On fear, shared responsibility and practical ways to defend the right to life
News of an execution often brings two conflicting feelings: anger and helplessness. Anger that a human life has been taken, and helplessness because we do not know how to prevent it from happening again.
The harder question arises when protesting against executions is itself dangerous—when taking to the streets can lead to arrest, imprisonment or even a death sentence.
What can ordinary people do in such circumstances? Does silence mean accepting executions? Must people wait for political change? Or is there still something they can do to help save lives, even under severe restrictions?
There is no simple answer. But historical experience and human rights mechanisms suggest that there are possibilities between street protest and complete inaction.
When fear makes protest impossible
Before judging how people behave in a repressive society, we must distinguish between voluntary silence and silence imposed by fear.
A mother whose child is in prison may be afraid to speak—not because she accepts executions, but because she fears for her child’s life.
A former prisoner may remain silent about torture because their family is still at risk.
We cannot expect the same degree of courage from everyone. Moral responsibility cannot be assessed without considering the price each person may have to pay.
The fact that we cannot change everything does not mean that we can do nothing.
A historical example: the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo
In 1977, during Argentina’s military dictatorship, a group of mothers came together to search for their disappeared children.
They had neither political power nor the means to confront the military government. Their initial demand was simple: they wanted to know what had happened to their children.
Wearing white headscarves, they gathered in the Plaza de Mayo and kept alive a question the government wanted erased from public memory: where are our children?
This experience cannot simply be transplanted to Iran without considering historical and political differences. But it raises an important question: when mass protest is not possible, how can we prevent people whose lives are at risk from being forgotten?
The answer does not always lie in one dramatic act. Sometimes it lies in following a case consistently, preserving a document, supporting a family or persistently asking a question. None of these actions, on its own, guarantees that an execution will be stopped. But the absence of a guarantee does not make the effort worthless.
Saving a life is a goal in its own right
Discussions about executions quickly turn to the future of the government and the possibility of political change. Some argue that nothing can be done until the political system changes. Others believe an advocacy campaign must produce immediate, sweeping change to be worthwhile.
But a person facing execution cannot wait for us to resolve the question of political change. Time means something different to them.
The value of trying to save a human life does not depend on the success of a political movement. Even if we cannot predict the country’s future, we can consider our responsibilities today. What might help protect this person’s life? What could make things harder for them or their family? What do we know, and what remains uncertain?
These questions bring us closer to the real needs of a case and beyond slogans.
Five practical ways to oppose executions in Iran
1. Check the information before sharing it
When lives are at stake, speed is not the only measure of responsibility. A wrong name, an unrelated photograph, an inaccurate quotation or an outdated report can undermine public trust and place additional pressure on a family.
Before sharing a report, establish where it came from. Has the lawyer or family confirmed it? Has a credible human rights organisation reported it? When was it published? Does it concern a death sentence being issued, or an imminent risk of execution?
These are different situations. Likewise, overturning a sentence does not necessarily mean the person has been released or that all danger has passed.
If information is incomplete, say so plainly. Phrases such as “according to the lawyer” or “this report has not yet been independently verified” are part of accurate, honest reporting.
Opposition to executions needs information people can trust.
2. Take the family’s consent and safety seriously
The family of a person sentenced to death is not an instrument of a public campaign. Family members have a right to a say in whether their names, photographs, documents and private circumstances are shared.
One family may want widespread publicity, while another may prefer silence at a particular stage. We do not always know why. Pressure, legal advice, concerns for other relatives or previous experiences can influence their decisions.
There should be clear consent before private information is disclosed. Even with consent, we should ask whether publishing those details is necessary for the purpose at hand.
Addresses, telephone numbers, children’s personal details and witnesses’ identities are generally not needed to draw public attention to a case.
Solidarity means listening to the family’s wishes and respecting the boundaries they set. Nobody should have to expose their private life to prove their opposition to executions.
3. Do not underestimate legal assistance and everyday support
Sometimes the most useful help attracts the least attention: helping a family access a lawyer, organising documents, providing accurate translations or covering travel costs.
Decisions about legal strategy should, of course, be made with a qualified lawyer who knows the details of the case. Public advocacy cannot replace a legal defence, and scattered advice on social media should not substitute for professional assessment.
Meanwhile, family life continues. Housing costs, childcare, travel and lost income can create enormous strain. Transparent financial support, offered with the family’s consent, or simple everyday assistance may ease some of that burden.
Solidarity is not only about writing about a person. It can also mean standing beside those who live every day with the possibility of losing them.
4. Send accurate information through credible channels
Information sent to a journalist or human rights organisation should be clear, concise and capable of being checked.
An organised account should distinguish between verified facts, witness testimony and personal interpretation. The person’s name, key dates, the source of each claim and the known status of the case are more useful than a flood of emotional statements.
