伊朗处决伊斯法罕抗议案两被告，更多死刑判决引担忧
伊朗司法机构处决两名参与年初反政府抗议的男子，国际人权组织警告其余十名死刑犯处境危险，并谴责审判不公。
伊朗司法机关星期日凌晨证实，已对两名在伊斯法罕“沙希德·阿里哈尼广场案”中被定罪的男子执行绞刑。据伊朗官方通讯社报道，18岁的埃尔凡·埃斯凡迪亚里和23岁的阿富汗公民戈尔穆罕默德·穆罕默迪被指控在去年底至今年初的全国性抗议中“武装暴乱”，导致四名安全人员死亡。两人是12名被判处死刑的被告中的首批处决者。
伊朗司法机构通过旗下米赞新闻社详细列举了指控，称被告于2025年1月8日至9日（伊朗历10月18日前后）在伊斯法罕迈丹·阿里哈尼广场参与了一场被定性为“美国-以色列政变”的暴力活动。诉状指出，他们与同伙持有枪支、刀具和燃烧瓶，将警察用绳索绑在路牌上，以石块击伤、浇汽油纵火，并拍摄现场视频向境外“敌对”媒体传送。官方声明强调，判决是在“法定程序、被告人供述及监控录像”基础上作出，并由最高法院核准。伊朗军方和官员多次将示威定性为外部势力策动的颠覆行动。
人权组织对该案的审判过程提出质疑。总部位挪威的“伊朗人权”和“共同反对死刑”等非政府组织指出，被告被剥夺了独立律师辩护权，审判简短且部分以线上方式进行。联合国伊朗人权状况特别报告员报告称，自2月28日美国与以色列对伊朗发动联合军事打击以来，伊朗死刑执行速度显著加快，仅六周内至少22名政治犯被处决，其中10人与一月抗议有关。国际特赦组织统计，伊朗2024年执行死刑至少1639起，为1989年以来最高纪录，居全球第二。
此轮抗议始于2024年12月民众对生活成本高涨的不满，迅速演变为反政府示威，高峰时席卷全国，官方统计造成三千余人死亡，并将其归咎于“恐怖主义行为”。但境外非政府组织及多名联合国专家认为，死亡源于安全部队开火镇压。自年初战事爆发后，伊朗司法部长穆赫辛尼·埃杰伊多次敦促检察官“毫不宽宥、迅速处理”涉及战争及抗议活动的被捕者。在本案之前，已有至少9名抗议者被处以死刑，且官方惯例拒向家属移交遗体，如在2022年“伊斯法罕之家”案中。
目前，与伊斯法罕广场案相关的其余10名死刑犯已被转入单独监禁，其处境引发国际社会对立即执行死刑的担忧。联合国人权机制及多国外交人士正密切关注事态进展。伊朗国内外舆论分化：支持政府者认为此举捍卫国家安全，批评者则指其为系统性暴力的延续。鉴于伊朗司法系统近期对异议者的加速定罪，预计后续执行将引起更多外交回应。
| 伊朗及相关媒体 | +0.70 | aligned |
|---|---|---|
| 阿拉伯黎凡特—马格里布媒体 | −0.20 | neutral |
| 大西洋／英语圈媒体 | −0.60 | critical |
| 撒哈拉以南非洲媒体 | −0.20 | neutral |
The Iranian regime reaffirms its sovereignty by executing two 'agents of the enemy' and describes the action as a necessary defense against public order threatened by external forces.
The narrative constructs a duality between 'us' (the legitimate state) and 'them' (foreign agents), justifying the death penalty as a response to extreme and premeditated violence.
Iranian sources omit that the executed were very young (18 and 23) and that human rights groups have warned of further executions, as well as the lack of transparency about their trial.
Arab media record the execution as a fact, balancing the official version with human rights concerns without openly taking sides.
The balance between official and critical sources creates an ambivalent narrative that leaves room for interpretation while signaling implicit alarm.
The Arab coverage omits the broader context of the January protests and the fact that many other detainees face execution.
The Western press denounces the execution as a brutal act of repression, highlighting the young ages of the victims and the lack of procedural safeguards.
The use of personal details (ages, missing dates) and references to human rights group warnings evoke empathy and indignation, delegitimizing the state's rationale.
Atlantic sources omit the official version that the men killed four police officers in a violent armed attack.
African news agencies report the story as an official communication, without adding commentary or context, adopting a stance of detached observer.
The choice to reproduce the judicial statement without filtering or integrating other voices neutralizes potential criticism, presenting facts as objective data.
Sub-Saharan African sources omit the ages of the executed and the warnings from human rights groups.