Execution has always been one of the most controversial and challenging topics in criminal justice systems around the world. In Iran, this punishment, especially in recent decades, has not only been a legal and religious issue, but also a political, social, and ethical one. In this regard, questions have been raised that go beyond the nature of execution itself, but also include the trial process, types of crimes subject to this punishment, the role of lawyers, and also the jurisprudential and international legal aspects of it. In a situation where the Islamic Republic has the highest rate of executions in the world, this punishment is no longer seen as a means of punishment, but rather a social-legal issue; one that has captured the attention of public opinion and human rights organizations. In many cases, ambiguity about the judicial process and shortcomings in fair trials have only heightened concerns.

In this regard, I have arranged a conversation with Dr. Shahab Tajri, a lawyer and legal researcher, and we have tried to address ways to overcome this crisis by examining its roots and challenges. Dr. Tajri, who is active in the field of human rights, has shared his perspective with us from a critical, jurisprudential, and legal point of view. This conversation is not just a reiteration of a specialized opinion, but an attempt to open up a collective discussion about one of the most important human rights issues of our time, namely “the right to life.”

You can read the explanation of the peace talks with this district attorney in the following.

In your opinion, what are the principles that the death penalty in the legal system of Iran is based on?

In our legal system, capital punishment is primarily based on religious and Sharia principles. Many of these laws are derived from religious texts and have been directly or indirectly incorporated into the relevant laws. For example, punishments such as retribution for intentional murder, or limits such as adultery, fighting, corruption on earth, and apostasy, all have their roots in religious jurisprudence. However, on the other hand, we also see some forms of capital punishment that do not exist directly in religious sources, but the legislator has turned them into laws by referring to “public interest” or “preservation of social security”; such as some cases of drug crimes. Here, religion has implicitly justified the exercise of authority in shaping laws.

Does the death penalty in Iran comply with fair trial principles (in accordance with domestic laws and international human rights laws)?

Fair trial principles refer to rules and principles that are set in place to uphold the rights of citizens during the legal process and are not necessarily related to the type of punishment. Between the death penalty and fair trial principles, the connection that can be made is that in some crimes for which the legislator has considered the death penalty – such as in security and political crimes – under the titles of “corruption on earth” and “rebellion”, there is not enough guarantee for the accused to defend their rights. In this regard, it can be said that fair trial principles are completely compromised in dealing with these types of crimes.

How much does the use of confessions under torture or pressure play a role in issuing death sentences in cases?

Unfortunately, in the past, especially until the early 1980s, the use of torture to obtain confessions was common in many cases. The passing of the “Respect for Legitimate Freedoms and Protection of Citizenship Rights” law in 2003 was an attempt to break this trend, but this practice still continues in some cases, especially in political and security cases. What is concerning is the lack of oversight over security institutions and the restriction of access to independent lawyers during the investigative stages. These conditions essentially pave the way for the repetition of the same pressures in court.

What flaws or deficiencies exist in the Islamic Penal Code regarding execution?

Perhaps the biggest issue is the inherent contradiction between execution and the “right to life” as the most fundamental human right. Execution is an irreversible punishment and any mistake in it is catastrophic. On the other hand, the philosophy of punishment in contemporary criminal law tends towards reforming criminals, not eliminating them. In other words, the goal should be the return of the criminal to society, not their destruction. However, in the laws of the Islamic Republic, we still face cases where a person is sentenced to execution for their thoughts and beliefs, which goes against the logic of human rights and modern theories of criminal law.

What is the role of lawyers in defending defendants facing execution, especially in security or political cases?

Lawyers play a key role in these cases. Whether in the role of technical defense in court or in informing the public to prevent the violation of the rights of the accused. However, unfortunately in Iran, the freedom to choose an independent lawyer is severely limited in political and security cases. Article 48 of the Criminal Procedure Code restricts the choice of lawyer to a list of approved lawyers by the judiciary, which is considered one of the biggest obstacles to achieving fair trials.

Is there a solution to restrict or abolish the death penalty within the framework of legal reform?

Yes, there are ways, both from a jurisprudential and legal and rational perspective. Some jurists, relying on dynamic reasoning and the objectives of Sharia, have proposed solutions to reduce or eliminate the death penalty. It is important to know that even in jurisprudence, the ruling of execution is not necessarily permanent and definitive. From a legal perspective, by amending penal laws and eliminating certain cases, a path can be opened to abolish the death penalty. However, this requires a change in attitude at the macro level of politics and jurisprudence in the country.

What is your opinion on alternative punishments?

In general, punishments related to political, religious, and intellectual issues should be eliminated, and for crimes such as drug offenses, alternative punishments other than execution should be considered. The death penalty not only fails to act as a deterrent, but also perpetuates violence and undermines public trust. For example, in many cases of drug-related executions, it has not only failed to reduce crime, but also hindered the path to rehabilitation and treatment for addicts. It should also be noted that the death penalty has various forms in our laws (retribution, punishment, and retribution), so it cannot be analyzed in the same way. However, in general, it can be said that in most modern societies, the death penalty is becoming obsolete due to its severe social, familial, and humanitarian consequences. There are also strong rational reasons for replacing other punishments with the death penalty. In some cases, the death penalty is even redundant in our legal system and does not require a replacement.

Do you think that the legal society of Iran accepts your opinion on opposing the death penalty?

If by “you” we mean the legal community, including lawyers, law professors, judges, and graduates in this field, the answer is positive. A large portion of this community is opposed to the use of violence and in many cases do not justify it. Social and cultural factors, and most importantly, confrontation with power structures, hinder progress in such reforms.

The death penalty, which deprives humans of the most important human right, the right to life, is not acceptable for a believer in human rights. Modern societies no longer accept harsh punishments and instead take deeper and more measured actions to establish order in society, without the need for harsh punishments such as execution. Unfortunately, Iran is among the countries that have the highest rates of executions, and this has not resulted in a better security situation in our society compared to countries that do not have the death penalty or only use it rarely. Apart from this, in many cases, the death penalty is imposed in our legal system due to the thoughts and actions of individuals or their political activities, which is fundamentally unacceptable and lacks rational and logical justification. Most of the executions that take place are also for drug-related crimes, which have not had much impact on reducing this crime and naturally, the root of it must be sought elsewhere.

With all these circumstances, I believe that raising awareness and public pressure can make this path smoother.

Thank you for the opportunity you have given us to use the peace line.