On July 1, 2024, at the Free Iran 2024 World Summit – Day 3 hosted at the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) headquarters in Paris, Dr. Juan Garcés, a prominent international jurist and political advisor to the late Chilean president Salvador Allende, delivered a compelling speech.
In his speech, Dr. Juan Garcés discussed his involvement in investigations conducted by a Spanish court into crimes committed against Iranian refugees in Iraq. These crimes, which took place between 2009 and 2011, involved serious allegations including murder, severe injury, illegal detention, and torture. The Spanish court, under the principles of universal jurisdiction, accepted the case and gathered substantial evidence and witness testimonies that confirmed these war crimes, which were in direct violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
1. International Jurist Dr. Juan Garcés Calls for Justice for Crimes Committed in Iran, Citing Precedents in International Law #MaryamRajavi4FreeIran #FreeIran2024 https://t.co/tG0zinGjcd
— Iran Freedom (@4FreedominIran) July 1, 2024
A translated version of Dr. Juan Garcés’s speech follows:
Madam Rajavi, dear colleagues, dear friends from Ashraf 1, Ashraf 2 and Ashraf 3,
I am moved by this gathering where the very brilliant speakers preceded me, but I would like to address two points from Mrs. Rajavi’s speech yesterday. When discussing international law today, it is impossible not to mention the international community that is the source of these laws, particularly the current international law, which has its roots in World War II.
One of its pivotal moments took place in Tehran in 1943, when the heads of state of the United States, Russia, and Great Britain met in Tehran and made numerous agreements that were later developed in other international conferences. These agreements form the foundation of today’s world and international work. One of the Tehran agreements in 1943 was the guarantee by the three powers of Iran’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.
Yesterday, we spoke about Dr. Mossadegh, and I want to pay tribute to him today. Ten years after the Tehran meeting, an intervention occurred that changed Iran’s history. What happened in Iran has its roots in this interference in its internal affairs. We don’t know what Iran’s future would have been if this intervention had not taken place, but it did happen, and its long and deep consequences are still present in Iranian reality today.
I will also refer to another international conference in Tehran, the 1968 United Nations Conference on Human Rights. If you read the records of this conference, you will find the roots of the Ten-Point Plan that were developed and presented yesterday by Mrs. Rajavi and again today. These ten points have their roots in the 1968 Tehran conference. Your generation was very young then, but it was this generation that rose up a few years later, in 1979, against the existing dictatorial regime in Iran. The history is well known, and we must consider the consequences of this development for human rights in Iran.
I had the pleasure and satisfaction of seeking a court of justice, for the principles are there: the principles of the Nuremberg Trials, the international human rights conventions, the convention against genocide, and the agreements against war crimes. But where is a court of justice where these rights can be invoked and applied to violators of these international norms?
Well, I had the opportunity and pleasure of finding a court of justice that conducted research on crimes committed against Iranian refugees in Iraq, crimes committed by a non-Iranian power, namely the Iraqi authorities, in the years 2009, 2010, and 2011. The Spanish court, under the principles of universal jurisdiction then in force in Spain, accepted this complaint.
The investigation was developed, and witnesses came forward with evidence of the crimes committed, war crimes because the refugees in Ashraf were under the protection of the Fourth Geneva Convention. These were war crimes in progress. The evidence was gathered, and the court found these to be crimes. The legal reasoning of the resolution of June 15, 2015, literally stated that the evidence constituted a crime against the international community. It included 11 murders, 480 serious injuries, 36 cases of illegal detention and torture, and damage violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention related to the protection of civilians during war, ratified by Spain and Iraq, as well as its Protocol No. 1.
The events leading to this complaint occurred on July 28, 2009, from 3 PM and the following days, when 2,000 soldiers of the 9th BAD Brigade, the special forces of the SCORPION Brigade of Baghdad, and the 2nd and 3rd battalions of police and gendarmerie, the anti-riot police, in a deliberate and planned action under the command of General al-Assadi, equipped with armored vehicles, firearms, axes, Fmetal and wooden sticks, chains, pepper gas, tear gas, sonic grenades, water tanks, and other vehicles, launched an assault on the unarmed civilian residents of Ashraf camp, indiscriminately shooting at people protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention, killing 11 and arresting 36. The Spanish court of assizes addressed the Spanish Supreme Court, seeking authorization to continue the investigation as the Iraqi authorities had not conducted an effective investigation despite successive requests from the Spanish court.
However, when we were at this stage of the investigation, considering whether the facts and the context of the 1980s in Iran constituted elements of genocide given the differentiated national group component of the victims and the religious component of the victims’ groups and whether the genocide convention applied to these facts, an international factor intervened.
Three foreign powers, which I will not name, pressured the Spanish executive and parliament to amend the internal law on universal jurisdiction. This amendment meant Spain could not pursue this crime unless the alleged perpetrator was in Spanish territory. Naturally, the perpetrator was in Iraq. So, at that moment, the investigation was provisionally suspended as long as the perpetrator was not in Spain. This means if tomorrow he enters Spain and we learn of it and inform the Court, the case will be reopened, and judicial action will continue.
This practical example shows how binding and controlling norms can be applied when political circumstances allow or be suspended or not applied when political conditions do not permit it. Now, an optimistic reflection, as we must always, right, think that things can change. We are in a very difficult international circumstance, everyone knows, but there are positive elements suggesting that the crimes committed in Iran, which continue to be committed, might one day find a court of justice where those responsible can be tried, accused, and judged.
I am particularly thinking of the recent decisions of the International Criminal Court, which has opened investigations into war crimes committed on European territory for the first time, and the International Criminal Court has also opened an investigation into war crimes committed on Palestinian territory.
These are significant new facts and a great courage for an international tribunal. Another positive fact that has emerged in recent months is that the International Court of Justice has agreed to open an investigation into the signs of genocide occurring in Palestine. The convention against genocide and the norms against war crimes is today at the highest level of international justice.
The crimes committed in Iran have been qualified as crimes against humanity. UN rapporteurs speak today of the possibility that the constitutive element of the genocide convention may be present in the reported events. These crimes, as mentioned earlier, are not subject to prescription, and therefore it is a matter of state that national or international conditions may allow the reopening of cases to prosecute these crimes.
In the meantime, as has been said, we must gather evidence and be able to present it one day before a competent court to judge them. This perspective opens up positive possibilities, unfortunately in the context of crimes because international criminal law evolves parallel to major crimes, but these crimes are so evident and their consequences so severe that the law evolves, and courts eventually open or are created, as mentioned earlier by an authority who preceded me. I hope and wish that the day will come when Iranians will also find a court of justice.
