Court-appointed lawyers in the Islamic Republic act in many political and security cases not as guarantors of the right to defense, but rather as part of the machinery of repression. In cases involving protesters, evidence demonstrates that the judicial system of the Islamic Republic violates fair trial standards and paves the way for the issuance of harsh sentences, including the death penalty, by restricting defendants’ access to independent counsel, utilizing state-approved lawyers, and accelerating the process of superficial appeals. From this perspective, examining the role of court-appointed lawyers in the Islamic Republic is of fundamental importance to understanding the structure of human rights violations in Iran. The institution of court-appointed defense, which is envisioned in international law and global legal norms to support underfunded defendants and guarantee justice, has been completely repurposed within this judicial structure, transforming into a security tool to advance the will of interrogators and rapidly close files.
This pattern is not merely a professional or disciplinary infraction within the legal profession; rather, it is part of a broader human rights crisis. In this crisis, the judiciary, instead of playing an impartial role, works in tandem with security agencies to turn the trial process into an instrument for suppressing dissidents and terrorizing society. Wherever the right to freely choose a lawyer, adequate time for defense, and the possibility of an effective appeal are stripped from a defendant, the principle of a fair trial becomes utterly meaningless.
Violation of Fair Trial Standards Through the Deprivation of Independent Counsel
One of the most critical dimensions of human rights violations in Iran is the systematic deprivation of defendants, particularly individuals detained during protests, from gaining genuine access to independent counsel. Although Article 35 of the Constitution and the regulations of the Criminal Procedure Code ostensibly emphasize the right to have a lawyer, in practice, the Note to Article 48 and illegal procedures extending far beyond it have severely restricted this right. Numerous reports indicate that judicial and security authorities prevent defendants from accessing their chosen lawyers not only during the investigation phase, but also during the trial phase and even after sentences have been issued.
Under such conditions, court-appointed lawyers in the Islamic Republic turn into agents for consolidating the narrative of security agencies in certain cases, rather than providing an effective defense for the defendant. These lawyers have, in various instances, refrained from challenging forced confessions, following up on the defendant’s statements regarding being subjected to torture, presenting vital exculpatory evidence, and even establishing transparent communication with the defendant’s family. The result of this performance is the practical elimination of the right to defense and the smooth clearing of the path toward the issuance of severe sentences in courts whose independence and impartiality are under serious doubt from the very outset.
In cases leading to the death penalty, this situation takes on even more dangerous dimensions. According to reports and documentation published regarding certain protesters’ cases, following the issuance of the preliminary verdict, the objection or appeal request is sometimes framed or registered in a manner that neither contains a detailed and effective defense nor leaves sufficient opportunity for an independent lawyer to enter and meticulously review the case file. The importance of this issue lies in the fact that the appeals stage, in many of these cases, represents the final legal window to raise objections against forced confessions taken under torture, deficiencies in investigations, deprivation of chosen counsel, and the invalidity of accusatory evidence. When this stage is reduced to a rushed, superficial action devoid of effective argumentation, the possibility of a genuine review of the case diminishes, and the danger of executing severe punishments, including the death penalty, increases drastically.
Documented Facts of the Elimination of the Right to Defense by Court-Appointed Lawyers in the Islamic Republic:
- Exploitation Extending Beyond the Note to Article 48 for Absolute Deprivation: Judicial authorities not only utilize the Note to Article 48 of the Criminal Procedure Code to strip the right to counsel during the preliminary investigation phase, but they also extend obstacles against accessing an independent chosen lawyer far beyond the law, continuing this restriction through the final confirmation of sentences in the Supreme Court (a flagrant violation of Article 35 of the Iranian Constitution, Article 48 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).
- Abandoning Defendants Without Defense in Critical Phases: Defendants facing capital charges are left completely without defense during the most critical stages of the judicial proceedings. Consequently, the Revolutionary Courts rapidly issue death sentences based on evidence that has faced zero objections, and the Supreme Court upholds these verdicts without any genuine legal review.
- Calculated Silence and Ignoring Torture: Failing to challenge forced confessions, refusing to follow up on allegations of torture and ill-treatment of defendants, and deliberately refraining from presenting vital exculpatory evidence to the court.
- Creating an Information Barrier Between the Defendant and the Family: Refusing to establish communication with the families of the defendants, keeping them completely in the dark regarding the trial process, and obstructing families from tracking the status of their loved ones’ cases.
- Filing Superficial Appeals to Nullify the 20-Day Deadline: Taking immediate action to register an appeal request just one or a few days after the verdict is issued, with the explicit goal of stripping the legal 20-day deadline, shortening the window for a legal review of the case, and preventing public and international attention before the execution is carried out.
- Pressuring, Deceiving, and Trapping Families: The judiciary exerts pressure on helpless and uninformed families to force them to abandon independent counsel, using the empty and deceptive promise that “if you use our state-approved lawyers, your child will receive clemency,” which ultimately culminates in the sudden issuance of death sentences or long-term imprisonment.
The Judiciary of the Islamic Republic as an Arm of Repression
The collective body of this evidence demonstrates that the judicial system of the Islamic Republic cannot be regarded as an independent institution for the vindication of rights and the guarantee of justice. In many political and security cases, this system operates in full coordination with security agents, Revolutionary Courts, and intelligence structures, taking on the duty of legitimizing repression instead of conducting impartial adjudication. From this perspective, the issuance of severe sentences, the deprivation of an effective defense, and the rapid confirmation of verdicts in higher stages are components of a single unified mechanism, rather than isolated and scattered errors.
