Today is July 13 In memory of Dr.Ghasemlou
By: Soraya Fallah & Cklara Moradian
Dr.
Ghaseloo’s Assassination;
A
Case for Taking International Legal Action
Dr. Ghassemlou
was assassinated before he could achieve his political goals. He believed in
non-violence, human rights, and the advancement of all oppressed nations in Iran
His untimely
absence and subsequent leadership vacuum was followed by a brutal campaign by
the Iranian government. History has shown that his murder took the Kurdish
people back many steps. The democratic process and the goal of autonomy also
fell back.
June 1989,
after Ayatollah Khomeini’s death, the KDPI was informed that Islamic Republic
of Iran is willing to resume negotiations and find a speedy resolution to the
Kurdish situation. Dr. Ghassemlou accepted this without conditions. He even
compromised his preferred meeting place (which was Paris )
to Vienna Iran
Perhaps his
willingness to meet the Iranian agents under such suspicious and unsafe
conditions stems from his trust in the goodness of all people and his
conviction that there is hope in diplomacy. He was so pure in his belief that
human beings could come face to face and negotiate rather than fight that he
was blinded to the brutality and faithlessness of the Iranian government. He
wanted a peaceful solution to the Kurdish suffering, so much that he
jeopardized his own safety. He was ahead of his time and ahead of most
traditional leaders in the region. He had a democratic and humanistic vision
and this perhaps made him vulnerable to the coldblooded acts of the Iranian
government. There is no way to know where Kurdish people would be if he was not
killed. How much further ahead or how much more free we would have been, but it
is clear that his spirit is alive in every human being who advocates for human
rights and dignity.
Due to the
fact that the Kurds can enjoy the expertise of Mrs. Carol Prunhuber and her
extensive knowledge of the life and untimely murder of Dr. Abdul Rahman Ghassemlou ,
we have chosen to skip biographical summary of his life from my paper. In the
interest of time, We have also omitted retelling the horrific events of July 13
1989. Instead, WE are going to focus on legal issues relevant to his assassination,
that are also applicable to other gross human right crimes committed by the
Islamic Republic of Iran.
Links,
resources, and documents sited in this paper is available upon request or after
publication.
Part One:
Signed but Ignored; Meaningless Signatures and Non-Adherence
First, contrary to popular belief, the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a
signatory to the most important UN conventions, including the non binding
declaration known as the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). In 1948, when the declaration
was adopted, Iran Iran Iran Iran
“The
international legal system has the state at its centre: the state ratifies
treaties and thereby obliges itself to respect, protect and fulfill certain
human rights. And it is the state that must report on its own implementation
and who can be “named and shamed” in public for not doing so. Treaties specify
mechanisms for how the international community can hold the state to account,
frequently through exerting pressure from above, and therefore such mechanisms
can be very powerful. However they can also become overtly politicized at the
UN or regional fora. It is the challenge of campaigners and the courts to place
this power in the hands of those whose rights have been violated by the state.”
Simply put, International conventions,
signed, ratified or abstained have little practical value when the state
chooses not to abide by these International mechanisms.
What is the solution then? How are international laws enforced
and by whom? Does this mean that the IRI can continue to carry out atrocious
crimes in impunity and without scrutiny from the International community?
Part two:
Conviction in the Face of Limitations
There are
some possible International institutions that Kurds can and should appeal to in
order to achieve the goal of justice for Ghassemlou’s execution and other such
criminal acts. Even if a tangible resolution is not found, a trial is necessary
to prevent these crimes from being committed in obscurity. Despite the statute of limitations for retroactive wrongs,
and the shortcoming of International jurisdiction in prosecuting extrajudicial
assassinations, it is important to note that if argued effectively human right
standards and international common law can be used to seek legal retribution.
Theoretically
and philosophically, the limits of International law are enormous. In practicality,
geopolitical interests, economic ties, and strategic alliances make reaching
justice difficult, if not outright impossible. With that in mind, it is
incredibly important for the Kurdish leadership, scholars, advocates,
activists, lawmakers, researchers, and students to persistently pursue, push,
and demand legal avenues for investigating, documenting, and prosecuting those
responsible for the murder of Dr. Ghassemlou.
