Mohseni Ejei: Executioner, Instigator of Murder, Responsible for a Chain of Executions — or a State Serial Killer?

On social media and among many members of the public, Gholam-Hossein Mohseni Ejei's name is repeatedly associated with the description ‘serial killer’. But why is that description applied to one of the Islamic Republic's most senior judicial officials? Is it merely a response to repression and executions, or can historical, legal and criminological reasons be found for it?

This question led me to examine the record of his several decades in the security and judicial apparatus. First, we must clarify who a serial killer is. Is only someone who has personally killed another human being considered a killer? Does the person who orders a killing also belong within the hierarchy of those responsible for murder?

Is there a difference in criminal responsibility between someone who kills with their own hands and an official who, from behind a desk of power, decides on human deaths, issues orders, and leaves their execution to others? If such orders are repeated, can government office change the nature of unlawful killing, and could it be considered serial murder?

Four Descriptions, Four Forms of Responsibility

Executioner: in its original sense, the person who carries out an execution. In political language, it is also applied to those involved in killing and repression. The word alone does not identify a specific criminal offence.

Instigator of murder: someone who orders an unlawful killing, even if absent from the scene. Their criminal responsibility depends on proving the order, criminal intent, and the connection to the offence committed.

Responsible for a chain of executions: a description of officials involved in issuing, confirming, carrying out or overseeing death sentences. Each official's personal responsibility must be examined according to their powers and conduct.

State serial killer: a proposed term for a person who has a shared, provable criminal role in several separate, clandestine unlawful killings, using state resources. This is not yet an established term in criminal law. Serial murder is defined as the unlawful killing of at least two people by a common perpetrator or perpetrators in separate events.

From the Chain Murders to a Chain of Executions

In the case of the chain murders of 1377 in the Iranian calendar, the Islamic Republic's Ministry of Intelligence acknowledged the involvement of some of its officers in killing political opponents and described them as rogue agents. But the question of the principal instigators and decision-makers remained unanswered; no further outcome was reached or announced.

Pirouz Davani, a political activist, disappeared in Shahrivar of that year, and his body was never found. In court in 1379, Akbar Ganji accused Mohseni Ejei of ordering his murder. Abdollah Nouri and Emadeddin Baghi made similar allegations.

In a 2005 report, Human Rights Watch cited an informed source who described a letter attributed to Ejei concerning an order to kill Davani. However, the letter's authenticity has not been publicly confirmed, and Ejei has denied the allegation.

The importance of this case lies not only in the fate of one political opponent, but in the questions it raises about how killings are ordered and carried out, and the possible impunity of those who order them.

Throughout his career, Ejei has held important positions in the Special Court for the Clergy, the Ministry of Intelligence, the Prosecutor-General's Office, the first deputy leadership of the judiciary, and ultimately the judiciary's leadership. His name has been associated with the prosecution of political critics, action against the press, and cases of human rights violations.

In 2010, the US Treasury Department sanctioned him for responsibility for, or involvement in, serious human rights abuses, including repression and the mistreatment of detainees during the protests of 1388.

The Killings of Dey 1404 and the Judiciary's Responsibility

The widespread killing of protesters in Dey 1404, mass arrests, reports of torture, and unfair trials have once again raised the question of the responsibility of the Islamic Republic's security and judicial officials.

One fundamental question is at what level decisions to suppress protesters were made, and what part members of the Supreme National Security Council, including the head of the judiciary, played in them.

Under Article 176 of the Islamic Republic's constitution, the head of the judiciary is a member of the Supreme National Security Council, the body that approves and authorises the use of weapons against protesters.

Ejei's public role in the judicial treatment of detainees is clearer.

In January 2026, he stressed the need for the swift trial and punishment of defendants linked to the protests. On 18 Farvardin 1405, he also called for faster sentencing of people he described as enemy agents, including confiscation of property and deprivation of life. In those same remarks, he also stressed accuracy and justice.

By contrast, in a report issued in Shahrivar 1405, Human Rights Watch and the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center documented numerous arbitrary executions, grossly unfair trials, the use of forced confessions, and denial of defendants' rights of defence.

Amnesty International has also criticised Ejei's repeated calls to accelerate judicial proceedings and impose harsh punishments, including execution.

The question, therefore, is not only who signed a death sentence. We must also examine who helped create the conditions for unlawful sentences to be issued and carried out, and which officials had the authority to prevent violations.

Under international law, an execution following a trial lacking basic guarantees of fairness may constitute an arbitrary deprivation of life. In specific circumstances, criminal responsibility may also attach to the person who ordered a crime, or to a superior who, with knowledge and effective control, failed to take the necessary measures to prevent it.

Why Do People Use This Description?

One hypothesis is that calling Mohseni Ejei a ‘serial killer’ or ‘chain murderer’ reflects less a precise criminological definition than a response to his continuing presence in the security and judicial apparatus and to repeated reports of political killings, repression and executions.

Conclusion: Where Does Responsibility Begin?

The available documents show Mohseni Ejei's significant security and judicial responsibilities, historical allegations against him, and his public positions on accelerating punishments that lead to execution. However, definitively applying the term ‘state serial killer’ requires proof of his personal criminal role in multiple separate unlawful killings. That work will certainly be done.

As for the street killings of Dey 1404, his responsibility in security decision-making and the country's security council is also clear.

But one legal principle is clear: holding government office, issuing orders from behind a desk, and entrusting killings to others do not, in themselves, exempt anyone from criminal responsibility.

The final question is this: if someone repeatedly and knowingly orders unlawful killings, and others kill human beings on that person's orders, does the difference between that person and a serial killer lie in the nature of the act, or only in how it is committed?