At the international conference held on July 3 at the headquarters of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, Prof. Melanie O’Brien, President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, delivered a compelling speech on the 1988 massacre, focusing on the potential for legal accountability of the perpetrators. Prof. O’Brien provided a detailed explanation of how international law can be used to seek justice for the victims of the 1988 executions and their families.
In her address, she urged leaders at national and international levels to implement these legal solutions to ensure justice for the heinous acts of torture, enforced disappearance, and executions in Iran.
The full script of the speech of Prof. Melanie O’Brien follows:
Thank you so much. It is an honor to be here and to be asked to speak at such a significant and important occasion. The UN Special Adviser on Genocide Prevention, Alice Nderitu, recently said, “When perpetrators of past atrocities are not held accountable for their actions, we are doomed to see history repeat itself.”
This is the situation we find ourselves in with regard to the Iranian government and its human rights abuses, many of which amount to international crimes. In 1988, political protests were curbed with thousands of people executed for their political and religious beliefs. Only one of the perpetrators of these crimes has been held accountable for their actions.
With the resumption of violence since the killing of Mahsa Amini, we see the same types of violence being carried out. Protesters in the street are being met with violence, with the security forces being ordered to severely confront protesters, beating them and firing upon them. Other protesters are arrested and detained, with hundreds already executed. Some of those killed have been children.
What it is, is a continuation of the targeting of those opposed to the authoritarian regime running the country that was seen in the 1980s, with the very same conduct being carried out. Indeed, it is history repeating itself.
Crimes against humanity are crimes committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack on a civilian population. The detention, disappearance, torture, and killings of large numbers of Iranian civilians in 1988 and today certainly qualify as a widespread and systematic attack on the civilian population of Iran. These crimes committed against Iranians amount to crimes against humanity of murder, torture, imprisonment, or severe deprivation of liberty in violation of international rules, persecution on political and religious grounds, enforced disappearance, and other inhumane acts.
So, it is not just one crime, it is many. Some of the crimes are committed against the victims and others against the families. Obviously, the Iranian government is not going to hold itself accountable for atrocity crimes, including executions, torture, and enforced disappearance. This is especially the case as we know that some of those responsible for the 1988 crimes have since been promoted up the ranks to high government positions, including the current president, Ebrahim Raisi, who was a Death Commission member.
For Raisi, he is a perpetrator of the killings in 1988, but he is now obviously also accountable for current crimes against humanity being perpetrated against protesters. With Raisi in power, it is clear that within Iran there will not be justice for the victims.
The international community thus needs to unequivocally support accountability processes to ensure justice for the victims and their families who have not been permitted to properly mourn their loved ones. What form those processes take, however, is the biggest challenge.
People often ask me about the International Criminal Court. The International Criminal Court is of course not an option for accountability for the 1988 massacres, as the court does not have jurisdiction over crimes committed prior to July 2002. However, is it an option for present-day torture and killings? Of course, not surprisingly, Iran is not a party to the International Criminal Court. Therefore, the International Criminal Court would have no territorial jurisdiction. This is the most common form of jurisdiction for the court, where it can prosecute international crimes committed in the territory of a state party.
The only option would be for the United Nations Security Council to refer the situation in Iran to the International Criminal Court, as it did for the situation in Darfur, Sudan. However, this is very unlikely to occur, because Russia as a permanent member of the Security Council would use its veto power over any proposed resolution to refer Iran to the International Criminal Court.
Today I was honoured to speak at #freeIran conference about the need for accountability for the 1988 executions & today’s repression, both times of torture, enforced disappearances & executions. The intl community must take action for #justice for victims & families. #humanRights https://t.co/9eTJYhr5Ba
— Dr Melanie O’Brien (@DrMelOB) July 3, 2023
As we know, Iran and Russia have a very close relationship, with Russia supplying Iran with military equipment and Iran supplying Russia with drones. So, unfortunately, the International Criminal Court is not a likely option, so we need to explore other accountability. Domestic criminal law in third countries should be used.
We’ve heard about the July 2022 conviction in Sweden of Hamid Noury, and it’s a key example of the use of what we call universal jurisdiction against perpetrators of the 1988 killings. This is where a country prosecutes a national from any other country for international crimes committed anywhere in the world.
Noury traveled to Sweden under an alias, where he was arrested upon arrival and then tried and convicted for his role in the 1988 executions. Sweden could not prosecute using their crimes against humanity law because this only applies to crimes committed after July 2014. But Noury was still sentenced to life in prison for the war crimes of participating in the killing of prisoners and subjecting prisoners to inhumane treatment and torture, as well as the ordinary crime of murder.
Sweden’s example should be followed by other countries. This would effectively render a travel ban on those who participated in the 1988 executions and those who are perpetrating current crimes, as they would be arrested if they traveled abroad.
Therefore, this would complement any current sanctions regimes against Iranian individuals. Most realistic current justice options will not result, sadly, in the prosecution and conviction of the perpetrators in a criminal process. And so other mechanisms that focus on truth-telling, exposing the crimes of the current and previous regimes, need to be established.
It would be appropriate, as we have heard, for the United Nations to establish some kind of mechanism for investigation and truth-telling. Such a mechanism could be of a similar structure to the independent investigative mechanism for Myanmar. This mechanism collects, consolidates, preserves, and analyses evidence that can be made available in national, regional, and international courts for future prosecutions.
The mechanism also issues reports of its findings, which are an important accountability source in itself. Unfortunately, human rights law solutions are difficult and limited. Iran has never engaged significantly with the international human rights law system. It is a party to a few human rights treaties. It does not subscribe to any individual complaints procedures in the United Nations human rights system. For example, it is not a party to the Convention Against Torture or the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, obviously two highly relevant treaties.
However, there is certainly customary international law that could be used by other countries to bring a case against Iran in the International Court of Justice. Iran is actually an active member of the International Court of Justice and, in fact, last week it brought a case against Canada in that court.
Canada, Sweden, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom are planning to take Iran to the International Court of Justice over the downing of Flight PS752, which killed their own nationals. They should be as outraged by the deaths of Iranian nationals that violate international law and, in response, take action in that regard against Iran in the International Court of Justice. The prohibition on torture and inhuman treatment is deemed to be customary international law and thus would be a means for any other state to bring a case against Iran in the International Court of Justice.
An argument could also be made that the prohibition on enforced disappearance is customary law. These are some options for accountability and I call on leaders at national and international levels to implement these solutions to ensure justice of torture, enforced disappearance, and executions in Iran.
Thank you.
This post was originally published on this site be sure to check out more of their content.
