Mehrab Abdollahzadeh Under the Blade of Execution; Victim of Unfair Trial, Torture, and a Contradictory Verdict in a Case with 60 Defendants
December 25, 2025; Mehrab Abdollahzadeh, a Kurdish political prisoner and one of the detainees of the “Jin, Jiyan, Azadi” revolutionary uprising, is under the serious blade of execution while numerous signs indicate the danger of an imminent implementation of the death sentence. The sentence becoming final and enforceable in the Supreme Court, the referral of the case to the Criminal Sentences Execution Unit, and the blocking of his bank card are all actions that usually occur in the Iranian judicial procedure on the eve of executing a death sentence and have severely increased concerns regarding the life of this political prisoner.
The death sentence of Mehrab Abdollahzadeh was issued and upheld after a completely unfair trial process; a process that from beginning to end was accompanied by arbitrary detention, torture, the taking of forced confessions, deprivation of the right to access a lawyer, ignoring the defendant's defense, indifference to requests for examining technical evidence, and finally the issuance and stabilization of the verdict based on “the judge’s knowledge.” The issued verdict is also full of gross contradictions; contradictions that were not only left unresolved but instead of being interpreted in favor of the defendant's life, were used in the direction of stabilizing the death sentence.
This case is a clear example of the systematic use of torture and security scenario-building in the judicial process; a process in which “confession under torture” replaced independent evidentiary proof, “the judge’s personal opinion” took the place of truth-finding, and a political prisoner, as the only available defendant, became the victim of a case in which dozens of its other defendants were never held accountable.
The present report is prepared based on conversations with one of the relatives of Mehrab Abdollahzadeh, reliable field information, and a detailed examination of the verdict issued by Branch 9 of the Supreme Court and the documents of the preliminary court. In order to maintain the security of sources, the name of the informed source has been withheld.
The rejection of the appeal against the death sentence of Mehrab Abdollahzadeh in the Supreme Court based on a specific personal opinion;
Based on the verdict issued by Branch 9 of the Supreme Court, presided over by Judge “Qasem Mazinani” and counselor “Mohammad-Baqer Baqeri”, on November 16, 2025, this branch declared the appeal of Mehrab Abdollahzadeh, a Kurdish political prisoner, as rejected and upheld his death sentence on the charge of “Efsad-fel-Arz” (Corruption on Earth).
Mehrab Abdollahzadeh was sentenced to death as the second-row defendant in a case related to the “murder of a Basij force member” named “Seyyed Abbas Fatemiyeh.” In its ruling, the Supreme Court declared “the judge’s knowledge” as the basis for rejecting the appeal. With the affirmation of this ruling, the death sentence transitioned from a preliminary state and became final and enforceable, and the case was returned to the verdict-issuing authority, namely the Revolutionary Court of Urmia, and then to the Criminal Sentences Execution Unit for the completion of legal formalities and execution of the sentence.
Subsequently, this sentence was notified to Mehrab Abdollahzadeh and his lawyers on December 18, 2025, by the sentence execution judge of Branch 9 of the Public and Revolutionary Prosecutor's Office of Urmia.
Serious concerns regarding the imminent execution of Mehrab Abdollahzadeh’s death sentence following the blocking of his bank account and the referral of the case to the execution unit;
With the death sentence of Mehrab Abdollahzadeh becoming final and enforceable in the Supreme Court and the blocking of his bank card on December 23, 2025, evidence shows that the judicial and security system is attempting the imminent execution of the death sentence. These actions have practically smoothed the path for the execution of the sentence and increase the probability of the execution being realized in the short term.
Nonetheless, an examination of the case documents and verdicts shows that Mehrab’s case is full of gross contradictions and confessions taken under torture, with a lack of valid evidence and sufficient documentation. No independent evidence exists to prove Mehrab’s participation in the murder, and many legal requests for the examination of videos and crime scene evidence in favor of the defendant were ignored.
The combination of the sentence becoming final, the blocking of the account, and the preparation of the execution stages under conditions where the case lacks sufficient and valid documents is an obvious sign of the implementation of a political and unfair death sentence and severely increases intense concern regarding human rights and the security of the prisoner.
The issuance of the death sentence in preliminary court sessions lasting a few minutes based on forced confessions;
Based on the verdict of the preliminary court, Mehrab Abdollahzadeh was sentenced to death by Branch 3 of the Revolutionary Court of Urmia, presided over by Judge “Najafzadeh”, on charges of “Efsad-fel-Arz” and “participation in premeditated murder” in connection with the case known as the “murder of a Basij force member.”
