An Investigative and Analytical Report by the Stop Honor Killings Campaign

By: Rezvan Moghaddam

Date of murder: Early Monday morning, 5 October 2026 (13 Mehr 1405, Iranian calendar)
Location: Qeshm, Hormozgan Province, Iran
Victim: Maryam Yarmohammadi
Age: 28
Family status: Mother of two children
Direct perpetrator: Maryam’s brother
Reported motive: So-called “honor,” based on allegations that she was involved with another man
Husband’s alleged role: According to firsthand information received by the Campaign, he helped remove the children from the home before the attack.

Maryam’s Murder: A Crime Far Beyond a Family Incident

Maryam Yarmohammadi, a 28-year-old woman and mother of two children, was killed in her home in Qeshm in the early hours of Monday, 13 Mehr 1405 (5 October 2026), when her brother launched a violent knife attack against her. According to information received by the Stop Honor Killings Campaign, the reported motive was so-called “honor”: Maryam had been accused of having a relationship with another man.

What makes this case particularly disturbing is the information indicating possible prior coordination and the potential involvement of more than one person in facilitating the crime.

According to firsthand information received by the Stop Honor Killings Campaign in the early hours of 13 Mehr, Maryam’s husband had coordinated with her brother and had taken the children out of the home before the attack. According to the same account, after the circumstances for the attack had been arranged, Maryam’s brother entered the house during the night and attacked her with a knife.

Maryam sustained multiple injuries to different parts of her body, including her breasts, genital area, and neck. Her injuries were so severe that she died after being taken to hospital, despite the efforts of medical staff to save her life.

This information raises serious questions about possible advance planning, the circumstances that enabled the killing, and the potential role of Maryam’s husband in facilitating the attack. Establishing each individual’s criminal liability requires an independent investigation and admissible evidence. However, the need for due process must not become an excuse to disregard the information available or reduce this case to a spontaneous domestic dispute.

According to the Qeshm police commander, the suspect was arrested less than six hours after the killing and referred to the judicial authorities following the opening of a case.

Nevertheless, the arrest of the person alleged to have carried out the fatal attack is not sufficient to establish the full circumstances of this crime. The roles of all individuals who may have been involved in coordinating, facilitating, or carrying out the attack must be investigated.

Approximately 50 People Protest the Arrest: When Murder Is Recast as a Woman’s Punishment

One of the most disturbing aspects of this case concerns the reaction of some of Maryam’s relatives and acquaintances after she was taken to hospital.

According to the direct observations of the Stop Honor Killings Campaign’s source, approximately 50 people gathered at the hospital to protest the arrest of Maryam’s brother. According to the information received, some of those present reportedly said that they had no complaint, were willing to grant forgiveness, and considered Maryam’s death the least punishment she deserved.

This was not merely an emotional reaction or a family disagreement. It points to the depth of a value system in which the killing of a woman can be accepted as punishment for conduct attributed to her.

Within this logic, the central question is no longer who has taken a human being’s life, but whether the woman behaved in accordance with her family’s expectations. The victim is effectively placed in the dock, while the perpetrator, instead of being held accountable for taking a life, may receive the support of those who regard the killing as defensible.

When approximately 50 people protest the arrest of a murder suspect and regard a woman’s death as a punishment proportionate to her alleged conduct, the problem extends beyond an individual perpetrator. It points to a value system capable of legitimizing violence and blaming the victim.

The criminal liability of a person accused of murder does not automatically disappear when family members express forgiveness or withdraw a complaint. Under Iranian law governing intentional homicide, the victim’s heirs may, within the limits established by law, decide whether to pursue retribution (qisas) or grant a pardon. However, this does not automatically extinguish every public-law dimension of the offense or eliminate the need to investigate the potential involvement of others.

Nor does attendance at the gathering, protest against an arrest, or an expression of forgiveness, by itself, establish criminal liability. The central concerns are the social significance of the reported reaction and the need for an independent judicial examination of the case.

The Funeral: An Absence of Grief or a Reproduction of the Logic of Ownership?

