Can the January 2026 Crackdown in Iran Amount to Crimes Against Humanity?

Link to the Two Previous Reports

The two preceding reports in this series documented, first, the judicial phase of repression and, second, the pre-judicial mechanisms underpinning it; from unofficial detention facilities to coerced confessions and prison conditions. What emerged was not a series of isolated incidents, but a continuous pattern of violence, detention, psychological pressure, and accelerated prosecutions that began in the streets and extended into the courtroom.

The present report, relying on the same documented data, raises the question at the level of international law: does the pattern of repression following the January 2026 uprising display characteristics that warrant examination within the framework of crimes against humanity?

Introduction: The Importance of Framing the Question in International Law

The January 2026 uprising spread to 220 cities across Iran within the first days of the protests. The security response was similarly nationwide and coordinated. In the months that followed, hundreds of videos, direct testimonies from families and eyewitnesses, images of shootings, beatings, arrests, prison conditions, and accounts of interrogation practices were circulated and transmitted to international human rights bodies, including Amnesty International, UN Special Rapporteurs, and international media. The volume of this documentation indicates the existence of a substantial body of evidence capable of legal assessment.

Under international criminal law, crimes against humanity arise when acts such as killing, large-scale imprisonment, conduct that may amount to torture, or enforced disappearance are committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population and pursuant to a state or organizational policy. The central question is whether the cumulative conduct following January 2026 satisfies the elements required for assessment within this framework.

Was the Crackdown “Widespread”?

Widespread refers to the geographic scope, number of victims, and temporal continuity of conduct.

The spread of protests to 220 cities nationwide demonstrates the geographic breadth of the events. Nationwide mass arrests, the initiation of thousands of criminal cases, the issuance of multiple indictments, and the continuation of proceedings in the months following the subsiding of protests indicate that the response was neither localized nor confined to a short period.

The volume of recorded visual evidence and documented testimonies further reinforces the element of widespread impact. The continuation of repression from street-level violence to detention and subsequently to judicial proceedings demonstrates a sustained and nationwide pattern.

Was the Conduct “Systematic”?

Systematic conduct implies organized, coordinated, and repetitive patterns of action.

In examining the events following January 2026, three interconnected levels of conduct can be observed:

• The use of force in the streets to suppress protests;
• The transfer of detainees to opaque detention facilities and the application of pressure to extract confessions.
• The expedited issuance of indictments and the imposition of severe sentences, including death penalties.

The repetition of this pattern across multiple provinces, the use of similar criminal charges, the systematic restriction of access to chosen legal counsel, and the reliance on contested confessions indicate institutional coordination between security and judicial authorities. Available evidence suggests that, in numerous instances, judicial proceedings operated in continuity with the initial security response. Such structural overlap constitutes an important indicator of systematic conduct in international criminal law analysis.

One significant indication of this coordination was the repeated and rapid public intervention of Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Eje’i, the head of the judiciary. On 16 February 2026, referring to the cases of those arrested during nationwide protests, he called for the acceleration of indictments. Referring to what he described as the “main elements of the unrest,” he stated: “We must not delay in issuing indictments related to the main elements of the unrest.” He further added that the public expects the trial and punishment of these individuals and that unjustified delay is unacceptable. Such directives signaled to judicial hierarchies the expectation of expedited and uncompromising handling of protest-related cases.

Were Civilians Targeted?

A defining element of crimes against humanity is that the attack be directed against a civilian population.

During the January 2026 crackdown, those arrested and prosecuted included students, minors, ordinary citizens, medical personnel, and unarmed protesters. The UN Special Rapporteur about human rights in Iran has emphasized in official statements that the majority of detainees were ordinary civilians.

The arrest of children, their transfer to detention facilities, and threats of severe sentences against individuals under 18 demonstrate that the scope of repression extended beyond any narrowly defined group and encompassed broad segments of the civilian population.

Are There Indications of a State Policy?

Under international criminal law, the existence of a policy does not require a written directive; it may be inferred from objective indicia, continuity of conduct, and coordination among official institutions.

On 17 February 2026, Ali Khamenei referred to protesting citizens as “rioters” and stated:

“Some were themselves corrupters, seditionists, and coup-plotters; some of them died before their time came, and their reckoning is with God… If any of these principal corrupters remain in the country — and surely, they do — they must be pursued, they must be punished, they must be tried; the nation is demanding accountability in this matter.”

Similarly, Mohseni-Ejei addressed prosecutors nationwide and stated:

“I order you to act decisively against rioters and those who provide them with equipment and facilities, and to show no leniency or tolerance.”

The Tehran police commander also referred to widespread arrests and stated:

“Every day, our targeted arrests in the provinces and across the country increase. In confronting rioters, we remain committed until the last person, and we will bring them all before the justice system.”

Statements by senior officials calling for decisive action, emphasizing accelerated indictments, invoking severe charges, and repeating such directives nationwide constitute objective indicia relevant to the assessment of policy.

The simultaneity of street-level repression, mass arrests, reported physical and psychological pressure to obtain confessions, and expedited prosecutions demonstrate that repression operated as a continuous chain from street to courtroom. In international criminal law, such continuity is central in evaluating the existence of an organized state policy.

Beginning on the evening of 8 January 2026, nationwide access to the internet and mobile communications was cut or severely restricted. During that same period, multiple reports documented the most intense phase of street confrontations, including the use of lethal force and widespread arrests. The simultaneity of digital blackout and peak street repression not only restricted immediate documentation and transmission of evidence, but may also serve, in legal analysis, as an indicium of coordinated action and deliberate control of information in the context of a widespread attack against a civilian population.

Comparative Perspective

In several international cases, the threshold of crimes against humanity was examined when repression evolved from isolated confrontations into coordinated action directed against civilians. In those situations, the combination of street violence, mass detention, conduct that may amount to torture, enforced disappearances, and proceedings lacking fair trial guarantees was assessed cumulatively.

The situation in Iran must likewise be analyzed based on the totality of these elements rather than through isolated incidents.

International Jurisdiction

Iran is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Nevertheless, international law provides mechanisms such as referral by the UN Security Council or the exercise of universal jurisdiction by certain states that may allow examination of such crimes.

In addition, the continued mandate of UN investigative mechanisms, including the independent fact-finding mission on the situation in Iran, provides a framework for documentation and legal evaluation of these events. Should widespread or systematic conduct pursuant to state policy be confirmed through independent assessment, examination within the framework of crimes against humanity would fall within the substantive scope of such mechanisms.

Conclusion

The documented conduct following the January 2026 uprising — from the spread of protests to 220 cities and the use of lethal force to mass arrests, opaque detention conditions, reported physical and psychological coercion, and the issuance of severe sentences — demonstrates a pattern that displays characteristics recognized under international criminal law as relevant to crimes against humanity.

Definitive legal determination requires independent and impartial evaluation. However, the convergence of widespread impact, systematic methods, targeting of civilians, and objective indicia of state policy establishes a serious legal basis for examining whether the threshold of crimes against humanity has been met.

This question now stands before international accountability mechanisms; and its resolution may carry legal consequences extending beyond national borders.