Possible
Avenues for International legal action:
Many Kurdish
people have wondered if the crimes committed by the Islamic republic of Iran
International Criminal Court (1998 Rome
The ICC,
which is an International criminal court, began to operate in 2002 and has a
mandate to try cases involving war crimes, crimes against humanity, and
genocide.
Unfortunately,
at the moment extrajudicial assassinations or state-sanctioned targeted attacks
are not categorized as “war crimes, crimes against humanity, and/or genocide.”
Advocates must argue that Dr. Ghassemlou’s assassination, in addition to the
hundreds of other murders, executions, disappearances, rapes, discriminations
and violations are part of a systematic, deliberate, planned, and premeditated
campaign against the Kurdish population. According to the ICC, “Crimes against humanity encompass serious
attacks on human dignity or a grave humiliation or degradation of human beings.
The Rome Statute requires that these should be committed as part of a
widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with
knowledge of the attack (see article 7 of the 1998 Statute of the ICC).” The Islamic Republic of Iran can
always claim that they did not have ‘knowledge of the attack’ and were unaware
that they were contributing to a widespread or systematic crime. For more
information:
click
A body of
evidence, such as eye witness accounts, expert testimony, and documents
presented by
Amnesty International and other credible organizations, would need to prove
that the state is actually intending to commit “Crimes against Humanity.”
The ICC is a
last resort and created to prosecute the most serious of crimes; therefore, it
does not oversee individual cases of repression, no matter how consequential.
This is not simply a burden faced by Kurds but rather all dissidents from Iran
Dr.
Abdolkarim Lahiji, vice president of the International
Federation of Human Rights Leagues has attempted to bring an international
case against the IRI since the creation of the Rome Statute. Dr.Lahiji
worked extensively to document and investigate the assassination of Dr.
Ghassmlou. It might be possible to present a stronger case if the
assassinations were brought forth along with other instances of aggression in
order to demonstrate that the Iranian government lacks regard for human dignity
and the right to life.
The most significant challenge in bringing a criminal case before the
court is the jurisdictional reach of the ICC, which can only prosecute crimes
taken place within signatory nations or prosecute a person who committed such
crimes within the boundaries of a signatory nation. This simply means that
unless the crimes perpetrated against the Kurds took place in a country like
the Netherlands
According to
the recent report by the UN
Human Rights Council “took bold, assertive action to highlight Iran ’s deteriorating human rights situation by
establishing a Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Situation in Iran Iran
Despite
increased diplomatic pressure on Iran
Even if,
against all odds, the Security Council decided to bring a case against Iran
The basis of most International law revolves around the notion of
statehood and state rights. The Islamic Republic of Iran argues that they are
not operating outside the state’s existential imperative to condemn activity
they perceive as threats to national security. Although this is controversial
and in serious need of revision, the burden of proof will fall on the victims,
who are in this case members of a stateless people without protection or
representation at the United Nations. Lack of statehood is also precisely why
Kurds are not able to bring forth a case before the International
Court of Justice (ICJ). “This court’s role is to settle, in accordance with
international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give
advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United
Nations organs and specialized agencies.” Since ethnic and religious
communities are not considered nations, they do not benefit from the protection
of the ICJ.
Other avenues of international criminal investigations and prosecutions
are “ad hoc tribunals” such as the International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda or the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
Ad hoc tribunals; however, have a statute
of limitation, which means they
are subject to time and location constraints. Thus they cannot
prosecute retroactively. Although the “low-intensity” war against the Kurdish
population in Iran is continuous, many of the most horrendous acts were carried
out within the first two decades of the Islamic republics’ birth. These acts
should not go unpunished and therefore an ad hoc tribunal, for example, an
investigation into the crimes after the 2009 election, will not sufficient.
Two other possible avenues for justice:
A.
