Iran’s judiciary said the two men, identified as Ramin Zaleh and Karim Maroufpour, were involved in armed attacks against security personnel and assassination plots in western parts of the country.

“Ramin Zaleh and Karim Maroufpour were hanged for membership in separatist terrorist groups, forming a group with the aim of disrupting the country’s security, armed rebellion through the formation of criminal groups, shooting and carrying out assassination attempts,” the judiciary’s Mizan Online news outlet reported.

The judiciary did not specify when the two men were arrested but said they had undergone training to become “leaders in the unrest.”

The executions are the latest in a broader increase in capital punishments since fighting erupted between Iran, the United States and Israel in February.
Iranian authorities have carried out multiple executions linked to anti-government unrest earlier this year, as well as cases involving alleged espionage and national security offenses.

Earlier this month, Tehran executed a man convicted of passing information to Israeli intelligence services. Iranian authorities had previously also executed an aerospace engineering student on similar espionage-related charges.

Human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, have repeatedly criticized Iran’s use of the death penalty. Rights groups rank Iran as the world’s second-highest executioner after China.

The executions come amid heightened domestic security measures and increasing political tensions following months of regional conflict and internal unrest.

Major General Avi Bluth, commander of the Israeli military’s Central Command, signed the implementing order required to enforce the legislation in the West Bank, according to Israeli media reports.

The measure follows legislation passed by the Knesset in March authorizing capital punishment for Palestinians convicted of attacks resulting in the deaths of Israeli citizens.

Under the military order, courts handling such cases must impose the death penalty as the default sentence unless judges determine that unspecified “special circumstances” justify life imprisonment instead.

Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that provisions within the legislation make its application overwhelmingly directed at Palestinians. The law requires proof that the accused acted with intent to undermine the existence of the State of Israel or the authority of the military commander in the territory, conditions critics say are unlikely to be applied to Jewish Israeli suspects.

The legislation has prompted legal and diplomatic criticism amid heightened tensions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the ongoing war in Gaza Strip.
Foreign ministers from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Indonesia, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Turkiye and Egypt jointly condemned the measure, warning that it entrenched discriminatory policies against Palestinians.

In a joint statement, the countries described the law as a dangerous escalation and accused Israel of advancing practices amounting to apartheid while denying Palestinians’ rights in the occupied territories.
The ministers also cited what they called credible reports of abuses against Palestinian detainees, including torture, starvation and denial of basic rights, arguing the death penalty law risked intensifying existing tensions.

Israeli authorities have defended the legislation as a counterterrorism measure intended to deter attacks against civilians.

The bill passed the 120-seat Knesset by a vote of 93-0, with remaining lawmakers absent or abstaining, reflecting broad political backing for prosecuting suspects linked to the deadliest attack in Israel’s history.

The legislation creates a separate judicial framework to try individuals accused of involvement in the assault led by Hamas militants, who killed about 1,200 people and took 251 hostages during the cross-border attack in October 2023.

Under the new law, judges will be allowed to impose capital punishment through a majority decision rather than requiring unanimity. Appeals against verdicts or sentences will be heard by a dedicated appeals court rather than Israel’s regular judicial system.

The trials are also expected to be livestreamed from a courtroom in Jerusalem, prompting comparisons by critics to the televised 1962 trial of Nazi official Adolf Eichmann, whose execution remains the only civilian use of the death penalty in Israel’s history.

Israeli and international rights organizations criticized the measure, arguing that it weakens fair trial protections and risks politicizing judicial proceedings.
Groups including Adalah, Hamoked and the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel said accountability for the Oct. 7 attack should not come at the expense of established legal standards.

Critics also raised concerns over the admissibility and reliability of evidence potentially obtained through coercive interrogation methods, as well as the impact of broadcasting proceedings before convictions are secured.

The legislation is separate from another law passed earlier this year authorizing the death penalty for Palestinians convicted of killing Israelis. That measure applies only to future cases and does not cover suspects detained over the 2023 attack.

