Three-minute read
On April 29, the Iranian judiciary held the 32nd session of its in absentia trial against 104 members of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) in Tehran. Yet the sham proceedings — now well into their second year — increasingly appear designed not for legal resolution but as a political tool to discredit a growing opposition movement that continues to resonate with Iran’s restless population, especially its youth.
The so-called trial, held at Branch 11 of Tehran’s Criminal Court and presided over by Judge Amir-Reza Dehghani, once again targeted not just individuals but the PMOI as a legal entity — a shift from prosecution to full delegitimization. “Until the legal personality of this organization is dissolved,” said Masoud Maddah, lawyer for the so-called plaintiffs, “these crimes will continue.” The statement set the tone for a session that blurred the line between lawfare and state messaging.
Court Claims Host Governments Are Complicit
One of the most striking developments in this session was the direct accusation leveled at Western governments — particularly France — to for granting political asylum and protection to PMOI members. “Hosting individuals accused of terrorism when a competent court is reviewing their cases constitutes a crime under international law,” Judge Dehghani declared, referencing unspecified provisions of international conventions. He claimed the French government’s protection of opposition leaders amounted to “criminal responsibility before the Iranian people.”
Iranian Regime Escalates Show Trial Against PMOI Amid Growing International Isolation https://t.co/go25KnVGKz pic.twitter.com/FrSxzYixmS
— M. S. Khansari (@khansari_m) April 16, 2025
Dehghani’s comments signaled a more assertive posture by the clerical dictatorship in attempting to internationalize the case, framing it not just as a domestic legal matter, but as a global confrontation over sovereignty and counterterrorism norms.
The court repeatedly cited supposed obligations under the UN Palermo Convention and other treaties, insisting that countries housing PMOI figures are bound to extradite them. “No convention permits France or other host countries to shelter these individuals,” said Dehghani. The court also cited testimony from former PMOI members — many of whom are now aligned with or financially dependent on the regime — and presented allegations of financial and operational support networks tied to PMOI-affiliated entities.
However, international legal experts have long questioned both the legitimacy of the proceedings — held in absentia — and the credibility of the evidence, which includes recycled political narratives and unverifiable witness accounts from decades past.
Desperately attempting to spin new narratives about the @Mojahedineng during its staged trial, the clerical regime is essentially undermining its own decades-long #propaganda against the movement. This not only weakens Khomeini's defamation tactics but also inadvertently… pic.twitter.com/WkAzHs3ZGC
— NCRI-FAC (@iran_policy) May 12, 2024
The PMOI has been delisted as a terrorist organization by the U.S., the U.K., and the EU — a designation originally imposed as a political concession to the clerical regime during periods of rapprochement. Since its removal from these lists, thousands of lawmakers worldwide have publicly endorsed the NCRI and the PMOI each year, recognizing them as legitimate democratic alternatives. The group’s leadership has consistently called for an independent international tribunal to adjudicate allegations of human rights abuses and terrorism — an offer the regime has persistently evaded.
From Judicial Inquiry to Institutional Condemnation
Maddah and other participants argued that the PMOI, regardless of its registration status, constitutes a legal entity subject to criminal liability. “A group that maintains media platforms, fundraising channels, and operational branches has legal personality — whether or not it has filed paperwork,” Maddah stated, invoking domestic Iranian legal doctrines and a selective reading of international norms to bolster the court’s case.
Maddah also painted a picture of a structured network functioning with institutional intent — a framing aimed at holding the PMOI not merely as a collection of individuals but as a central actor in what the regime defines as subversion.
Justice in Absurdity: #Iran’s Lawless Dictator Holds Trial of Sworn Enemieshttps://t.co/gMVIRpmuT0
— NCRI-FAC (@iran_policy) December 25, 2023
The court also accepted new complaints from over 200 individuals claiming to be victims of PMOI operations. Judge Dehghani portrayed this influx as evidence of public demand for justice: “Today, you are before the people of Iran,” he said, addressing the absent defendants.
A Regime Confronting Its Own Image
While Tehran seeks to portray the court as an overdue reckoning for violence and disruption, the broader context complicates this narrative. The PMOI has long been a target of systemic repression — including mass executions, assassinations, and forced disappearances — particularly during the 1980s and 1990s. This judicial campaign, launched decades after those events, coincides with a period of acute regime insecurity, marked by widespread protests, economic stagnation, and generational alienation.
The regime’s judicial escalation, including direct attacks on foreign governments and appeals to international law, indicates a level of institutional anxiety about the PMOI’s increasing resonance — particularly among a younger generation that sees few viable alternatives within the current political order.
As Tehran’s court continues its in absentia proceedings, the real question is not whether the PMOI will be legally dismantled, but whether the state’s judicial theater can deter a population that appears increasingly willing to question — and resist — the status quo.