Provincial Revolutionary Courts and the Nationwide Reproduction of Death Sentences
In the first part of this report, the role of the main orchestrators and executors of judicial repression at the central level, from the head of the judiciary to key branches of the Revolutionary Courts in Tehran and Karaj, was examined. That section demonstrated how death sentences, unfair trials, and security-driven case fabrication are concentrated within several core judicial nodes. This second part completes that picture: judicial repression in Iran is not confined to Tehran; it is systematically reproduced in provincial centers by judges performing similar functions. From Mashhad and Isfahan to Ahvaz, Shiraz, and Tabriz, Revolutionary Courts operate as part of the same nationwide mechanism that transforms protest, identity, belief, and civil demands into security-related crimes.
The issuance of death sentences, long-term imprisonment, exile, and other severe punishments in political, security, ideological, and protest-related cases is carried out across Iran’s provinces by judges with similar roles. This reality shows that judicial repression in Iran is neither limited to a few well-known figures in Tehran nor confined to exceptional cases; rather, it is reproduced in Revolutionary Courts across provincial centers through the same security logic, the same disregard for fair trial standards, and the same reliance on coerced confessions and intelligence-driven case construction. Among these judges are Seyed Hadi Mansouri in Mashhad, Morteza Barati in Isfahan, Ehsan Adibimehr in Ahvaz, Seyed Mahmoud Sadati in Shiraz, and Rahim Hamalbar in Tabriz.
Seyed Hadi Mansouri; Judge of Death Sentences in Branch 4 of the Mashhad Revolutionary Court
Seyed Hadi Mansouri, head of Branch 4 of the Mashhad Revolutionary Court, is one of the central figures of judicial repression in Razavi Khorasan; a judge whose name is associated with expedited death sentences, denial of fair trial guarantees, and harsh rulings against protesters, civil activists, and religious minorities. His significance lies not only in his position, but in the role his branch plays as a major hub for security, ideological, and protest-related cases in eastern Iran. Within this branch, the familiar pattern of judicial repression is consistently reproduced: closed hearings, denial of access to independent counsel, reliance on forced confessions, and the issuance of severe or capital sentences.
The most striking example in his record is the case of Majidreza Rahnavard; a 23-year-old protester who, following the 2022 protests in Mashhad, was sentenced to death in a highly expedited process without access to a lawyer of his choice, and whose sentence was carried out publicly only 23 days after his arrest. This case became a clear symbol of the use of Revolutionary Courts as instruments for the rapid elimination of protesters. In addition, Mansouri’s record includes heavy sentences against protesters, cases involving members of the Baha’i community, and repeated use of severe punishments in security-related cases. This pattern demonstrates that Mansouri is not merely a provincial judge, but one of the active executors of judicial repression in eastern Iran. His role must therefore be addressed from the present through legal documentation, attribution of individual responsibility, and examination of existing judicial and international accountability mechanisms.
Morteza Barati; Judge of “Moharebeh” Sentences in Branch 1 of the Isfahan Revolutionary Court
Morteza Barati, head of Branch 1 of the Isfahan Revolutionary Court, is one of the main figures of judicial repression in central Iran; a judge whose name is associated with death sentences against protesters and the use of charges such as “moharebeh” and “efsad-e fel-arz” in protest-related cases. His significance goes beyond a few high-profile cases; rather, the court under his authority has become a central mechanism for transforming street protests and civil action into cases leading to execution or long-term imprisonment. The same established pattern is present in his rulings: denial of fair trial rights, reliance on security reports and coerced confessions, and the use of capital punishment as a tool of political intimidation.
A clear example is the “Isfahan House” case, in which Saleh Mirhashemi, Majid Kazemi, and Saeed Yaghoubi were sentenced to death in proceedings marked by allegations of torture, forced confessions, and violations of due process. Barati’s name also appeared in the case of Toomaj Salehi, where the issuance of a death sentence, later overturned, demonstrated how capital punishment is used to intimidate and silence dissent. His record shows that severe charges are systematically used to transform protest into capital cases. For this reason, accountability for his role must not be deferred to the future; it must be pursued from now through documentation, individual responsibility, and engagement with existing legal mechanisms.
Ehsan Adibimehr; Judge of Death in Ahvaz and Executor of Ethnic and Security-Based Repression
Ehsan Adibimehr, judge of Branch 1 of the Ahvaz Revolutionary Court, is one of the key figures of judicial repression in Khuzestan; a judge whose name is associated with death sentences, long-term imprisonment, and unfair proceedings against political prisoners, civil activists, and particularly Arab citizens of Ahvaz. His importance lies not only in the severity of his sentences, but in the consistent pattern observed in his cases: reliance on confessions obtained under torture, denial of independent legal representation, group trials, expedited proceedings, and the use of charges such as “efsad-e fel-arz,” “moharebeh,” and “espionage” to convert political, ethnic, and social demands into cases leading to execution or heavy punishment.
