They Silence the Journalist; Who Puts the Truth on Trial?

On the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists – 2 November 2026

If a journalist is imprisoned for publishing the truth, who will defend them? If they die in custody and those responsible escape punishment, who will deliver justice? And if the institution that should hear the complaint is itself part of the accused structure, in which court should the truth be sought?

These questions are not limited to Iran. From the prisons of Iran and China to the battlefields of Gaza and Ukraine, from Mexico to the streets of Europe, journalists face threats, arrest, violence and death. But the issue is not only crimes against journalists; more important is the impunity of those responsible.

86 per cent of cases: a measure of justice’s failure

According to UNESCO’s report of 2 November 2026, 86 per cent of recorded cases of journalists’ murders since 2006 remain unresolved in the courts. This figure was 85 per cent in the previous report. UNESCO has also stated that at least 189 journalists were killed in 2024 and 2025, 127 of them in areas of armed conflict.

The Committee to Protect Journalists also reported that 129 journalists and media workers were killed in 2025 alone—the highest annual figure recorded since 1992. The organisation attributed responsibility for about two-thirds of these deaths to Israeli military actions, and most of the victims in this group were Palestinian journalists.

Of course, deaths in war, targeted killings and individuals’ criminal responsibility are not the same thing. The point, however, is that in many cases, not even an independent and transparent investigation is conducted to establish the truth.

Iran: when journalism becomes a security case

Iran ranks 177th out of 180 countries in Reporters Without Borders’ 2026 World Press Freedom Index.

In a country where Article 24 of the Constitution recognises freedom of the press subject to certain restrictions, and Article 168 stipulates public hearings for press offences in the presence of a jury, why are so many journalists tried in Revolutionary Courts on security charges?

Artin Ghanfari, a photojournalist, was arrested in January 2026 and sentenced to a total of 26 years in prison that October. Journalist Omid Faraghat also faced a sentence of more than ten years in prison. Photojournalist Yalda Moayeri was sentenced to 15 years in prison in August 2026.

These cases raise a fundamental question: how is the line drawn between publishing a news report and an act that genuinely threatens national security? If publishing information unwelcome to those in power is pursued under charges of espionage or propaganda against the system, what meaning will freedom of the press have?

From Zahra Kazemi to the journalists of the Woman, Life, Freedom movement

Zahra Kazemi, an Iranian-Canadian photojournalist, was arrested in June 2003 while taking photographs outside Evin Prison and died on 10 July 2003 after being transferred to hospital. An official investigation confirmed that she had suffered a skull fracture, but the case did not lead to effective criminal accountability for those responsible.

More than two decades later, the question remains: how can someone be arrested in good health, die from a fatal injury, and leave the responsibility of those who caused it unclear?

In September 2022, the arrests of Niloufar Hamedi and Elaheh Mohammadi, two journalists who had reported on the death of Jina Mahsa Amini and her funeral, also showed the severe legal consequences that reporting on a social event can have.

The two were eventually pardoned in 2025 and their cases were closed, but closing a case does not erase questions about the necessity of the initial arrests or the proportionality of the charges to their professional work.

Repression does not always mean imprisonment. Summonses, threats against family members, media closures, professional bans and internet shutdowns can also force journalists into silence. In its August 2026 report on Iran, the Committee to Protect Journalists reported an almost complete internet shutdown lasting 88 days, security surveillance and a spread of self-censorship.

A threat that crosses borders

On 29 March 2024, Poria Zeraati, a presenter with Iran International, was attacked with a knife in south London. In July 2026, two Romanian men were sentenced to prison for their role in the attack. The UK’s Counter Terrorism Policing said the court had accepted that the attack was carried out in the interests of, and on behalf of, the Iranian government.

This case showed that legal proceedings can lead to the perpetrators being convicted. But another question remains: does punishing the people who carried out an attack always mean that those who may have ordered it are identified and held to account?

From Mexico to Malta: a global silence

In Mexico, the influence of criminal groups, corruption and weak judicial investigations threaten journalists’ safety. In Malta, Daphne Caruana Galizia, an investigative journalist, was killed in a car bomb in 2017. Several people were convicted in the case, but the investigation into the possible responsibility of those who ordered the killing continued for years.

These examples show that impunity is not confined to one political system, and that even convictions of those who carried out a crime do not always amount to full justice.

Silencing a journalist means silencing a witness

When a journalist is arrested or threatened, it is not only one person’s freedom that is curtailed; society may also lose one of its independent ways of learning the truth.

A journalist who can no longer expose corruption, a family that is afraid to speak to the media because of security repercussions, a photographer who is not allowed to take pictures, and an editor who drops a story to prevent a publication from being shut down are all part of the chain that silences the flow of information.

Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of media repression is precisely this: news that is never published, evidence that no one dares to expose, and a witness who chooses silence over telling the truth.

Of course, press freedom does not mean that journalists are exempt from legal responsibility. But genuine offences must be addressed on the basis of evidence, clear law and fair proceedings—not simply because of criticism of the government or the publication of information unwelcome to those in power.

Who should be held to account?

Impunity persists when an investigation into a crime is entrusted to the very structure that may have been involved in committing it, without guarantees that the investigation will be independent.

Ending this situation requires independent investigations, protection for witnesses and news sources, access to information for victims’ families, public trials, and the pursuit of accountability for those who may have ordered or carried out the crimes.

But before any of these measures, one principle must be accepted: journalism is not a crime, and no institution should use the power of the law simply to silence criticism or prevent the truth from being exposed.

UNESCO’s figure of 86 per cent is not just a number. Behind it are families who still do not know who killed their loved ones, who gave the order, or why justice has not been done.

If 2 November is only a day to remember journalists who have been killed, it loses part of its meaning. This day should be an opportunity to demand accountability.

Because the ultimate question is not only who silenced the journalist; the more important question is: who prevented the truth from reaching court?

Main sources

UNESCO, report of 2 November 2026

Committee to Protect Journalists, 2025 global statistics

Committee to Protect Journalists, The state of the media in Iran, August 2026

Committee to Protect Journalists, Conviction of Iranian journalists, October 2026

Reporters Without Borders, Iran dossier

UK Counter Terrorism Policing, the case of Pouria Zeraati