Consolidation of Security Cases in Judicial Process; From Security Narrative to Verdict
The first part of this report demonstrated that political and security cases in Iran are formed before entering the courtroom; during stages of arrest, solitary confinement, interrogation, denial of legal counsel, physical and psychological pressure, forced confessions, and the drafting of security reports. The second part examines the next stage of this chain; where the same security narrative enters the prosecutor’s office, the indictment, the court, and ultimately the judicial ruling.
At this stage, the central issue is not merely the issuance of a verdict; rather, it is the transformation of data produced in detention centers and interrogation rooms into judicial documents. In many cases, instead of independently examining evidence, the court confirms and formalizes the narrative constructed by security institutions.
Transformation of Security Reports into Indictments
In a fair trial process, the investigating judge and the prosecutor must independently examine evidence, take allegations of torture seriously, ensure the possibility of effective defense, and then the prosecutor should decide whether to issue an indictment.
However, in political and security cases, security reports often assume a central role and, instead of being merely one of the preliminary elements of the case, become the foundation of the indictment.
In this context, confessions obtained during interrogation, reports by security agents, the security scenario, and labels such as “enmity against God” (moharebeh), “armed rebellion” (baghi), “corruption on earth” (efsad-e fel-arz), or “acting against national security” are interconnected and direct the case toward heavy sentences or execution.
Case Examples; From Security Narrative to Verdict
Behrouz Ehsani Eslamlou; Brief Trial and Secret Execution
Behrouz Ehsani Eslamlou, after being arrested by agents of the Ministry of Intelligence, was held in solitary confinement in Ward 240 of Evin Prison and was later transferred to Qezel Hesar Prison. In this case, prolonged solitary confinement, torture, threats against family members, denial of access to a chosen lawyer, and extraction of forced confessions have been reported.
During the judicial process, confessions obtained during interrogation were cited as one of the main bases for the verdict. The court session was extremely brief and no effective opportunity for defense was provided. In court, he stated that his confessions had been obtained under torture; however, this claim was not effectively examined.
His death sentence was carried out on August 5, 2025, corresponding to Mordad 5, 1404, in Qezel Hesar Prison in Karaj.
Ehsan Faridi; Continued Security Intervention After Sentencing
The case of Ehsan Faridi shows that the intervention of security institutions is not limited to the pre-trial stage. He, a 22-year-old student sentenced to death, was returned to prison after several days of complete lack of information following his transfer to a detention facility of the Intelligence Department of Tabriz. His mother, Parvin Hayati, stated: “For three days I have not known whether Ehsan is alive or not. The phone lines are cut and no clear answer is given to us.”
His lawyer, Sina Yousafi, warned that this transfer, while the case was under retrial review, could not be interpreted within the framework of normal judicial procedures and was likely carried out with the aim of producing or broadcasting forced confessions.
This case demonstrates that even after the issuance of a sentence, efforts to control the case narrative and exert pressure on the accused continue.
Saleh Mohammadi, Saeed Davoudi, and Mehdi Ghasemi; Accelerated Proceedings and Execution
The case of these three detainees from the protests of January 8, 2026 (18 Dey 1404) represents an example of expedited proceedings based on confessions obtained during interrogation. Reports indicate that confessions were extracted under pressure and used in the judicial process.
In the case of Saleh Mohammadi, he stated in court that his confessions had been obtained under torture; however, the court rejected this claim without independent examination and relied on those confessions as one of the main pieces of evidence.
This case shows that confessions obtained in detention centers can remain the basis for issuing and carrying out sentences even after being retracted in court.
Cases at the Stage of Confession Production and Case Fabrication
Barna Naimi; Mock Execution to Extract Confession
Barna Naimi, a Baha’i citizen residing in Kerman, was arrested on March 1, 2026 (10 Esfand 1404) at his workplace by security forces and held in solitary confinement. Reports indicate severe pressure to extract confessions, including at least two instances of “mock execution” and torture such as electric shocks that resulted in burns on his legs.
This case shows that in the pre-trial stage, confession extraction can involve severe torture methods and direct threats of death.
Bijan Kazemi; Enforced Disappearance, Transfer to Ward 209, and Confession Project
The case of Bijan Kazemi is a significant example of prolonged lack of information, transfer between detention centers, and efforts to extract confessions. His mother, Shahnaz Khosravi, wrote in a public message: “Today marks the one hundred and sixteenth day of no information about Bijan. With continuous follow-up of the case, the belief that Bijan has been the victim of a case fabrication and forced confession project has not only strengthened, but has turned into certainty.”
Bijan Kazemi was arrested on January 20, 2025 (30 Dey 1403) in Kuhdasht, without prior notice, by security forces and transferred to solitary confinement in Khorramabad Prison. According to statements by the security agents, he was subsequently transferred to Ward 209 of Evin Prison, under the control of the Ministry of Intelligence. During this period, his family was deprived of contact, visitation, and access to accurate information regarding his condition.