Videos of Maryam’s funeral have circulated on social media. According to information received by the Campaign, the ceremony shown in these videos was attended by men, and visible signs of grief were not apparent among some of those present.

It is not possible to determine people’s inner feelings or involvement in a murder solely from limited footage. Nevertheless, considered alongside the reported honor-related motive and the protests against the suspect’s arrest, these images raise a broader question: in such an environment, is a woman’s death perceived not as the loss of an autonomous human being, but as the resolution of a matter involving family honor and male authority?

That question cannot be answered by judging people’s appearance at a funeral. It does, however, warrant examining the social relations through which men’s interpretations of honor, ownership, and authority can come to govern women’s lives and deaths.

The judicial investigation must also establish who knew about the attack, who may have helped create the conditions in which it occurred, and whether independent evidence exists to substantiate any other person’s possible participation or complicity.

When “Honor” Becomes a License to Take a Life

The murder of Maryam Yarmohammadi must be analyzed within the framework of gendered power relations relations in which women’s bodies, intimate and sexual relationships, and even their right to live become subject to the control of male family members.

Within an honor-based system, a woman is not recognized as an autonomous individual entitled to make decisions about her own life. Instead, she is treated as a bearer of her family’s honor and the men’s social standing. Her behavior, relationships, and choices become a means through which male authority is asserted. If a woman defies imposed rules—or is merely accused of doing so—she may face threats, deprivation, confinement, physical assault, or murder.

Within this worldview, the accusation that a woman has had a relationship with another man becomes a pretext for transforming her from a rights-holder into an object of punishment. Even if such a relationship existed, no individual has the right to appoint himself judge and executioner and take her life.

In Maryam’s case, the reported prior coordination, the removal of the children from the home, and the fatal attack underscore the need to investigate possible advance planning. If the investigation establishes that the attack was coordinated and identifies the roles of those involved, the case would concern more than an impulsive act of violence: it would involve circumstances allegedly arranged in advance to facilitate a killing.

Several fundamental questions must therefore be asked. What led Maryam’s brother to believe he had the right to kill his sister over conduct attributed to her? What circumstances enabled her husband, according to the information available, to remove the children before the attack? And what kind of social order allows people around a victim, after a killing, to protest the suspect’s arrest rather than demand that the truth be established?

These questions cannot be answered simply by condemning one individual. They require an examination of the family, social, legal, and political structures that enable honor-based violence and, in some circumstances, lend it legitimacy.

What Does the Law Say and What Does It Overlook?

Law alone cannot eliminate every patriarchal belief. However, a legal system can either deter violence or send the wrong message by maintaining discriminatory privileges and exceptions.

Several provisions of Iranian criminal law are particularly relevant to the broader analysis of honor killings.

1. Article 301 of the Islamic Penal Code: The Exception for Fathers and Paternal Grandfathers

Article 301 sets out conditions for the application of qisas (retribution), including that the perpetrator must not be the victim’s father or paternal grandfather. Consequently, when a father or paternal grandfather kills their child or grandchild, qisas does not apply in the ordinary manner, although this does not mean the killing is lawful or that all other penalties are excluded.

This exception does not directly apply to Maryam’s brother. Nevertheless, from the perspective of criminal justice policy, it raises important questions about the equal value of family members’ lives and the consequences of differentiating between perpetrators on the basis of kinship.

A woman’s or child’s right to life should not depend on the killer’s position within the family hierarchy.

2. Article 630 of Book Five of the Islamic Penal Code (Ta’zirat): A Limited Exception in Specific Circumstances Involving Alleged Sexual Conduct

Article 630 provides a narrowly defined exception for a husband in specific circumstances involving the killing of his wife and another man when he claims to have witnessed sexual intercourse. Its application is subject to particular legal conditions. It is neither a general authorization for honor killings nor directly applicable, on its face, to Maryam’s killing by her brother.

Nevertheless, the existence of such a provision raises serious concerns from the perspectives of gender equality and the right to life. Under the specified circumstances, it grants a husband a form of criminal-law privilege based on an allegation concerning his wife’s sexual conduct.