This sentence was issued after holding three court sessions; two sessions were held online and one session in person which lasted only a few minutes, in which Mehrab Abdollahzadeh was not given a real opportunity to defend himself. The preliminary court's ruling was issued on September 20, 2024, and one month later, on October 21, 2024, it was notified to this political prisoner in the Central Prison of Urmia.
Before the case was referred to the court, Mehrab Abdollahzadeh was held in solitary confinement and under torture for 38 days. After the completion of interrogations and the extraction of forced confessions, his case was referred to Branch 7 of the Interrogations Office of the Public and Revolutionary Prosecutor's Office of Urmia, presided over by “Soltanzadeh”, and after the issuance of the indictment, it was sent to Branch 1 of the Revolutionary Court of Urmia.
Following the protest of the case lawyers against the issued ruling, the case was referred to the Supreme Court and was sent to Branch 9 of the Supreme Court in late January 2025.
Arbitrary detention and short-term enforced disappearance of Mehrab Abdollahzadeh;
On October 22, 2022, during the “Jin, Jiyan, Azadi” revolutionary uprising, Mehrab Abdollahzadeh was violently detained by security forces affiliated with the Intelligence Organization of the IRGC at his workplace (a barbershop) in Valiasr town of Urmia city and transferred to an unknown location.
After this arbitrary and illegal detention, Mehrab’s family struggled for days and weeks to find out about his place of detention and status. They approached various security, law enforcement, and judicial institutions, but none of these institutions gave a clear answer to the family, and practically, Mehrab’s status was in a state of “short-term enforced disappearance.”
Finally, after several weeks of continuous follow-up by the family, the first phone call lasting a few seconds was allowed to Mehrab. This call was conducted in the Kurdish language. The second call also lasted no more than a few seconds, and this time he was not allowed to speak in the Kurdish language and only said in Persian that “he is fine and was detained by the Intelligence Organization of the IRGC.” These two calls were Mehrab’s only communication with his family until the end of the interrogation period and detention in solitary confinement.
38 days of solitary and torture to extract forced confessions;
According to the informed source of Kurdpa, Mehrab Abdollahzadeh was held in solitary confinement for a period of 38 days, and during this time, although he was detained by the Intelligence Organization of the IRGC, he was under interrogation in one of the security detention centers of the Intelligence Department.
During this period, he was placed under severe mental and physical torture to confess to being present in the protests and participation in the murder of a Basij member. This is while, according to this source, the CCTV camera footage, which is only in the possession of security institutions and was never shown to Mehrab or his lawyers, does not show his presence at the scene. Mehrab himself has always denied participation in this murder, and no independent evidence showing that he was present at the alleged time and place has been presented.
The informed source, in explaining the type of torture, says that during the interrogation, photos of Mehrab’s family members were shown to him and security forces claimed that they were in detention. Interrogators threatened that in case of non-cooperation, they would do whatever they wanted to his family. He was also told that if he only wrote in the interrogation sheet that “he threw two punches at the Basij person”, his family would be released. In this way, under intense pressure, Mehrab was forced to write confessions that later became the main basis of the case against him.
Framing and security pressure; the innocence of Mehrab Abdollahzadeh and the disregard for evidence by the judicial system;
The informed source of Kurdpa regarding the “murder of that Basij person” says; “In fact, the Basij family, because they know their son was not murdered by Mehrab, have given their consent regarding his Qisas (retaliation), but the Intelligence Organization of the IRGC has pressured that family and does not allow the consent of that family to be applied in Mehrab Abdollahzadeh’s case.”
On the other hand, regarding the charge brought against Mehrab, the source says; “Mehrab was not present at the location of that Basij member’s murder at all and this entire case is framing and a scenario, and Mehrab has repeatedly told the judge, relevant officials, interrogators, and security institutions in interrogation sessions and the court to play or show me the video that you claim I am in, or to scientifically analyze the GPS of the phone or to take a scan of my whole body and match it with the alleged video and if it is proven that I was there, do whatever you want with me,” but none of these requests were answered and were not considered in the case and trial at all.
This source close to the family also says regarding the innocence of Mehrab; “The relevant institutions tell a lie every day, I swear to God no evidence exists and they are only being oppressive. If Mehrab was guilty, he would not have been arrested after 40 days, and if he knew he had the smallest involvement in that murder, he would have fled during this period, because in the case of this Basij person being killed, there were 60 people as defendants, some of whom were released after arrest but most of them fled the country from the very beginning, and if Mehrab had the slightest doubt about himself, he would have fled by now.”
