Inside Iran’s Secret Executions: What the State Claims—and Withholds—in the Cases of Naser Bakrzadeh and Yaqoub Karimpour
This article contains affiliate links. We may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you.
Two men vanished behind prison walls, and the Iranian state insists the paperwork proves justice was done. This article exposes how the regime’s preferred security charges—*moharebeh* and “corruption on earth”—function less as legal categories than as tools of disappearance, allowing executions to proceed without witnesses, lawyers, or verifiable evidence. By reconstructing what authorities say versus what they refuse to show in the cases of Naser Bakrzadeh and Yaqoub Karimpour, it reveals a system designed to erase doubt—and the people caught inside it.
A metal door slams somewhere behind the walls of an Iranian prison. No witnesses. No family present. No independent lawyer allowed inside the room. When the state later announces an execution, the details arrive stripped of context and scrubbed of doubt. That silence—carefully engineered—now surrounds the deaths of Naser Bakrzadeh and Yaqoub Karimpour, two men the Iranian authorities say were executed after due process. Human-rights investigators tell a very different story.
What follows is not just an examination of two cases. It’s a map of how Iran’s execution machinery works when it wants to be unseen—and why those disappearances matter far beyond the prison gates.
The Allegations: What the State Says Happened
Iranian judicial outlets and state-aligned media described Bakrzadeh and Karimpour as having committed serious security-related crimes, the category most often used to justify capital punishment. The language matters. Charges like moharebeh (“enmity against God”) or efsad-e fel arz (“corruption on earth”) allow prosecutors extraordinary latitude. These statutes, embedded in Iran’s Islamic Penal Code, can cover everything from armed robbery to alleged collaboration with foreign states.
In both cases, authorities claimed:
- Confessions obtained during interrogation
- Evidence linking the men to threats against national security
- Trials conducted in Revolutionary Courts
What the state did not provide was equally telling. No full indictments released. No transcripts of court proceedings. No independent forensic evidence disclosed. Family members reported learning of the executions only after the fact—a pattern Amnesty International documented in at least 40% of Iran’s executions in 2023.
Revolutionary Courts, created after the 1979 revolution, operate under different standards than Iran’s public courts. Judges often serve simultaneously as investigators. Defense attorneys face restricted access to case files. According to the UN Special Rapporteur on Iran, defendants in security cases are frequently denied counsel of their choosing, particularly during the investigation phase when coercion is most likely.
Confessions Under Pressure: The Evidence Iran Withholds
Iranian officials routinely cite confessions as the backbone of their cases. Yet multiple UN bodies have concluded those confessions often come after torture.
A 2024 report by Iran Human Rights (IHR), based in Oslo, found credible allegations of physical or psychological abuse in nearly 70% of death penalty cases it reviewed that year. Electric shocks. Stress positions. Prolonged solitary confinement. Threats against family members.
In Bakrzadeh’s and Karimpour’s cases, lawyers and relatives described similar red flags:
- Extended pretrial detention without charges
- Interrogations lasting weeks
- Confessions broadcast or summarized by state media, not examined in open court
Iran’s judiciary insists torture is illegal and rare. The problem isn’t the law on paper; it’s enforcement. Complaints against interrogators almost never lead to prosecution. When they do, proceedings happen behind closed doors.
That secrecy protects the system, not the truth.
Execution Numbers That Tell a Bigger Story
Iran remains one of the world’s most prolific executioners. Only China is believed to execute more people, and Beijing classifies those numbers as state secrets.
Verified data tells a stark story:
- 2023: At least 853 executions, according to Iran Human Rights
- 2024: A continued rise, with political and security-related cases increasing after nationwide protests
- Ethnic minorities disproportionately affected, particularly Kurds, Baluchis, and Arabs
Both Bakrzadeh and Karimpour came from regions with histories of political dissent. That context matters. Executions in such areas often spike after unrest, functioning as both punishment and warning.
Iranian officials deny any political motive. The statistics suggest otherwise.
International Law and the Human-Rights Fault Line
Under international law, the death penalty—where it exists—must meet strict criteria: fair trial guarantees, the right to appeal, and limitation to “most serious crimes,” generally understood as intentional killing.
Iran violates each of those safeguards with regularity.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Iran ratified in 1975, prohibits:
- Executions following forced confessions
- Trials without adequate legal representation
- Capital punishment for vaguely defined offenses
The cases of Bakrzadeh and Karimpour intersect with all three prohibitions. That’s why the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights repeatedly calls Iran’s execution practices “systemic violations,” not isolated errors.
Yet consequences remain limited. UN resolutions pass. Statements condemn. Tehran absorbs the criticism.
Diplomatic Repercussions: Pressure Without Leverage
Executions like these land in a fraught diplomatic landscape. Western governments juggle nuclear negotiations, regional security, and human rights—often treating the last as negotiable.
After a wave of executions in late 2024:
- The European Union imposed targeted sanctions on Iranian judges and prison officials
- Canada and Australia issued coordinated condemnations
- Several ambassadors were briefly summoned in Tehran
Symbolic, yes. Transformative, no.
Iran has learned to compartmentalize. Officials calculate that executing domestic dissidents carries fewer costs than conceding to international pressure. When talks over uranium enrichment stall, human-rights files quietly move to the bottom of the agenda.
That calculation may be changing.
Why These Cases Matter Now
Iran’s execution strategy has shifted from mass spectacle to controlled opacity. Public hangings still happen, but many executions now occur quietly, announced days later with minimal detail. This reduces domestic backlash and blunts international outrage.
Bakrzadeh’s and Karimpour’s cases illustrate that evolution.
They also expose a vulnerability. The more Iran hides, the more it relies on information control—and that creates openings for documentation, legal challenges, and targeted sanctions.
Human-rights lawyers increasingly focus on individual accountability:
- Naming judges and interrogators
- Linking officials to specific violations
- Pushing for travel bans and asset freezes
The playbook mirrors what activists used against Syrian officials a decade earlier. Slow. Methodical. Hard to reverse.
Practical Tools for Accountability and Protection
For journalists, lawyers, and advocates tracking cases like these, tools matter. The right equipment can preserve evidence and protect sources.
Consider:
- Signal Private Messenger — End-to-end encrypted communication trusted by investigative reporters worldwide
- ProtonMail Plus — Secure email hosting with Swiss privacy protections for sensitive correspondence
- YubiKey 5 Series Hardware Security Key — Physical two-factor authentication that resists phishing and account takeover
- Fujitsu ScanSnap iX1600 Portable Scanner — Rapid digitization of court documents and handwritten testimony
- Rite in the Rain All-Weather Field Notebook — Durable, discreet documentation during prison visits or court appearances
These aren’t abstract recommendations. Human-rights groups already use them to build case files that survive hostile scrutiny.
What Comes Next
Iran’s leadership insists executions like those of Naser Bakrzadeh and Yaqoub Karimpour represent justice served. The absence of transparent evidence tells another story—one of a system designed to punish without being questioned.
International pressure alone won’t dismantle that system. Targeted accountability might. Documentation will. Persistence certainly will.
Every withheld court transcript, every undisclosed autopsy, every family silenced after an execution adds weight to a growing archive. One day, those files won’t just document abuse. They’ll anchor prosecutions.
The prison doors may still close in silence. The record no longer does.