Seyed Mahmoud Alizadeh Tabatabaei, a licensed attorney, political activist, and member of the board of directors of the Central Bar Association, was also a representative in the first term of the Islamic City Council of Tehran (1997–2001). He has represented many Iranian political figures and senior officials, particularly those affiliated with the reformist movement, including Seyed Mohammad Khatami, Mohammad Atrianfar, Shapour Kazemi, Kambiz Norouzi, Saeed Laylaz, and several defendants from the protests following the 2009 elections. He also represented Mir-Hossein Mousavi in his lawsuit against Javan newspaper. His other cases include defending Mehdi Hashemi, son of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, and representing the newspaper Shargh when it was shut down after publishing a cartoon by Hadi Heidari. One of his most controversial recent cases was defending Mohammad-Ali Najafi, former minister and former mayor of Tehran, in the murder trial of his wife, Mitra Ostad. Since 1999, Alizadeh Tabatabaei has been the legal deputy of the Secretary-General of the Executives of Construction Party of Iran, and from 2019 to 2023, he headed its legal office. To better understand the views of this experienced lawyer involved in many high-profile cases, we spoke with him on the subject of this issue of Khat-e Solh (execution in public). What follows are his legal perspectives on the matter.

As you know, we recently witnessed three public executions, images of which were published in media and on social networks. What reasons would lead a judge to decide that punishment should be carried out publicly?

The text of Iranian law does not explicitly state “public execution” as an absolute “right of enforcement,” but the combination of certain rules and regulations gives the judiciary discretion to determine the place of execution, including external or public venues.

What is the legal basis for public execution? Does the law explicitly allow or prohibit it?

Article 499 of the Code of Criminal Procedure explicitly states: “Execution of punishment in public is prohibited, except in cases of legal obligation or if the court (or upon the prosecutor’s proposal) deems public enforcement necessary due to social considerations, the nature of the crime, the defendant’s background, or concern about repetition of the crime, and specifies this in its ruling.” This means the general rule is prohibition, and exceptions only apply when explicitly ordered by the court or required by law. The details of how punishments involving death or corporal measures are carried out—including place, formalities, required attendees, rules regarding children’s presence, women’s attire, filming, and reporting—are provided in the Regulations on the Execution of Sentences (issued in 2019). This regulation explicitly allows punishments outside prison grounds and empowers judicial officers to determine the place of execution. For punishments such as flogging, the regulation contains provisions allowing courts to designate public spaces in their rulings. Therefore, if the court specifies “public places” as the venue in its verdict, the regulation outlines how this must be carried out.

Is public execution specifically defined in the Islamic Penal Code, or is it merely left to the judge’s discretion?

Article 216 of the Islamic Penal Code (and the authority it gives to issue implementing regulations) is the legal source of this regulation. Article 216 states that the enforcement of hudud, qisas, and ta’zir punishments is subject to regulations that must be prepared and issued by the head of the judiciary within six months of the law’s enactment. Thus, courts may order executions in public spaces under two essential conditions: first, if a specific law explicitly requires it; second, if the court, after reviewing considerations such as social impact, nature of the crime, defendant’s background, or risk of repetition, finds public execution “necessary” and includes this in its ruling. The procedure must then follow the regulations (including record-keeping, presence of specified officials, prior notification to authorities, etc.). In practice, the final authority over place and manner of enforcement rests with the court or the judge in charge of enforcement, but the default prohibition of public executions remains in force.

From a legal perspective, does public execution conform to principles of fair trial and international human rights standards? What do its proponents claim as benefits, and how strong are those claims?

Supporters argue that public executions deter crime, discipline society, satisfy victims’ families, or demonstrate the government’s authority. However, legal-scientific evaluation shows otherwise: academic research and credible institutions have found no reliable evidence that public executions are an effective deterrent. Independent reports and scholarly studies conclude that there is no conclusive proof that executions—or their public nature—significantly reduce homicide rates. In short, the deterrence argument lacks strong empirical support.

How do you analyze the social and psychological effects of this form of punishment? Some argue public execution normalizes violence among the public, especially children and youth. What harms and consequences does it bring?

The foremost impact is trauma and widespread psychological harm. Witnessing executions or corporal punishment in public can cause serious psychological damage, especially to children. The regulations themselves acknowledge this by forbidding the presence of minors under 18 except with judicial approval. Another issue is violation of human dignity and possible “degradation of human worth.” International human rights bodies generally consider public executions “torturous, degrading, or humiliating,” conflicting with prohibitions against cruel and inhumane punishment. They may also produce discriminatory effects, as marginalized groups or those with weaker legal defense face greater risk of being subjected to such displays. Moreover, given the irreversible nature of execution, any judicial error becomes catastrophic. Public enforcement reduces the chances for fair review by increasing social and political pressure. Furthermore, the “brutalization effect” exists: evidence suggests that state displays of violence can normalize violence in society rather than reduce it.

Some argue it is legal because it follows regulations. What legal criticisms can be made against its validity?

The default domestic legal principle is “prohibition of public enforcement.” Any exception must be justified with strong reasoning in the verdict. Merely specifying a place (e.g., “X Square”) without explaining necessity, social impact, etc. is indefensible under Article 499 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even if internal procedures are followed, international human rights law—especially prohibitions on torture and degrading punishment under Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)—calls public executions into question. Iran is a signatory or participant in such frameworks, and these conflicts undermine its legal validity.

Which legal principles and human rights are in conflict with public executions?

The right to life is central. Article 6 of the ICCPR limits capital punishment to the “most serious crimes” and requires strict safeguards. Article 7 prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment, under which international bodies criticize public executions. Domestically, Article 38 of Iran’s Constitution bans torture, providing internal support against degrading punishments. Additionally, children’s rights and public mental health are protected under various international conventions, which public executions clearly violate by exposing society to violent spectacles.

Recently, the Iranian Psychiatric Association wrote to the head of the judiciary warning of the widespread consequences of public executions and calling for their immediate halt. Have lawyers or legal associations taken similar actions?

From a legal standpoint, the general rule is prohibition, and exceptions must be strictly reasoned and follow proper procedures. From a criminological perspective, public executions lack guaranteed deterrent effect and carry serious social and human costs. A practical legal recommendation would be to establish clearer laws, stricter criteria, detailed reasoning requirements, explicit limits on public attendance, and stronger protections for children and families. Media must also emphasize transparency and respect for basic rights. Importantly, harsh punishments such as executions have little preventive impact. Over 20,000 people have been executed for drug-related offenses, yet crime persists; in some families, after a father was executed, the son continued drug trafficking, then the son was executed and the sister continued, leaving families with multiple executed members. Thus, neither execution itself nor its public nature has prevented crime.

We thank you for your time and for sharing your views with Khat-e Solh and its audience.