The recent decision by Iran’s Revolutionary Court to sentence four defendants in the high-profile Ekbatan case to death has revived serious concerns about due process, judicial consistency, and the use of capital punishment in politically sensitive cases. The ruling comes only days after another Iranian court reached significantly different conclusions regarding the same case, acknowledging major evidentiary limitations and reducing earlier death-related outcomes to prison terms and financial penalties. The conflicting rulings have raised difficult questions not only about the legal process itself but also about broader concerns surrounding the administration of justice in protest-related cases in Iran.
The Ekbatan case centers on the death of Arman Aliverdi, a Basij-affiliated seminary student who was severely injured during the nationwide protests of November 2022 and died in a hospital two days later. The incident took place in Tehran’s Ekbatan district, one of the most visible centers of protests during the “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement, which emerged following the killing of Jina (Mahsa) Amini in morality police custody.
From the beginning, the case attracted exceptional attention. Iranian authorities portrayed Aliverdi as a victim of organized violence committed by protesters, while critics and human rights organizations raised concerns regarding the investigation, allegations of coerced confessions, and the politicized atmosphere surrounding prosecutions linked to the 2022 protests.
Several defendants initially received death sentences. However, after appeals and renewed judicial review, Iranian courts issued revised verdicts only days ago that significantly changed the legal picture. Under those revised rulings, Milad Armoun, Alireza Kafaei, and Amir Mohammad Khosh-Eghbal were sentenced to prison terms and payment of blood money (diyah), while several other defendants were acquitted of direct participation in intentional murder.
More importantly, the revised court decision acknowledged a central issue that had troubled the case from the beginning: despite evidence that some defendants may have participated in physical assaults, judicial and forensic authorities were unable to conclusively determine which specific individual delivered the fatal blow that caused Aliverdi’s death.
According to findings cited during the judicial review process, forensic evidence could establish severe injuries and brain trauma as the cause of death but could not definitively identify the precise act or individual responsible for the fatal injury. That distinction matters profoundly.
In criminal justice systems around the world, particularly where the death penalty is involved, uncertainty regarding direct responsibility is not a minor procedural issue. It strikes at the center of the legal standard required for imposing irreversible punishment. Where serious doubt exists, the benefit of that doubt must favor the accused.
Yet only days after the earlier court recognized these evidentiary limitations, Iran’s Revolutionary Court announced a separate ruling sentencing four defendants to death under charges of “corruption on earth” (efsad fel-arz) while sentencing others to prison terms for security-related offenses. State media described the ruling as based on factors including the “manner of committing the crime,” “scope of the crime,” and “harmful consequences” of the defendants’ actions against national security.
The use of “corruption on earth” charges in Iran has long been controversial. Human rights organizations have repeatedly criticized the offense because of its broad wording and expansive interpretation. Unlike ordinary criminal charges focused on individual actions, the charge can encompass behavior authorities argue threatens social order or state security.
Critics argue that such provisions can create a pathway through which defendants may face capital punishment even in situations where direct responsibility for a killing remains uncertain or disputed. The contradiction between the recent rulings therefore raises serious questions.
If one court concluded that evidence was insufficient to identify who caused the fatal injury and therefore reduced or dismissed murder-related responsibility, how can another court simultaneously justify the most severe punishment available under Iranian law for the same events?
Acts of violence resulting in injuries or death warrant investigation and legal response. Families of victims have a legitimate interest in seeking justice. Arman Aliverdi’s death itself was a tragedy, and any judicial process should aim to establish truth and accountability. However, legitimate human rights concerns surrounding the Ekbatan case extend beyond simple truth and accountability given these conflicting verdicts.
The case has for years been accompanied by allegations regarding forced confessions, coercive interrogations, and pretrial media exposure. Human rights groups and defense lawyers previously argued that some defendants were subjected to pressure during interrogations. Reports also indicated that state television aired interrogations and public accusations before judicial proceedings had been completed. Such practices have repeatedly drawn criticism because they risk undermining one of the most basic principles of criminal justice: the presumption of innocence. And that concern becomes even greater when capital punishment is involved.
In the broader picture, Iran’s judiciary has continued and intensified executions of political and security-related prisoners in recent months, amid a wider climate of heightened tensions and a sweeping crackdown following the outbreak of war involving Iran, the United States, and Israel. Human rights organizations, UN experts, and civil society activists have increasingly warned that the Islamic Republic may be using capital punishment not merely as a criminal penalty but also as a tool to suppress dissent, intimidate society, and consolidate control during a period of instability and heightened political pressure. Reports of new executions continue to emerge, reinforcing concerns that this trend remains active and ongoing.
The recent Revolutionary Court ruling risks intensifying longstanding concerns that politically sensitive cases connected to protests may operate under different pressures than ordinary criminal proceedings.
NIAC expresses deep concern regarding the renewed death sentences in the Ekbatan case and the broader continuation of executions in Iran. NIAC further calls on Iranian authorities to ensure that justice is pursued through fair and transparent legal standards and to halt the broader wave of executions currently taking place in Iran, particularly in cases where serious questions regarding evidence, procedure, and defendants’ rights remain unresolved.