The law should unequivocally uphold the principle that no one may claim authority over another person’s life in the name of honor, jealousy, or reputation.

3. Article 612 of Book Five of the Islamic Penal Code: The Public Dimension of Homicide

Article 612 provides for a discretionary criminal penalty in certain cases where qisas is not imposed and the act has disturbed public order and security or created a risk of encouraging further offenses by the perpetrator or others.

Consequently, a pardon or waiver by the victim’s heirs does not necessarily bring every aspect of criminal liability to an end. The application of this provision depends on whether its legal conditions are met.

The fundamental concern is that the protection of women’s right to life should not depend entirely on the decisions of the victim’s family. The state has a duty to treat homicide as a grave violation of human security and to establish effective mechanisms to prevent its recurrence.

4. Articles 22 and 302 of the Islamic Penal Code and the Question of Accountability

Article 302 identifies specific circumstances in which qisas does not apply. It does not provide a blanket authorization to kill for reasons of honor, and it cannot be applied to Maryam’s case without establishing that the relevant legal conditions are met. Article 22 is also a provision of the Islamic Penal Code, not an article of the Constitution. Any claim concerning these provisions must therefore identify the relevant law and the precise subject matter of the article.

A rigorous legal critique must go beyond the question of whether a particular punishment exists. It must examine how exceptions are defined, whether equal protection of the right to life is guaranteed, whether judicial proceedings are independent, and whether the law is capable of preventing violence.

A legal system that intervenes after a woman has been killed but fails to protect her effectively beforehand is insufficient to address structural violence. Combating honor killings requires effective deterrence, meaningful protection for women at risk, access to shelters, serious responses to prior threats, and independent investigations into the roles of everyone potentially involved.

Education: Reproducing Obedience or Nurturing Equality?

Honor killings are not simply the product of one perpetrator’s decision. They occur within a social environment in which controlling women may be presented as a male duty and women’s obedience as a virtue.

The education system has a significant responsibility in addressing this problem. If children grow up being taught, explicitly or implicitly, that boys have greater authority, girls must be obedient, girls’ sexual conduct determines family honor, and defying family expectations warrants punishment, education reinforces gender hierarchy rather than equality.

Criticism of Iran’s education system must address gender stereotypes in textbooks, educational practices, the teaching of women’s and children’s rights, and the absence of effective education on consent, personal boundaries, nonviolent conflict resolution, and the prohibition of violence. Responsibility does not rest with schools alone. Families, the media, cultural institutions, and the legal system all help shape these values.

Children must learn that no human being owns another person’s body or life. An intimate or sexual relationship, a family disagreement, or a perceived threat to someone’s reputation can never justify threats or violence. Boys must learn equality and accountability from an early age, while girls must be able to exercise their right to make decisions, say no, and seek help.

An educational system that avoids open discussion of gender-based violence, equal rights, and women’s autonomy cannot provide an effective safeguard against a culture that seeks to justify murder in the name of honor.

The Government’s Responsibility: How Many More Women Must Be Killed in the Name of Honor?

This question must be asked directly: How many thousands more women must be killed in the name of honor before the Iranian government takes its responsibility to prevent these murders seriously?

The issue is not merely the number of victims. It is why, after decades of reporting, warnings, protests, and documentation, women remain exposed to violence whose warning signs may sometimes be visible before a killing occurs.

The government’s responsibility does not begin and end with arresting a perpetrator after a crime has been committed. The state has a duty to protect the lives and security of its citizens, reform discriminatory laws, provide immediate protection to women facing threats, expand access to shelters and legal and psychological services, and take prior threats and acts of violence seriously.

Combating honor killings also requires reform of the education and media environments. As long as control over women’s bodies remains tied to concepts such as male honor and family reputation, and women’s autonomy is not recognized as a fundamental right, criminal prosecution—essential though it is—will not be sufficient to prevent these crimes from recurring.