An important point in the securitization of such cases is that, from a judicial perspective, the charges against Bijan Kazemi should have been handled by a competent court in the place where the alleged offense occurred. Given that such a court did not exist in Kuhdasht, the case was referred, together with the accused, to Khorramabad, the provincial capital, where a Revolutionary Court is located.
However, neither the accused nor his family were informed why the case and the accused were subsequently transferred to Ward 209 of Evin Prison in Tehran. This action, along with similar measures, constitutes strong evidence of security-driven case fabrication and decisions made in advance by security institutions rather than judicial authorities; including the Ministry of Intelligence, the IRGC Intelligence Organization, and other security bodies tasked with repression. These actions lack any genuine judicial or legal basis.
Shahnaz Khosravi also stated that the security agents conditioned Bijan’s access to basic rights on “cooperation”; a term that in security cases is commonly understood as pressure to obtain forced confessions.
This case demonstrates that in the pre-trial stage, prolonged lack of information, transfers between detention facilities, cutting contact with family, and conditioning basic rights on “cooperation” can all form part of a project aimed at producing confessions and constructing a security case.
Relationship Between Security Agents and Judges
Examination of these cases shows that the boundary between security agents, interrogators, prosecution offices, and courts is often erased, and these institutions operate as an interconnected chain.
In this structure, the security agent shapes the case narrative during interrogation; this narrative is transformed into an indictment at the prosecution stage; and in court, instead of independent examination, it becomes the basis for the verdict.
In the cases of Behrouz Ehsani Eslamlou and Saleh Mohammadi, confessions obtained under pressure were relied upon in court without effective examination of torture allegations. In such cases, the role of the judge shifts from an independent evaluator to a confirmer of the security narrative.
In the case of Idris Ali, a Kurdish porter (kolbar), reports indicate that Branch 3 of the Revolutionary Court of Urmia, presided over by Judge Reza Najafzadeh, issued a death sentence based on confessions that, according to human rights sources, had been obtained under torture while in the custody of the Ministry of Intelligence. The charges of “corruption on earth” and espionage for Israel were constructed on the basis of this security narrative, and the court, instead of independently examining the conditions under which the confessions were obtained, relied on that narrative. Idris Ali was executed on June 25, 2025.
A similar pattern is observed in the case of Vahid Bani-Amerian. After being transferred to Ward 209 of Evin Prison and interrogated within a structure under the control of the Ministry of Intelligence, he was convicted in Branch 26 of the Revolutionary Court of Tehran, presided over by Judge Iman Afshari, on the charge of “armed rebellion” (baghi). Reports indicate physical and psychological torture, prolonged solitary confinement, mock execution, and denial of access to a chosen lawyer to obtain confessions. Despite the initial sentence being overturned by the Supreme Court, he was again sentenced to death and executed secretly on April 4, 2026, in Qezel Hesar Prison.
These examples demonstrate that in political and security cases, courts not only fail to effectively examine allegations of torture and coercion, but in many cases translate the narrative of security agents into judicial language. The result is the practical subordination of the judicial process to the security narrative.
Why This Constitutes a Systematic Mechanism
The repetition of this pattern across multiple cases shows that these are not isolated incidents. From arbitrary arrest to the issuance of a verdict, a consistent trajectory can be observed:
- Arrest without access to legal counsel
- Extraction of confessions under pressure
- Transformation of confessions and security reports into indictments
- Disregard of retraction and torture claims in court
- Issuance of heavy sentences or execution
This chain reflects a coordinated mechanism between security and judicial institutions, in which the outcome of the case is formed in the early stages and later formalized.
The Necessity of International Action and Accountability
The documented pattern in this report shows that violations of fundamental rights; from arbitrary arrest and torture to the use of forced confessions and the issuance of death sentences; occur within a sustained and organized mechanism. This situation elevates the responsibility of the international community beyond concern and condemnation.
The ruling regime in Iran has been condemned 72 times by the United Nations General Assembly for human rights violations. Nevertheless, the continuation of executions, expedited proceedings, and systematic reliance on confessions obtained under pressure demonstrate that repeated condemnations alone have not been sufficient to halt this process.
Under these circumstances, the United Nations, the Human Rights Council, Special Rapporteurs, and other international bodies face a human and legal responsibility. This situation highlights the necessity of practical action.
Documentation of these cases must be pursued in a manner that enables the use of international judicial mechanisms, including the principle of universal jurisdiction. Individuals involved in this chain; from security agents and interrogators to prosecutors and judges; must be examined and held accountable under international law.
Given the scale of these violations, particularly in cases leading to execution, these matters must move beyond political condemnation and enter the pathway of adjudication in international courts.
Conclusion
This report demonstrates that in Iran under the rule of the mullahs’ regime, judicial repression begins in detention centers and is consolidated in court. What is presented as a “judicial process” is, in many cases, a continuation of a path previously shaped by security institutions.
In this mechanism, the court is not the endpoint; rather, it is a stage for formalizing a narrative that has already been constructed.
Therefore, examining the role of security agents and interrogators alongside prosecutors and judges is essential for any serious process of international accountability; because without identifying the pre-trial links, the chain of judicial repression remains incomplete.