Conflict with International Human Rights Obligations
Iran, as a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), is bound to guarantee the right to a fair trial, access to a chosen lawyer, adequate time for the preparation of a defense, and an effective judicial review. Under Article 14 of this Covenant, every defendant must have a genuine possibility to defend themselves. When the government strips away these rights by imposing state-approved lawyers, restricting the defendant’s communication with independent counsel, and accelerating the superficial formalities of appeals, the outcome can, in certain instances, amount to arbitrary and unlawful executions. For this reason, cases related to protesters in Iran must be viewed with special attention by human rights bodies from the perspective of international obligations and state accountability.
Documented Signs of Alignment Between Security Lawyers and the Process of Repression
The materials forming the basis of this text do not merely contain general descriptions; rather, they point to specific allegations regarding the behavior of court-appointed lawyers in Islamic Republic and the processing trends in protesters’ cases: from refusing to seriously pursue allegations of torture and forced confessions to an inability or refusal to provide an effective defense, failing to use legal capacities to halt or overturn a verdict, and playing a role that practically leads to facilitating repressive punishments. It is these tangible material facts that show the debate concerning court-appointed lawyers in the Islamic Republic must not remain at the level of professional criticism; rather, it must be analyzed as part of a documented pattern of violating fair trials and participating in judicial repression.
Signs of Alignment and Advancing the Line of Repression by Court-Appointed Lawyers in the Islamic Republic:
- Direct Partnership and Complicity with the Machinery of Repression: The description of certain court-appointed lawyers by a group of human rights lawyers inside the country, victim families, and activists as “accomplices of the security apparatus” and “partners to the thief and fake companions to the caravan” (sharik-e dozd va rafigh-e ghafeleh), acting as a complementary arm and executive branch of the judicial system in show trials.
- Betrayal of the Legal Oath and Resorting to “Implicit Admission” Against the Client: Entering sensitive security cases in full coordination with intelligence agencies and Revolutionary Court judges, and astonishingly turning to implicit admissions against the defendant instead of defending them across all stages of the proceedings.
- Shortening the Path to Execution for Ordinary Citizens: Restricting legal submissions purely to writing “requests for forgiveness and clemency”—a violation of professional codes that effectively confirms the accusations levied by security agencies and accelerates the execution of severe verdicts.
- A Concrete Case study and Exposing the Name of a Security Lawyer (Mehdi Mehrabi): The active presence of this court-appointed lawyer in the highly sensitive case of the Namjou Street Basij Base arson in Branch 15 of the Revolutionary Court (presided over by Judge Salavati). His performance in this case, instead of being a defense, was aimed at facilitating the issuance and execution of the death penalty, which ultimately led to the hanging of four protesters named: Mohammad-Amin Biglari, Amir-Hossein Hatami, Ali Fahim, and Shahin Vahedparast Kolor.
- Double Standards and Structural Judicial Discrimination: Exposing the security origins of these lawyers through their adoption of dual behaviors; the media interview and active pursuit by this very lawyer (Mehdi Mehrabi) to secure the acquittal of another client, “Pezhman Jamshidi” (a cinema actor), which ultimately resulted in a sentence of 99 lashes. This stark contrast demonstrates that proximity to the regime, fame, and social status can alter the fate of cases handled by these specific lawyers, while nameless and ordinary protesters are driven toward the gallows by them.
Pressure on Independent Lawyers and the Weakening of the Right to Defense
Simultaneously with the systematic efforts of the judiciary to exclusively reinforce the role of court-appointed lawyers in the Islamic Republic, the independent legal community and human rights defenders in Iran are facing the harshest wave of summonses, detentions, threats, professional bans, and security case-fabrications. This comprehensive assault demonstrates that the regime is pursuing a dual and parallel strategy; on one hand, by physically and legally eliminating human rights lawyers, it destroys the legal safety nets of the defendants, and on the other hand, by creating an absolute monopoly for appointed security lawyers, it transforms the trial tribunal into a secondary interrogation room so that no independent voice can challenge the legitimacy of the regime’s official narrative. As a result of this elimination policy, the right to defense in Iran has been practically reduced to a superficial showcase and a selective privilege.
A living testament to this claim is the systematic detention of more than 20 independent lawyers since the onset of the January 2026 protests. This includes the summons, detention, and charging of two human rights lawyers, “Milad Panahipour” and “Amir Raeisian,” with “spreading falsehoods” and “propaganda against the state” before being released on bail. They faced the wrath of the judiciary solely because they engaged in public enlightenment and spoke out about the obstacles used to strip away the right to chosen counsel for teenage protesters (Ehsan Hosseinipour Hesarloo, Matin Mohammadi, and Erfan Amiri).
Conclusion
Court-appointed lawyers in the Islamic Republic, alongside the Revolutionary Courts and the interventions of security agencies, form part of the architecture of judicial repression in Iran. Wherever a lawyer, instead of defending, takes on the role of facilitating the security apparatus’s will, the fair trial framework collapses, and the risk of arbitrary punishments, including the death penalty, increases. Faced with this pattern, the responsibility of the international community is not merely to express concern. UN human rights bodies, special rapporteurs, fact-finding missions, governments, bar associations, and international legal organizations must document these instances, demand immediate access to independent counsel for defendants, continuously monitor cases violating fair trial rights, place the judicial and security officials involved under accountability mechanisms and targeted sanctions, and extend overt and practical support to independent lawyers and victims’ families. Without such coordinated and sustained pressure, the structural violation of fundamental rights in Iran will persist, and the apparatus of judicial repression will replicate itself at a low cost for its perpetrators.
