In the nearly 40 days that have passed since the uprising of January 2026, we have repeatedly heard from Iran’s authorities, particularly the Judiciary chief, that there must be “decisive and uncompromising treatment” of arrested protesters. The Judiciary chief has not stopped there; he has embarked on provincial tours to personally emphasize the implementation of this “decisive and uncompromising treatment”—which is nothing other than erecting gallows for the arrested protesters of this uprising—lest these cases be subject to the passage of time and the protesters remain alive.
Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei’s trip to Isfahan was a mission beyond a mere administrative visit; he took to the field to personally oversee the suppression process. The goal is clear: the regime intends to issue and execute death sentences at lightning speed for detainees to contain the flames of rage ignited by the blood spilled in the streets of January. Eje’i is in a rush to solidify an atmosphere of intimidation with the hangman’s noose before this rage can transform into another uprising.
Mizan News Agency, on February 16, 2026, refers to Ejei’s most recent provincial trip—his visit to Isfahan—and writes:
“According to the Judiciary Media Center, Hojjat-ul-Islam wal-Muslimin Mohseni-Eje’i, during his trip to Isfahan province, speaking among several judges of the province’s justice department responsible for security cases, stated: ‘All responsible and competent institutions and individuals must correctly recognize the nature of the recent violent fitna (sedition), which resembled a coup. We must know that this fitna had behind-the-scenes elements who were not necessarily present in the field; we must include this group among the main elements of riots and terrorist acts. On the other hand, elements may have come to the streets due to negligence, lack of information, or excitement and occasionally committed heavy crimes; in dealing with these elements, we must act decisively and without leniency, yet according to the letter of the law and justice.’ The Head of the Judiciary stated: ‘Our emphatic instruction to judicial officials is to act with ultimate decisiveness and without any leniency or compromise in the trial and punishment of the main elements of riots and terrorist actions… We must not have delays in issuing indictments related to the main elements of the riots.'”
Eje’i once again reaffirmed his support for the repressive forces—the actual killers and slaughterers of the protesters in the January 2026 uprising—stating: “We fully support our security agencies and law enforcement, and we believe they are in a state of continuous Jihad, both regarding recent issues and other matters.”
Since the 2022 uprising, the Iranian regime has aligned its apparatus to confront any subsequent uprising. It has even endeavored to introduce Artificial Intelligence (AI) to accelerate the processing of cases for detained protesters. This human advancement, which should serve humanity and human rights, is being utilized by the ruling regime in Iran to hasten the issuance of criminal sentences against protesters, becoming the weaponization of technology against the right to life. AI in Iran under Khamenei’s rule is designed not for the discovery of truth, but for shortening the path from interrogation to execution and for conducting a vast political purge to uproot any potential for future protests.
According to a report by the official IRNA News Agency on February 15, 2026, this project—which was initiated after the 2022 uprising in January 2023 and gradually launched as a pilot in the three provinces of South Khorasan, Qom, and Lorestan—is now officially entering the regime’s judicial apparatus. Mohammad Kazemifard, Head of the Statistics and Information Technology Center of the Judiciary, says: “Smart SAMP (Smart Case Management System), in practice, moves us from electronic adjudication toward smart adjudication; in smart adjudication, many tasks such as case referrals, expert assignments, etc., are performed by smart tools… Smart SAMP helps the judge issue their verdict more accurately and more quickly.”
This speed is the very speed intended by Eje’i in processing the cases of arrested protesters, aimed at eliminating anyone who could have protest potential in the future through death sentences, or intimidating them so severely that they lose the capacity to protest.
While the regime continues, 40 days after the nationwide January 2026 uprising, to speak of accelerating the issuance of sentences for arrested protesters—and while the entire world is now aware of the regime’s track: Torture – Forced Confessions under Torture – Charges of “Baghi” (Rebellion) and “Moharebeh” (Enmity against God) based on confessions obtained under torture – and finally the Death Sentence—and while it has even introduced AI into its judicial system to hasten this purge of protesters, the world remains blind to the political purge carried out during the January 2026 uprising and its continuation.
Recent developments within United Nations bodies raise serious concerns regarding consistency between international human rights standards and institutional practice. A representative of the Iranian government has been granted a speaking platform at the United Nations Human Rights Council.
In addition, Abbas Tajik has been appointed Vice-Chair of the UN Commission for Social Development—a body addressing issues including social justice, equality, and development.
Furthermore, Afsaneh Nadipour has been confirmed as a member of the Advisory Committee of the United Nations Human Rights Council, where discussions include gender perspectives and gender-based violence.
These appointments occur in a context where credible and well-documented allegations persist regarding the use of lethal force against protesters, systematic torture, coerced confessions, and the imposition of death sentences following proceedings that fall short of international fair trial standards.
The contrast between domestic practices and international representation raises legitimate questions regarding institutional coherence. When state officials from governments accused of serious and ongoing human rights violations assume visible roles within UN human rights mechanisms, the risk is not symbolic alone; it may undermine the perceived integrity and moral authority of these institutions.
At a time when reports indicate the acceleration of death penalty proceedings against protesters—including the integration of automated judicial technologies to expedite case processing—the international community faces a critical test. The issue is not diplomatic participation per se, but whether adequate accountability mechanisms are being pursued in parallel with institutional engagement.
If the United Nations seeks to uphold its foundational principles, including those enshrined in the UN Charter and core human rights treaties, greater alignment is required between representation and accountability. This includes prioritizing independent investigations, strengthening international monitoring mechanisms, and ensuring that credible allegations of crimes under international law are addressed through appropriate legal channels.
Absent such measures, there is a growing risk that institutional engagement may be perceived as normalization rather than scrutiny—at a time when accountability remains urgently needed.