His record includes several significant cases. In one, Masoud Jamei, Alireza Mardasi, and Farshad Etemadifar were each sentenced to double execution. In another, six Ahwazi civil activists, Ali Mojdam, Moein Khenfari, Mohammadreza Moghaddam, Seyed Salem Mousavi, Seyed Adnan Mousavi, and Habib Deris, were sentenced to death. In addition, recent waves of repression included group sentences issued against Ahwazi citizens without independent legal representation and through remote, expedited proceedings. These cases demonstrate that judicial repression in Ahvaz is not only political but is closely tied to ethnic, security, and social control. His responsibility must therefore be examined within this broader pattern, and documentation and accountability efforts must be pursued through existing human rights and legal mechanisms.
Seyed Mahmoud Sadati; Judge of Death Sentences in Branch 1 of the Shiraz Revolutionary Court
Seyed Mahmoud Sadati, head of Branch 1 of the Shiraz Revolutionary Court, is a prominent figure of judicial repression in southern Iran; a judge associated with death sentences, expedited proceedings, and harsh rulings against protesters, civil activists, and religious minorities. His court has become one of the main centers for transforming political, social, and ideological cases into capital punishment and long-term imprisonment.
The most notable example is the case of Navid Afkari, where despite widespread allegations of torture and forced confessions, the proceedings led to execution, making the case a symbol of judicial injustice in Shiraz. In subsequent years, heavy sentences against labor activists, teachers, and other defendants in security-related cases further demonstrated that Branch 1 of the Shiraz Revolutionary Court is not merely a judicial forum, but a central node of repression in southern Iran. In such cases, the issue extends beyond a single verdict; it reflects a structural disregard for torture allegations, denial of effective defense, and the use of the judiciary to enforce security narratives. His role must therefore be documented and prepared for scrutiny within existing legal mechanisms.
Rahim Hamalbar; Judge of Identity and Civil Repression in Branch 1 of the Tabriz Revolutionary Court
Rahim Hamalbar, head of Branch 1 of the Tabriz Revolutionary Court, is one of the key figures of judicial repression in northwest Iran; a judge whose name is associated with heavy sentences against civil, identity-based, labor activists, and religious minorities in East Azerbaijan. His significance lies in the repeated transformation of cultural, linguistic, and civil demands into security charges, resulting in imprisonment, exile, and severe penalties.
In cases related to the 2022 uprising, he issued prison and exile sentences for several protesters. In the case of Peyman Ebrahimi Dinvar, cultural and identity-based activity was criminalized, and in cases such as Amir Chameni, civil and labor activism resulted in prosecution and punishment. His record shows that the Revolutionary Court in Tabriz functions as an instrument for suppressing civil and identity-based demands. His accountability must therefore be pursued within the framework of freedom of expression, association, cultural rights, and non-discrimination.
A Common Pattern; From Tehran to Provincial Revolutionary Courts
The shared pattern among these judges is not limited to the severity of their rulings or their notoriety; it lies in a unified function that integrates them into an institutionalized system of repression. Across Tehran, Karaj, Mashhad, Isfahan, Ahvaz, Shiraz, and Tabriz, the same set of practices is repeated: alignment with security institutions, denial of defense rights, criminalization of political and ideological activity, reliance on coerced confessions, expedited proceedings, use of capital punishment for intimidation, and judicial legitimization of repression.
These actions cannot be reduced to isolated misconduct; they constitute direct or effective participation in arbitrary detention, denial of fair trial, issuance of death sentences, and sustained political, ideological, ethnic, and civil repression. The absence of accountability has enabled judges to issue such rulings without fear, reinforced by directives from the head of the judiciary to accelerate proceedings at all stages. Accountability is therefore a legal necessity, not a political demand.
Accountability; Not Revenge, Not Repetition of Violence
Accountability for these judges and officials is rooted not in revenge, but in the principle of responsibility. The aim is not execution or physical elimination, but truth-seeking, documentation, public and fair trials, and the end of judicial and political impunity. These individuals must not be shielded by judicial titles or immunity; their roles must be examined in terms of individual and structural responsibility and violations of international human rights obligations.
This accountability must begin now through documentation, identification of perpetrators, engagement with international mechanisms, and exploration of legal avenues for prosecution. In a future democratic Iran, all those involved in issuing, confirming, or implementing death sentences, unfair trials, torture, and repression must be tried under fair trial standards and transitional justice principles.
Beyond Condemnation; Referral to the UN Security Council
The continuation of executions, unfair trials, forced confessions, torture, arbitrary detention, repression of women, ethnic and religious minorities, and denial of medical care demonstrates that judicial repression in Iran is a systemic and organized pattern. The adoption of the 72nd United Nations General Assembly resolution on 18 December 2025 confirms international recognition of widespread and systematic violations, including expanded use of the death penalty, denial of fair trial rights, and ongoing impunity.
In this context, accountability must extend beyond condemnation. Referral of the case of systematic human rights violations in Iran to the UN Security Council constitutes a necessary step to break the cycle of impunity and establish pathways for accountability. This process is not a substitute for fair trial, but a means to document crimes, establish responsibility, and enable prosecution through existing international mechanisms and in a future democratic Iran.
