From post-revolution tribunals to modern-day executions, the Iran regime’s judiciary has institutionalized fear to silence dissent
Since the escalation of nationwide unrest in January 2026, the Iran regime’s judiciary has sharply intensified its use of the death penalty. Even amid wartime conditions—when court operations were partially disrupted and due process severely compromised—death sentences not only continued but increased. This trend underscores a broader reality: executions are not incidental within the Iran regime; they are strategic.
Executions as a Tool of Political Control
The issuance and implementation of death sentences remain among the most severe mechanisms of repression employed by the Iran regime. At the center of this system are the Revolutionary Courts—judicial bodies that have, for decades, functioned less as instruments of justice and more as enforcers of political control.
Established in the immediate aftermath of the 1979 revolution by order of Ruhollah Khomeini, these courts have operated with sweeping authority. From the era of Sadegh Khalkhali, their first head, to the current judiciary leadership under Gholamhossein Mohseni Eje’i, thousands have been sentenced to death on vague or politically motivated charges, often without fair trial standards.
While Khalkhali became synonymous with revolutionary zeal and summary executions, today’s judiciary leadership pursues similar outcomes under a different rationale: the preservation of regime stability. Protesters—including individuals reportedly under the age of 20—have been subjected to capital punishment in proceedings that lack transparency and due process.
Revolutionary Courts and the Erosion of Due Process
In recent months, senior judicial officials have openly threatened protesters with severe punishment, framing repression as a necessity under “wartime conditions.” Revolutionary Courts have followed through, issuing rapid sentences ranging from long-term imprisonment to execution.
This efficiency stands in stark contrast to other areas of the judicial system, where routine civil and financial cases often take years to resolve. In political and security-related cases, however, trials are expedited to such an extent that the very concept of due process is effectively nullified.
Defendants frequently face closed hearings, limited access to legal counsel, and reliance on coerced confessions. The result is a system in which verdicts appear predetermined, and the legal process serves primarily as a formality.
Historical Roots of Institutionalized Repression
The origins of the Revolutionary Courts date back to February 1979, when ad hoc tribunals—initially referred to as “people’s revolutionary courts”—were established to prosecute figures associated with the previous regime.
Although early criticisms emerged regarding their procedures and lack of legal safeguards, influential political figures defended their continuation. Over time, regulatory frameworks were introduced, but these did little to constrain their scope in practice.
Despite the Iranian constitution mandating public trials and jury involvement for political offenses, Revolutionary Courts systematically bypass these provisions. By labeling defendants with charges such as “enmity against God” (moharebeh) or “corruption on earth,” authorities have consistently diverted cases away from public courts into controlled judicial environments.
By 1983, legislation formally integrated Revolutionary Courts into the judiciary, granting them jurisdiction over a wide array of offenses, including national security, armed opposition, and drug-related crimes. What began as a temporary mechanism thus evolved into a permanent pillar of the Iran regime’s judicial architecture.
Expansion and Consolidation Under the Current System
In the decades that followed, particularly after the leadership transition to Ali Khamenei, Revolutionary Courts became firmly entrenched within the state apparatus. Legal reforms in the 1990s further codified their authority, solidifying their role in handling the most sensitive political and security cases.
Simultaneously, the judiciary itself underwent ideological transformation. Laws governing judicial appointments opened the door for clerical figures, shifting the basis of legal decision-making away from professional legal standards toward religious and political considerations.
During periods of heightened political tension—especially in the late 1980s—these courts played a central role in mass executions of political prisoners, many of whom were tried in summary proceedings and buried in unmarked graves, according to human rights reports.
Modern-Day Practices: Speed, Secrecy, and Severity
Today, Revolutionary Courts remain the primary venue for prosecuting political dissidents, journalists, activists, students, and minority groups. Procedural restrictions have intensified over time, including limitations on defendants’ ability to choose independent legal representation.
Reports from human rights organizations consistently highlight patterns of abuse: forced confessions obtained under pressure or torture, lack of transparent evidence, brief and closed trial sessions, and disproportionate sentencing.
Several judges have become emblematic of this system, issuing large numbers of death sentences and lengthy prison terms. Their rulings have reinforced the perception that these courts function less as impartial arbiters and more as instruments of state policy.
Escalation After Recent Uprisings
The repressive function of the Revolutionary Courts became particularly evident following the nationwide protests of recent years. These courts were instrumental in suppressing dissent, issuing harsh sentences to create a climate of fear.
This pattern has persisted and intensified. International bodies, including United Nations fact-finding missions, have repeatedly warned about ongoing systematic repression, lack of fair trials, and the use of executions as a deterrent against protest movements.
Following the mass demonstrations in early 2026, the Iran regime carried out one of its most severe crackdowns in recent history. In the months that followed, at least 17 political prisoners—many of them young protesters—were executed after trials widely criticized as unfair and opaque.
A Judiciary Serving Power, Not Justice
An examination of the Revolutionary Courts over nearly five decades reveals a consistent pattern: these institutions have operated as a cornerstone of repression within the Iran regime. Their function extends beyond the elimination of political opponents; they serve to communicate a broader message to society—that dissent carries existential risk.
In this sense, the judiciary is not merely failing to deliver justice; it is actively reinforcing a system of control. The continued reliance on such mechanisms suggests a regime that views coercion not as a last resort, but as a central governing strategy.