Sharing a document privately is different from publishing it. Before sending it, consider the consent of the person whose information it contains, whether disclosure is necessary and whether the recipient is trustworthy. Helping should never mean pressuring someone to gather information at serious personal risk or inadvertently exposing a witness.
Nor should acknowledgement of a report be presented as a definite outcome. Recording or reviewing information is not a promise of intervention or a guarantee that an execution will be stopped. Realistic expectations matter both to families and to lasting trust.
5. Keep following the case after the first wave of attention
Public attention is often short-lived. A report appears, a wave of reactions follows, and another story takes its place. For the prisoner and their family, however, the case continues.
Responsible follow-up means consulting credible sources after the initial attention has faded, correcting outdated information and explaining significant developments accurately.
If a report was wrong, the correction should be as clear as the original publication. If the status of a sentence has changed, the old headline should not keep circulating. If the family asks for publicity to stop, that request should be taken seriously.
Sustained support is not the endless repetition of a slogan. It is continued attention, accompanied by accuracy and accountability.
What can high-profile cases teach us?
Names such as Toomaj Salehi draw widespread attention to the death penalty. But we should resist a hasty conclusion when examining any case: a change in its legal status cannot automatically be attributed to one hashtag, one celebrity or one campaign.
Legal defence, judicial proceedings, the family’s efforts, media attention and other factors may all play a part. Without sufficient evidence, we cannot confidently determine each factor’s contribution.
At the same time, attention to famous cases must not make everyone else invisible. Many people facing execution have neither a recognised name nor a support network or access to the media.
If our opposition to the death penalty rests on the right to life, that right cannot depend on fame, beliefs, ethnicity, nationality or how much a person resembles us.
Documentation: resisting erasure
Public memory alone is not enough. News reports disappear, pages are deleted and accounts change as they circulate. Preserving records responsibly can help keep what happened open to scrutiny.
But documentation is different from indiscriminately collecting private information. It should be clear where each item came from, when it was obtained and what it actually demonstrates.
A photograph does not explain an entire event. An account should not be presented as established fact without examination. Identifying uncertainties does not diminish the value of evidence; it makes more careful assessment possible.
Preserving a document is also not permission to publish it. Material may be important for legal scrutiny while its public release could harm a witness or family. Setting limits on access and respecting consent are part of documentation itself.
The aim should be to preserve the truth and make it possible to examine it.
What responsibilities do Iranians abroad have?
Depending on their circumstances, people living outside Iran may have greater opportunities to write, translate, speak to journalists and engage with civil society organisations.
Those opportunities can be used to convey families’ wishes accurately, draw attention to less visible cases and maintain consistent follow-up. A clear, well-documented translation of a case can sometimes be more useful than dozens of general messages.
Yet geographical distance must not become distance from the realities of people’s lives. Those who do not bear the direct cost of a decision should not pressure others to pay it.
Calling for courage is easier from a place of safety. Our responsibility is to expand the support available and respect the choices of those at risk.
Opposing executions does not mean overlooking victims
A discussion of the death penalty, particularly in cases involving severe violence, is incomplete without recognising victims’ suffering. A family that has lost someone has a right to seek truth, fair proceedings, accountability and support.
Opposition to executions should not involve minimising a crime or treating bereaved families’ feelings with contempt. No outsider can offer a simple prescription for another person’s grief.
At the same time, we can demand serious accountability while questioning a punishment that cannot be undone once carried out. Justice involves more than the choice of sentence. The quality of the investigation, the right to a defence, independent proceedings, support for victims and the ability to correct mistakes are also part of it.
Principled opposition to the death penalty matters when we insist on fair proceedings and limits on the power to punish even for someone whose actions anger us.
When we cannot change everything
No list of actions can promise that every execution will be stopped. Sometimes considerable effort still fails to achieve the hoped-for outcome. That painful reality should not become a source of permanent guilt for ordinary people.
Responsibility for imposing and carrying out a sentence lies with those who make those decisions and exercise that power. Someone unable to act because of fear, poverty, illness or the constraints of daily life is not responsible for another person’s execution.
Even so, each of us can choose a contribution suited to our abilities and circumstances: checking a report more carefully, refusing to disclose private information, supporting a family, translating a text accurately or remembering a case after the news cycle has moved on.
For many people, opposing executions in Iran begins with these limited actions. Their results may not be immediate or visible. But they bring our attention back to the individual behind a headline: a person with a name, a life, relationships and a future that could still continue.
Being unable to change everything does not take away our ability to act responsibly. Ultimately, each of us can do something small. Perhaps part of the answer lies in sharing the cost of freedom. Put simply, responsibility should be spread across society, rather than leaving the family of a prisoner sentenced to death to carry the burden alone.