The government cannot claim responsibility for protecting its citizens while remaining indifferent to legal and cultural structures that perpetuate gender discrimination. Its responsibility encompasses both preventing killings and ensuring accountability after they occur.

Every honor-killing case must be examined not only in terms of the direct perpetrator, but also in relation to prior warnings, the victim’s access to protection, the role of relevant authorities, and the possible involvement of others.

Maryam’s case must not become merely another file in a judicial archive. Her death must become a demand for changes in public policy and in the mechanisms designed to protect women.

Maryam’s Two Children: Victims Who Must Not Be Forgotten

Maryam was the mother of two children. According to information received by the Campaign, the children had been taken out of the home before the attack. This information must be examined as part of the investigation into the circumstances of the crime and the possible roles of those involved.

Beyond the criminal proceedings, the two children now face the loss of their mother and the psychological and social consequences of a violent killing. They must not be left vulnerable to family conflicts or used as instruments of pressure and control. Their safety, stable care, psychological support, and access to social services must be priorities.

The children are entitled to a safe environment free from violence. The relevant authorities must assess their guardianship and protection arrangements in accordance with their best interests, particularly where questions have been raised about the possible involvement of people close to the family in the crime.

Who has given men the right to take a woman’s life in the name of honor and deprive two children of their mother? The answer cannot be limited to condemning the killer. It requires building a society in which no one considers themselves the owner of another person’s life.

The Stop Honor Killings Campaign’s Demands

The Stop Honor Killings Campaign calls for the following urgent and concrete measures in the case of Maryam Yarmohammadi:

1. An independent investigation into possible advance planning, including a thorough examination of all evidence concerning coordination before the attack.
2. A full investigation into Maryam’s husband’s role in removing the children from the home, including whether he knew of the alleged plan to kill Maryam or whether his actions were intended to facilitate the attack.
3. An investigation into the possible involvement of any other individuals for whom evidence may indicate participation, complicity, or assistance in facilitating the crime, while respecting due process and the presumption of innocence until criminal responsibility is established.
4. An independent examination of the reported gathering of approximately 50 people at the hospital and their protests against the suspect’s arrest. This should be documented as part of the social context of the case, without treating mere attendance or an expression of forgiveness as grounds for attributing criminal liability.
5. Independent and transparent judicial proceedings, free from improper family or social pressure.
6. Sustained protection and support for Maryam’s two children, including psychological and social services and a review of their guardianship arrangements based on their best interests.
7. Reform of discriminatory laws and policies and stronger mechanisms for preventing gender-based violence, including immediate protection and specialized services for women at risk.
8. A fundamental review of educational and cultural practices that reinforce the idea of ownership over women, normalize violence, or justify murder in the name of honor.

Maryam Had the Right to Live

The murder of Maryam Yarmohammadi is not merely the loss of a 28-year-old woman’s life. It is a case about the right to life, patriarchal domination, governmental responsibility, and a society that must confront the boundary between reputation and crime.

Maryam had the right to live. She had the right to security and human dignity. She had the right to exercise autonomy over her own life without fearing punishment by male members of her family. No allegation concerning her personal relationships can justify her murder.

If prior coordination and the involvement of other individuals are established, justice requires accountability for everyone whose criminal responsibility is proven. But justice for Maryam cannot be limited to punishing those responsible. Preventing similar crimes is an equally indispensable part of justice.

As long as women are treated not as autonomous human beings but as bearers of family honor; as long as the law and education system fail to provide sufficiently effective safeguards against gender discrimination; and as long as the government fails to make the prevention of women’s killings an operational priority, the risk of further crimes will remain.

How many more women must be killed in the name of honor before the government takes effective action to protect their lives?

A woman is no one’s honor or possession. No one owns a woman’s body or life. Women’s right to life is not negotiable.

Stop Honor Killings Campaign

#StopHonorKillings
#MaryamYarmohammadi
#HonorKilling
#Femicide
#ViolenceAgainstWomen
#RightToLife
#JusticeForWomen
#ChildrenAffectedByViolence
#EndViolenceAgainstWomen
#WomenAreNotMensHonor