Iran International
Tehran's decision to form a committee to investigate violence during January protests has been met with widespread skepticism, including from some moderate voice inside Iran who say only an independent investigation can establish credibility.
The administration of President Masoud Pezeshkian announced on January 21 that it had created a committee to examine the causes and consequences of the unrest. Government spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani said the body is collecting documents and testimony related to the violence.
Critics across Iran’s political spectrum have questioned whether a government-appointed panel can impartially investigate events in which state institutions themselves are accused of involvement.
The United Nations Human Rights Council has already mandated an independent fact-finding mission to investigate alleged serious rights violations linked to the protests.
Established after the 2022 “Woman, Life, Freedom” uprising and extended in January 2026, the mission has never been permitted to enter Iran. Tehran has refused to cooperate with the UN inquiry, dismissing it as politically motivated.
Even moderate commentators—who typically favor gradual change within the system—have questioned the credibility of the government’s initiative.
The reformist newspaper Tose’e Irani wrote that rebuilding public trust would require participation from figures independent of the state.
“For the report of the committee investigating the January events to be credible,” it said, it must include “independent lawyers, human rights activists and even prominent Iranian academics living abroad.”
Journalist Ahmad Zeidabadi similarly warned that any internal investigation would face deep public suspicion.
“What is the problem with inviting the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to send a professional team to investigate?” he wrote, arguing that “only a credible international report can end the conflict of narratives.”
Lawyer and political activist Hassan Younesi urged the president to pursue a genuinely independent inquiry, while journalist Hossein Yazdi wrote that a committee would be trusted only if formed by individuals “not themselves accused.”
Public distrust reflects a broader history of disputed official investigations.
Many Iranians have cited previous cases—including the 1999 attack on Tehran University dormitories, the 2020 downing of a Ukrainian passenger plane that killed 176 people, and the death of Mahsa Amini in morality police custody—as examples where official explanations were widely contested.
Iran’s presidential office says 3,117 people died in the January unrest, including more than 2,400 civilians and security personnel whom authorities say were killed by “foreign enemy agents.”
That figure has been widely challenged. Human rights groups and independent media have reported far higher death tolls. Iran International has reviewed leaked internal government documents indicating the toll may be as high as 36,500.
Allegations from within Iran’s own political establishment have further fueled skepticism.
In a leaked audio recording, reformist politician Ali Shakouri-Rad said security institutions had “deliberately injected violence into the scene” to justify a sweeping crackdown, describing such conduct as “systematic” in Iran’s security policies.
Former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made similar claims, saying forces within the state were responsible for protest deaths.
Pezeshkian initially dismissed Shakouri-Rad’s remarks as “unfair,” but later softened his position, saying he had ordered further investigation into the allegations and authorized additional review through relevant officials.
For many critics, the central question remains whether institutions accused of responsibility for violence can credibly investigate themselves, especially while Tehran rejects all international scrutiny, even refusing to recognise the UN investigators’ mandate.