According to Israeli rights organizations, about 1,300 Palestinians from Gaza Strip remain in Israeli detention without formal charges, while thousands more have been detained and later released since the start of the war.

Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, launched in response to the Oct. 7 assault, has killed more than 72,000 Palestinians, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. The ministry does not distinguish between civilians and combatants, though United Nations agencies and international observers have generally considered its casualty reporting credible.

Simcha Rothman, a sponsor of the bill and member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition, said the legislation demonstrated national unity around securing accountability for the attacks.

The Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) said at least nine of those executed were linked to protests that shook Iran in January 2026, while 10 others were put to death for alleged membership in opposition groups and two were executed on spying charges.

The agency said many of those detained had been subjected to enforced disappearances, torture and what it described as cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, including forced confessions, some of which were later broadcast publicly, as well as mock executions.

“I am appalled that on top of the already severe impacts of the conflict the rights of the Iranian people continue to be stripped from them by the authorities, in harsh and brutal ways,” U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk said in a statement.

“In times of war, threats to human rights increase exponentially. Yet even where national security is invoked, human rights can only be limited where strictly necessary and proportionate,” he said.Turk called on Iranian authorities to halt further executions, establish a moratorium on the death penalty, ensure due process and fair trial guarantees, and immediately release those arbitrarily detained.

OHCHR said many people, including minors, remain at risk of capital punishment because of Iran’s broad interpretation of national security offenses. It said judicial proceedings were often accelerated and some death sentences, including those of at least nine executed protesters, were reportedly based on coerced confessions.

The agency also raised concerns over the transfer of dozens of prisoners, including prominent human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh, to undisclosed locations.Iran remains one of the world’s leading users of capital punishment and executes more people annually than any country except China, according to rights groups including Amnesty International.

Turk also criticized prison conditions across Iran, describing them as dire, with overcrowding and severe shortages of food, water, hygiene supplies, medicine and access to medical care.In Chabahar prison on March 18, detainees protesting the prolonged suspension of food distribution were reportedly met with lethal force.

OHCHR said security forces killed at least five prisoners and injured 21 others after confronting demonstrators inside the prison.The agency further said internet access in Iran had been almost completely shut down for 61 consecutive days, describing it as one of the longest nationwide shutdowns ever recorded.

“This is denying people across the country access to vital information, silencing independent voices, and inflicting enormous social and economic harm,” Turk said.He said the restrictions were worsening an already fragile humanitarian and economic situation and urged authorities to restore access immediately.

The judiciary’s Mizan Online website said Erfan Kiani was hanged after the country’s Supreme Court upheld his death sentence, describing him as one of the “main operatives” involved in an operation allegedly directed by Mossad during unrest in the central province of Isfahan in January.

Authorities accused Kiani of participating in sabotage and violent attacks during the protests, which officials say were orchestrated by foreign-backed groups seeking to destabilize the country.

According to the judiciary, he was charged with “destruction of public and private property, arson, possession and use of Molotov cocktails, carrying a bladed weapon, blocking vehicle routes, attacking officers, and creating fear and panic among citizens.”Iranian officials said the activities formed part of a “mission assigned by Mossad,” Israel’s foreign intelligence agency, although no independent evidence was publicly presented.

The execution follows the hanging on Thursday of another man convicted of membership in a banned opposition organization, continuing a broader wave of capital punishment linked to unrest and national security charges.Iran has sharply increased executions since the outbreak of war with Israel and the United States on Feb. 28, when U.S.-Israeli strikes triggered a wider regional conflict and heightened internal security measures across the country.

Authorities have linked January’s protests to what they describe as coordinated interference by Israel, the United States, and exiled opposition groups, including the banned People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran.Since March 19, Iranian authorities have executed at least nine men on charges connected to those protests, according to official statements.

Human rights organizations have repeatedly criticized Iran’s use of the death penalty, particularly in cases involving political dissent, espionage accusations, and national security prosecutions.According to groups including Amnesty International, Iran is the world’s second most prolific user of capital punishment after China.