Advocates can seek to bring forth a criminal case against the Islamic
Republic of Iran at a domestic superior court of countries, who take on such
cases. Although this is historically a rare occurrence, there is precedence for
seeking this legal route. Courts in Spain
have been famously involved in international cases. This is based on the
principal of “universal
jurisdiction,” which states “that any national
court may exercise criminal jurisdiction over serious crimes against
international law—such as crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture—based
on the principle that such crimes harm the international community (or order)
itself, which individual States may act to protect.” According to Amnesty
International “since the end of the Second World War, more than 15
countries have exercised universal jurisdiction in investigations or
prosecutions of persons suspected of crimes under international law…[and] have
extradited persons to countries for prosecution based on universal
jurisdiction."
Convincing a
third party country to take on a controversial case against the IRI at a
domestic court is nearly impossible due to each country’s economic, political,
and security concerns. Instead, advocates might need to make a strong case for
the inclusion of human right demands as a bargaining chip during nuclear
negotiations with Iran.
B.
A relatively novel but increasingly prominent idea in International law
is the RESPONSIBILITY TO
PROTECT ("RtoP" or "R2P"), which is a “new
international security and human rights norm or set of principles based on the
idea that sovereignty is not a privilege, but a responsibility. RtoP focuses on
preventing and halting four crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against
humanity, and ethnic cleansing, which it places under the generic umbrella
term, "Mass Atrocity Crimes"” Although RtoP is not a law, it does
provide a “framework for using tools that already exist (like mediation, early
warning mechanisms, economic sanctioning, and chapter
VII powers) to prevent mass atrocities.”
Kurdish
advocates can use these concepts to indicate the need for greater international
scrutiny and pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran, arguing that not doing
so will allow for the continuation of an already dire condition for the Kurdish
population amounting to “Mass Atrocity Crimes.” Since both concepts are
criticized as infringements on State sovereignty, a very strong campaign would
be needed to convince the international community to act.
On a Final Note: Atrocity, Impunity, and Complicity; an International
Collaboration
The leniency
shown by the International community in the face of IRI’s crimes is a
reflection of powerful political agents, which often override the demand for
justice. Accurately pointed out by the Iran
Human Rights Documentation Center “there is substantial evidence suggesting
that the governments of several European states were negligent (if not
reckless) in fulfilling their duty to provide “effective remedy” following the
murder of Iranian dissidents within their jurisdiction.”
The evidence
that Dr. Ghassemlou’s murder was an unlawful execution by members of the
Iranian government is overwhelming. Since Dr. Ghassemlou’s murder, there have
been dozens if not hundreds of well documented but unresolved extrajudicial
executions in the Diaspora. The 1992
Mykonos restaurant assassinations of Kurdish leadership is further evidence
that the Islamic Republic of Iran is systematically targeting Kurdish
intellectual and political figures in order to suppress Kurdish ambitions. All
this is taking place outside of Iran, in the sovereign soil of another nation,
with ease and anonymity.
What is
perhaps most tragic about remaining silent in the face of state sanctioned
crimes is that we leave people without any place of safety or sense of
security. Dissidents and political refugees seeking asylum abroad find
themselves unable to reach peace. They are faced with the reality of a life
full of fear, intimidation, terror, extortion, and even death. Many have
witnessed their colleagues disappear or their property arbitrarily destroyed.
To treat these crimes as isolated and negligible acts would be to entirely
diminish the importance of human rights. It leaves citizens of every nation at
risk and open to attacks by countries that choose to live outside the law. If
State sovereignty is important to Iran, it should also be important to nations
where these attacks are taking place. What must be loudly and clearly
communicated to the world is the fact that impunity for crimes perpetrated by
the IRI is not just a Kurdish issue but rather an International threat. Crimes
like these should be looked at as an International crisis that merits direct
and swift action. The fact that Iran has been able to carry out such crimes for
30-some years without consequences, diplomatic or otherwise, should be
considered a crime of complicity.
----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------
Work Cited:
16.
http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Lahiji_Abdolkarim_48670368.aspx
Work Consulted:
