haqq Allah. In practice, a self-serving interpretation of “God” is deployed to silence the populace and execute protesters, with the Supreme Court acting as an obedient rubber stamp.

For the past nine months, authorities have exploited wartime conditions and state claims regarding Mossad involvement in protests to execute young citizens on charges of espionage and destabilizing national security.

While the Supreme Court is required during appellate review to ensure procedural compliance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, it overwhelmingly affirms death sentences without genuine review. On occasion, to maintain a veneer of due process, the Court remands cases for investigative deficiencies. However, defense attorneys report instances where trial courts ignore Supreme Court directives, directly transmitting files to execution units where sentences are carried out without judicial accountability for these unlawful killings.

Due to a lack of judicial independence, non-public trials, and the complete non-implementation of Article 168 of the Constitution (requiring jury trials for political and press offenses) over the past 47 years, public trust in the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has eroded.

In the absence of press freedom, Mizan News Agency, the judiciary’s official media outlet, selectively disseminates news on protest cases to justify unlawful penalties, forced confessions, and executions. Mizan functions as an arm of the state repression apparatus rather than a source of public accountability.

Consequently, reports of executions, often carried out despite defense attorneys being caught off guard by sudden notifications or trial courts disregarding Supreme Court remand orders, have fueled public anger, leading citizens to view the judiciary as a primary instrument of state hostility.

Case Example:

Iran Human Rights, October 14, 2026: Branch 15 of the Tehran Revolutionary Court re-sentenced Kurdish political prisoner Warisha Moradi to death. Her legal counsel noted that although the Supreme Court previously overturned the initial death sentence due to investigative deficiencies, Branch 15 reissued the death penalty without rectifying the cited flaws.

Addressing Key Legal Questions

1. How is the deprivation of life justified for protesters who did not engage in violence against state forces?

Citizens executed in the aftermath of the January crackdown often played no role in acts of violence. Nevertheless, authorities operate on the premise that anyone present near or participating in protests must be eliminated to deter future demonstrations.

2. Under what laws are these protesters executed?

When the judiciary cannot apply the law of Qisas (retribution in kind) due to an inability to tie specific deaths of security personnel to individual defendants, judges resort to broad jurisprudential offenses (Moharebeh, Baghy, and Efsad-e Fel-Arz). Dependent judges deliberately select these charges to impose capital punishment on peaceful protesters.

Directives from Judiciary Chief Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Eje’i ordering expedited trials and immediate executions violate core legal principles requiring deliberate judicial procedures, amounting to state-sanctioned extrajudicial killing.

Note: The deprivation of human life remains condemned under international standards even when aligned with domestic law, with a majority of UN member states having abolished the death penalty from their penal codes.

Source: Iran Wire, Mehrangiz Kar, October 21, 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

Death Penalty News For a World without the Death Penalty