Deprivation of a lawyer during the sensitive interrogation period and forcing the family to choose a court-appointed lawyer for the preliminary court;
After the end of 38 days of being held in solitary confinement, Mehrab Abdollahzadeh was transferred to the Central Prison of Urmia. After this transfer, a list of lawyers approved by the Judiciary was placed at the disposal of the family and they were told that they do not have the permission to choose a chosen lawyer outside of this list. The family was forced to choose a court-appointed lawyer for their son from among this list. In fact, for holding the preliminary court, the right to determine a chosen lawyer was not given to the family and in this sensitive stage, they could only hire a court-appointed lawyer.
This was while Mehrab, during the entire period of 38 days of solitary, was deprived of the right to choose any chosen or court-appointed lawyer and even during the 38 days of solitary, the right to meet with his family was taken from Mehrab.
Fundamental contradictions in Mehrab Abdollahzadeh’s case based on the documents of the Supreme Court verdict;
A detailed examination of the verdict issued by Branch 9 of the Supreme Court, alongside the direct statements of the relatives of Mehrab Abdollahzadeh, shows that the issued death sentence was shaped not based on clear and verifiable evidence, but based on a set of serious contradictions, personal deductions, and security narratives. In this case, even the provisions of the verdict itself are in obvious conflict with the confessions attributed to the defendant, the conditions of interrogation, and field realities. In the following, four main axes of these fundamental contradictions that seriously call into question the legal legitimacy of the death sentence are explained;
1. Issuance of the death sentence based on a narrative beyond the forced confessions under torture;
In the official text of the Supreme Court verdict, it is mentioned that Mehrab Abdollahzadeh, in all stages of interrogation and judicial proceedings, declared he had no weapons or specific tools with him and ultimately only delivered “a few punches.” These statements are even recorded in the text of the verdict. Nonetheless, contrary to this limited confession, the court considered the death of “Seyyed Abbas Fatemiyeh” to be due to “a collection of lethal blows” and introduced a “metal rod (rebar)” as the murder weapon, while Mehrab never confessed to using rebar or any similar tool and no independent, objective, or technical document was presented to prove this claim.
This limited confession was also, according to family relatives, taken under severe torture, 38-day detention in solitary confinement, and direct threats to the family. Interrogators had promised him that if he only wrote “he threw two punches at the Basij person,” his family would be released. Despite this, the court not only ignored the involuntary nature of the confession but also set aside that same limited confession and placed a much heavier charge, namely “murder with a murder weapon,” as the basis for issuing the death sentence.
The Supreme Court also confirmed the death sentence based on these confessions under torture and performed no independent investigation regarding the claim of torture. This procedure is not only in conflict with Article 38 of the Constitution of Iran and human rights standards, but even if we consider the limited confession of “two punches” as the criterion, such an act cannot be the basis for issuing a death sentence or an instance of “Efsad-fel-Arz.” Linking this limited confession to the charge of murder with a murder weapon is an illogical leap lacking a legal basis and shows that the issued ruling was adopted based on a pre-made scenario and not the realities of the case.
2. Due to the lack of clear evidence, the judge’s personal opinion has replaced verifiable evidentiary proof;
Branch 9 of the Supreme Court, in rejecting the appeal, explicitly declared that the basis for confirming the death sentence was “the judge’s knowledge.” This is while Mehrab Abdollahzadeh, in all stages of the proceedings, requested the examination of technical and objective evidence; including: ● The presentation and display of the CCTV camera film which is claimed to have recorded the scene of the conflict ● The examination of the GPS location of his mobile phone at the time of the occurrence of the incident ● Scientific (biometric) matching of his body with the images existing in the alleged films According to family relatives, not only were none of these requests accepted, but they were fundamentally not examined. This is while in a collective conflict with dozens of defendants, without performing such examinations, distinguishing exactly who delivered the blow leading to death is scientifically and legally impossible.
Reliance on “the judge’s knowledge” in such conditions has practically replaced truth-finding and turned into a tool to pass through the lack of real documents. In cases that deal with human lives, the existence of doubt and uncertainty must prevent the issuance of a death sentence, not be a justification for its implementation.
3. Obvious inequality between the defendant’s position and the intensity of the punishment; Mehrab Abdollahzadeh was the only “final option” available from among 60 defendants:
Based on the Supreme Court verdict, there are 50 to 60 defendants in the “Basij murder” case. The recognized names of some defendants include; “Farshid Mostafazadeh” (first-row defendant), “Mehrab Abdollahzadeh” (second-row defendant), “Kamal Khakzad” and other individuals. The first-row defendant, Farshid Mostafazadeh, was exempted from the death penalty because he was under 18 years old at the time of the incident's occurrence and was sentenced to only five years of imprisonment and was released. Other defendants either left the country before detention or were released after arrest.