Tehran maintains that such executions are necessary to preserve national security and deter what it calls foreign-sponsored subversion during wartime conditions.

The latest case is likely to draw renewed international scrutiny over Iran’s judicial process and its handling of security-related prosecutions amid escalating regional tensions.

Kyrgyzstan has reaffirmed its commitment to abolishing the death penalty following a period of intense public debate triggered by a high-profile criminal case, with authorities and international partners emphasizing prevention and rule-of-law reforms as more effective responses to violent crime.

The debate emerged after the rape and murder of a young girl in September 2025, which prompted widespread public outrage and calls for the reinstatement of capital punishment. The issue quickly gained political traction, culminating in a formal proposal by President Sadyr Japarov to seek a constitutional review of whether the death penalty could be reintroduced.

The Constitutional Court delivered its ruling on 10 December 2025, concluding that reinstating capital punishment would violate Kyrgyzstan’s international treaty obligations, which are embedded within its constitutional framework. The decision effectively blocked any immediate return to the death penalty and reinforced the country’s legal commitments under international law.

Kyrgyzstan has maintained a moratorium on executions since 1998 and formally abolished the death penalty in 2010 following its ratification of the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The protocol obliges signatory states to take all necessary measures to prevent the reintroduction of capital punishment.

The United Nations human rights office played a consultative role throughout the process. According to Matilda Bogner, Regional Representative for Central Asia, the office engaged with both executive and judicial authorities to provide guidance on international legal standards and treaty obligations.

“It is positive to see that despite an initiative that appeared to have strong public backing but did not comply with international obligations, the rule of law approach ultimately prevailed in Kyrgyzstan,” Bogner said.The episode has also prompted broader discussions within the country about the nature of justice, particularly in cases involving serious violent crime.

While public sentiment in the aftermath of the incident favored harsher punitive measures, international human rights officials have argued that such approaches are not supported by evidence as effective deterrents.UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk said that while the crimes cited by authorities were “clearly appalling” and required accountability, there is no empirical basis to conclude that capital punishment reduces the incidence of serious offenses.

He called instead for responses grounded in prevention, victim protection, and institutional strengthening.Türk emphasized the need for a “well-resourced, victim-centred approach” to tackling violence, particularly sexual and gender-based violence.

This approach, he said, should focus on improving access to justice and ensuring that systems are capable of responding effectively to early warning signs.Bogner echoed this perspective, noting that a predictable and consistent rule-of-law framework is more effective in preventing violence than reintroducing capital punishment into a system that may lack uniformity in enforcement. “A rule of law process that is predictable is a better form of prevention of egregious cases,” she said.

The focus on prevention has translated into ongoing institutional reforms. The UN human rights office is working with Kyrgyzstan’s Ministry of Internal Affairs to develop a new risk assessment system aimed at strengthening early intervention in cases of gender-based violence. The system is intended to enable law enforcement agencies to identify potential risks, monitor evolving situations, and take timely action to prevent escalation.

Authorities in Kyrgyzstan have also reiterated their commitment to upholding international legal standards following the Constitutional Court’s decision. Officials, including representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, have emphasized the importance of maintaining adherence to the rule of law while addressing public concerns over safety and justice.

The case highlights the challenges faced by governments in balancing public demand for punitive measures with international legal obligations and evidence-based policy approaches. It also underscores the broader shift in international human rights discourse toward prevention-focused strategies, particularly in addressing gender-based violence.

Efforts to strengthen legal and institutional frameworks are seen as critical to improving outcomes for victims. This includes ensuring that police and judicial systems are adequately resourced, capable of responding promptly to complaints, and equipped to handle sensitive cases involving women and girls.

The UN human rights office has indicated that its engagement with Kyrgyz authorities will continue, with a focus on building systems that prioritize accountability and prevention. The approach aligns with broader international efforts to address gender-based violence through structural reforms rather than punitive escalation.

The developments in Kyrgyzstan reflect an evolving policy stance in which adherence to international obligations and evidence-based approaches are being prioritized over retributive measures, even in the face of strong public pressure following serious criminal incidents.