Iran Human Rights (IHRNGO); 16 May 2026: The Islamic Republic's judiciary is actively weaponising state-approved lawyers to systematically facilitate and expedite the execution of arrested protesters. A damning letter by Iranian human rights lawyers exposes some state-approved lawyers as "accomplices" who serve the security apparatus in sham trials rather than defending their clients. IHRNGO has also reviewed documentation confirming that certain state-approved lawyers submit appeals immediately after verdicts are issued, thereby depriving clients of the statutory 20-day appeal period. Through the deliberate obstruction of independent counsel and the filing of premature appeals, these individuals are actively paving the way for the implementation of the death penalty.
IHRNGO draws the international community's attention to these sham trials, warning that the systematic denial of due process renders these executions arbitrary and unlawful under international human rights law.
Information collected by IHRNGO reveals a systemic deprivation of the right to a fair trial for individuals arrested in relation to the January protests. While authorities utilise the Note to Article 48 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) to legally restrict access to independent lawyers during the pre-trial phase, the obstruction of counsel extended far beyond this statutory provision. IHRNGO has documented cases in which the authorities unlawfully prevented defendants from retaining independent legal representation until after sentences were formally upheld by the Supreme Court.
Defendants facing death penalty charges related to protests are left entirely defenceless during the most critical stages of their prosecution. Some state-approved lawyers routinely fail to challenge forced confessions, investigate claims of torture and ill-treatment, or present vital exculpatory evidence. Consequently, Revolutionary Courts swiftly issue death sentences based on uncontested evidence, and the Supreme Court simply affirms these verdicts without genuine legal scrutiny. IHRNGO has also documented cases of these lawyers refusing to communicate with the defendants' families, keeping them entirely uninformed and preventing them from following up on the status of the case.
Following the issuance of a death sentence, defendants are entitled to a statutory 20-day period to lodge an appeal under Iranian law. In previous cases, reports indicated that defendants with little or no knowledge of the legal system had been encouraged by the authorities to submit immediate appeals, effectively shortening the available window for legal review and public attention. IHRNGO has now reviewed documents confirming that certain state-appointed lawyers are themselves lodging non-substantive appeals just one day or a few days after the sentence is issued. In such cases, the Supreme Court frequently upholds the death sentence with notable speed, allowing execution to be carried out shortly afterwards. This practice appears to serve a dual purpose: limiting public and international attention and scrutiny before the execution is implemented, whilst enabling the authorities to claim that legal procedures and appeal mechanisms have formally been followed.
Article 35 of the Iranian Constitution grants defendants access to legal representation and Article 48 of the CCP provides for a suspect’s right to have a lawyer in the pre-trial phase. However, the Note to Article 48 limits this right during the investigation phase. In “cases of crimes against internal or external security, and in cases involving organised crime,” defendants are restricted to a list of lawyers approved by the Head of Judiciary. Consequently, by extending this deprivation of independent counsel beyond the initial investigation phase and throughout the trial and appellate stages, state authorities are acting in direct violation of Iran's own Constitution and the broader provisions of the CCP.
As a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Iran is also legally bound by international law to uphold fundamental due process rights. Article 14 of the ICCPR explicitly guarantees every individual the right to a fair trial, which encompasses the unequivocal right to communicate with counsel of their own choosing and to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of a defence. By restricting detainees to a state-approved list of lawyers and systematically obstructing access to independent legal representation throughout the trial and appellate processes, the authorities are acting in direct contravention of these binding international obligations.
The impact of the role of state-approved lawyers is illustrated by accounts from within the Iranian legal community itself. A letter first shared by Tavaana, titled "Security Lawyers: Accomplices to the Thief and Friends of the Caravan," exposes the precise mechanisms by which these state-approved lawyers actively facilitate the execution of protesters, confirming that the deprivation of independent counsel is a deliberate, fatal trap for defendants.
Security Lawyers: Accomplices to the Thief and Friends of the Caravan
How do some lawyers pave the way for the execution of protesters?
Based on received information and conducted investigations, a group of lawyers, in coordination with security agencies and Revolutionary Court judges, are taking on sensitive cases. Astonishingly, throughout all stages of the trial, they resort to making "implicit admissions of guilt" against their clients instead of defending them. In their written defence submissions, these individuals merely request clemency, which in itself is considered an admission of guilt and a betrayal of the lawyer’s oath.
In an era where independent, informed lawyers who are committed to human rights principles and fair trials face heavy sentences, summons to security prosecutor offices, and arrest due to their persistence in defending their clients' rights, we are witnessing the emergence of a worrying trend within the legal profession.
The violations of this group do not end here. By lodging an immediate appeal just one day after the verdict is served, they deprive the client of the statutory 20-day appeal period. Through complicity with the judicial system, they accelerate the process of implementing heavy sentences. This behaviour is a clear breach of professional regulations and constitutes professional misconduct.
One of these lawyers is Mehdi Mehrabi, a lawyer who, according to received reports, has been actively involved in security cases at Branch 15 of the Revolutionary Court, presided over by Judge Salavati. This includes the arson case of the Basij base on Namjoo Street, for which four protesters, Mohammad Amin Biglari, Amirhossein Hatami, Ali Fahim, and Shahin Vahdatparast Kalour, were executed. His conduct in these cases effectively paved the way for the death sentences to be handed down and carried out. Interestingly, this same individual has now given an interview as the lawyer for Pejman Jamshidi in a separate case, speaking of his client's acquittal.
These double standards clearly expose the origins of this group and those issuing their orders. How is it that a suspect accused of rape is released within a few days through the intervention of these specific lawyers, yet ordinary citizens remain in temporary detention for months for the crime of publishing a photo or comment online?
More disastrously, in security cases, the judicial system pressures desperate and uninformed families to refrain from choosing independent lawyers, using the empty promise that "if you use our approved lawyers, you will be granted leniency."
Unfortunately, many families fall into this trap and suddenly find their loved ones facing the death penalty or lengthy prison sentences.
These individuals are not lawyers, but rather "accomplices to the thief and friends of the caravan." They are people who secure bail for specific defendants, yet shorten the path to execution for ordinary people by drafting pleas for clemency.
As well as being denied access to cases, independent lawyers are also facing judicial harassment for carrying out their professional duties. More than 20 lawyers have been arrested since the start of the December–January protests.
On 29 April, human rights lawyers Milad Panahipour and Amir Raesian were summoned for reporting on the challenges they faced—including being denied the right to act as chosen counsel—when trying to represent teenage protesters Ehsan Hosseinipour Hesarlu, Matin Mohammadi and Erfan Amiri. They were indicted on charges of “publishing falsehoods” and “propaganda against the system” before being released on bail.