The Islamic Republic’s judiciary announced that Omid Behzad and Pourya Safavat were executed in the early hours of Monday, August 3, 2026, on charges of “espionage and intelligence cooperation with Israel.” Judicial officials claim the two men provided Mossad with information and coordinates for military and security sites.
These executions were carried out despite the total absence of any clear information about when or where the two men were arrested, which court handled their case, what the indictment actually alleged, what evidence supported their conviction, who represented them, or where the sentences were carried out. No public information about their arrest, trial, or sentencing had been released at any point before the executions were announced.
Throughout their detention, Behzad and Safavat were denied effective access to a lawyer of their choosing, contact with their families, and any real opportunity to mount a defense. The judiciary also released a video billed as the men’s “confessions,” with no way to independently examine the conditions under which these statements were obtained, and no public access to any of the other evidence in the case. A confession extracted without a lawyer present, under pressure, threat, or torture, carries no legal weight and cannot serve as grounds for a death sentence.
In the Islamic Republic’s security cases, the right to defense, though nominally recognized under domestic law, is in practice routinely stripped of any real substance. Denying a defendant independent counsel, concealing evidence, holding closed-door proceedings, and carrying out a sentence before any public scrutiny can occur together eliminate any possibility of a meaningful defense. In a case carrying the death penalty, violating these guarantees amounts directly to an arbitrary taking of life.
The use of capital punishment in political and security cases is not simply the administration of a sentence. In the Islamic Republic, it has become a tool for eliminating defendants, consolidating the government’s authority, and instilling public fear. In this system, preserving the state’s grip on power takes precedence over the right to life, the right to a defense, and the requirements of a fair trial.