According to publicly available data, more than 56 people have been executed in Iran since the ceasefire began on 7 April. During the ceasefire, many activists and political figures who were on trial were also sentenced to death.

 

 

Journalist and human rights activist Diako Muradyaliabady spoke to Mezopotamya Agency (MA) about the ongoing developments in Iran. Stating that the regime has been using executions as a tool to suppress the public since the “Jin, jiyan, azadî (Woman, life, freedom)” protests, Muradyaliabady said: “The issue cannot be explained merely by the normal application of criminal law.”

 

Muradyaliabady noted that detainees face numerous violations from the very moment of arrest, adding that restricted access to legal counsel, uncertainty in trials, and sentences based on questionable confessions have rendered the judicial process increasingly dubious. He stated that although protests have decreased, public discontent persists, and that executions are part of a control strategy against this situation, as well as an attempt to shape future societal behaviour.

 

‘A NEW PERCEPTION OF REALITY’

 

Muradyaliabady stated that a new perception of reality is being constructed through confessions obtained under torture, saying: “Confessions are not only a legal element but also part of a mechanism of social deterrence and intimidation that influences the behaviour of potential activists. As a result, there is a gradual shift in judicial standards from ‘verifiable truth’ to ‘fabricated confession’.”

 

‘EXECUTION OF KURDS JUSTIFIED ON SECURITY GROUNDS’

 

Recalling that a significant number of those executed are ethnically Kurdish and political prisoners, Muradyaliabady said that in Kurdistan-related cases, even actions within social life are being redefined as threats to national security, leading to Kurds being perceived as a “security issue.”

 

“The death penalty is a structural approach used as a tool to control Kurdish society and sensitive geographical areas, restrict political activity, and reinforce the official narrative,” he said.

 

THE KURDISH AGENDA OF THE US AND IRAN

 

Muradyaliabady stated that both Iran and the United States have agendas regarding the Kurds, emphasising that Kurds cannot be regarded as proxy forces of regional or international powers. He said the US approaches the Kurds within a geopolitical balance and utilitarian framework, while the Iranian regime views them as a security element in border regions.

 

‘THE THIRD WAY IS A FORM OF RESISTANCE’

 

Muradyaliabady stated that the third way policy of Kurdish parties in Rojhilat and Iran is not merely a tactical position but a conscious political and legal choice. He noted that the third way aligns with fundamental principles of international law, such as the protection of civilians, and represents a stance against the risk that short-term gains through alliances with regional or international powers may lead to instrumentalisation and weakened independence.

 

He said: “This strategy aims to demonstrate that a movement, including the Kurdistan movement, can stand outside the bipolar logic of war and pursue democratic and rights-based demands without being reduced to a proxy force of any power. This emphasis on independence becomes doubly important in a context where regional and global actors seek to incorporate local forces into their own balances. In other words, the ‘third way’ is not only a political choice but also a form of resistance against being absorbed into existing power structures.”

 

MECHANISMS OF THE THIRD WAY MUST BE ESTABLISHED

 

Muradyaliabady stated that this decision would face pressure from all sides, adding that the third way policy risks being interpreted as passivity if mechanisms such as building social networks, strengthening civil institutions, and establishing effective communication channels with society are not put in place.

 

“The ‘Third Way’ should be seen as an effort to preserve political independence, avoid the trap of false dichotomies, prevent the militarisation of society, and keep the democratic horizon open amid war. With institutional and social support, this approach not only prevents the erosion of a society in conflict but also strengthens the possibility of rebuilding politics on the basis of equal rights and democratic participation; for this reason, its importance becomes a long-term strategic choice rather than a short-term position,” he said. 

 

‘SOCIAL ORGANISATION BRINGS CHANGE’

 

Emphasising that all segments of society must engage in a united struggle for the regime to change, Muradyaliabady said: “A lasting organisation must be established through unity. No single force can change such a structure alone. Alternatively, the formation of a democratic coalition based on shared minimum principles may be considered. Rejecting war and not relying on external intervention must be done simultaneously. Regional experiences show that war tends to strengthen rather than weaken oppressive structures. The solution lies not in militarising the crisis, but in strengthening the internal capacity of society for change.”

 

Muradyaliabady stated that actions without a socially sustainable organisational foundation would lead to social erosion, adding: “What makes a transformation sustainable is not its momentary intensity, but its depth and continuity. No coalition will be sustainable without the genuine participation of nationalities and regions in decision-making and power distribution. This is directly linked to the issue of public trust and political legitimacy.”

 

MA / Berivan Kutlu