Mehrab Abdollahzadeh, who was arrested about one month after the incident at his workplace, practically remained the only adult defendant available. Despite the fact that the second-row defendant naturally had a lesser role compared to the first-row defendant, he is the only one who has been sentenced to death. This obvious inequality shows that the issued ruling was adopted not based on the amount of real participation of the defendants in the murder, but based on the access and presence of Mehrab at the time of detention.
In other words, the judicial system has placed the entire criminal responsibility of 60 defendants on the shoulders of Mehrab so that the case does not remain without an execution. This decision is contrary to the principle of individual responsibility and the proportionality of crime and punishment and shows that the goal of the trial was not the implementation of justice, but the selection of an “available defendant” for the execution of a death sentence.
This situation clearly indicates the use of Mehrab Abdollahzadeh as the “final option” to close the case; a matter that stands in complete conflict with the principles of criminal law and fair trial standards and calls into question the legal credit of the entire process.
4. Rendering the will of the victim’s family ineffective through the purposeful change of the charge title from Qisas to “Efsad-fel-Arz”
The court claims that the wife and mother of the deceased, as the heirs of the blood, requested Qisas. But according to family relatives, they intended to declare consent due to serious doubt regarding the real killer. Nonetheless, security institutions, by applying pressure, prevented the official registration of this consent.
At the same time, the title of the charge was changed from “premeditated murder” to “Efsad-fel-Arz.” This change is very decisive from a legal perspective, because in the charge of “Efsad-fel-Arz”, even the official consent of the heirs of the blood does not prevent the implementation of the death sentence. In this way, the will of the victim’s family was practically removed from the judicial process and the case was transformed from a private criminal lawsuit into a completely security case. This action shows that the main goal was the implementation of the death sentence, not the fulfillment of the rights of the heirs of the blood or the discovery of the truth.
The family’s hope for the implementation of justice in the judicial system and the repeated lack of public notification;
According to the informed source of Kurdpa; because the family was sure their son was innocent and because no evidence existed against him, they had hope in the implementation of the law and justice and thought that there was no need for continuous public notification and the ruling would be rejected in the Supreme Court and Mehrab would be released one day. For this reason, they were surprised that in the absence of necessary documents and a fair trial, the ruling was confirmed in the Supreme Court.
This source says; “They framed Mehrab. God is my witness, the family only proceeded through legal ways from day one, but they abused this matter and are torturing not only Mehrab but Mehrab’s family every day, and every day the family dies and lives again from stress.”
Mehrab Abdollahzadeh;
Mehrab Abdollahzadeh, born on March 15, 1998, son of Mohammad-Amin, from the village of “Khoshalan” from the sub-districts of the Somay-e Baradust region of Urmia city, was working as a barber in Urmia. Informed sources say he was the best barber and a reputable and well-known individual. For this reason, they pinned the charge on Mehrab to serve as a lesson for others and the individuals who participated in the protests.
The dire mental state of Mehrab Abdollahzadeh in Urmia Prison and the inhumane and highly secured conditions of the political prisoners’ ward of Urmia Prison;
According to the informed source of Kurdpa; Mehrab Abdollahzadeh is now being held in the political prisoners’ ward of Urmia Prison and is in a very dire mental state, such that he sleeps for most hours of the day and night. On the other hand, he is allowed a meeting with his family once every 27 days.
Regarding the inhumane and highly secured conditions of the political ward of Urmia Prison, this source says; “The political ward is severely under pressure and surveillance by CCTV cameras, and these cameras are everywhere even in the toilet and bathroom and all the rooms. Also, the permission for access to any other part of the prison, even the library, is not given to political prisoners and political prisoners practically have no place for exercise or any other work.
Also, a pill named ‘B2’ is given to political prisoners, which is apparently psychotropic and addictive, and despite the fact that this pill is bought and sold secretly in other wards, in the political ward, one can easily sign up and it is placed at the disposal of the prisoner without cost. In this way, many political prisoners have been made addicted to this pill.”
Kurdpa Human Rights Organization;
Kurdpa Human Rights Organization strongly condemns the death sentence of Mehrab Abdollahzadeh and considers it a gross violation of the right to life, an obvious instance of an unfair trial, and the direct result of torture, forced confessions, and the interference of security institutions in the judicial process. Kurdpa emphasizes that the implementation of such a sentence, in conditions where the case lacks valid evidence and is based on fundamental contradictions, not only lacks legal legitimacy but also its direct responsibility will be directed at the judicial system and security institutions of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Kurdpa requests the immediate stay of the implementation of the death sentence, the complete cancellation of the issued ruling, and the re-examination of the case in an independent, transparent judicial process in accordance with human rights standards.
Compiled by; Awin Mostafazadeh
