Source: www.iranhr.net
Translation by Iran Press Watch
Afaq Rabieizadeh (Our Rights Magazine): What can be understood from the international definitions of the concept of “genocide” is that genocide means the conscious and deliberate extermination of all or part of the people of a race, religion or a nation by the government or a dominant group.
The term “genocide” was coined by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-American lawyer, holocaust survivor, and tireless advocate for legal safeguards to protect ethnic, religious, and social groups. His efforts led to the United Nations General Assembly’s unanimously approval the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide” on December 9, 1948, based on the draft presented by Lemkin.
Following the adoption of this convention, many instances of genocide have been identified around the world. For example, in Iran, since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979, tens of thousands of and during the last four decades, tens of thousands of political and ideological opponents of this government, including Baha’is, communists, members of the People’s Mojahedin Khalq organization, officials of the Pahlavi government and many other political organizations and religious leaders have been executed or killed.
In the third article of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, the term “mass murder” is used as one of the examples of genocide.
“Our Rights” (OR) Magazine interviewed Hamid Sabi (HS), a prominent Iranian lawyer who has a record of appearing in the Iranian Tribunal and the Chinese and Uyghur Tribunals, to examine the legal concept of genocide and its examples in Iran.
OR: From your point of view, what is the legal definition of genocide?
HS: The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide originally defined the concept of a protected group. According to this convention, an attempt to terminate all or part of a protected group by the methods described therein is genocide. The protected group can be a national, religious, or ethnic group that is precisely defined by this convention.
In this definition, both the action taken to exterminate a protected group as well as the simply intent to do so, even if no action has been taken in this regard, is also considered a genocide crime.
An example of a protected group is the Baha’is of Iran, which are considered a protected religious group. But the political prisoners of 1980s Iran cannot be included under the definition of a protected group, because these people held various political opinions, and it was possible for them to give up their beliefs.
One of the main assumptions about the protected group is that the group does not have the ability to change or reverse its beliefs. For example, Baha’is are told that they will be safe if they renounce their religion, however this is not an option for Baha’is and so those practicing the Baha’i Faith as well as those born into Baha’i families continue to be targeted.
Baha’is in Iran can be considered a protected religious group, but political prisoners from the 1980s cannot be included under the definition of a protected group. Because these people had varying political beliefs, and it was possible for them to give up their beliefs.
During World War II, it made no difference to the Nazis whether Jews had renounced their Judaism and had become Christians two generations earlier. For the Nazis, anyone who had Jewish blood could not be changed.
Therefore, the definition of that group as well as the stability of the common characteristic of the nature of the group, is critical in determining the crime of genocide. For example, what was raised in the Uyghur People’s Tribunal was even should individuals’ renounce and declare themselves no longer Uyghurs, the Government would continue to persecute them as Uyghurs.
The next criterion is Specific Intent. For example, in the case of Israel, this issue is important. At the beginning of the war, when the massacre occurred, Israel’s main intention was not to kill the people of Gaza. (Israel was responding to an attack by Hamas). If it is found that later actions of Israel are done with the specific intent to kill the people of Gaza, it will have to be proven Consequently, “intention” is essential in determining the crime of genocide.
The second article of the mentioned convention specifies five methods of dismantling the protected group.
The first method is the killing of group members, as happened during the Holocaust, when Jews were forcibly relocated to (concentration) camps, where they were killed.
The second method is torture and injury that will make it difficult or damage the chances of survival of the group. Another method described is to impose measures that inhibit the group’s ability to reproduce. For example, in Nazi Germany, for example, Romani people and gay people were sterilized. Another is Putin’s actions with forced relocation to Russia of Ukrainian children. In 2021, The Uyghur Tribunal (Uyghur People’s Court) convicted the Chinese government of genocide for its forced transfer of Uyghur children away from their families to locations where they undergo brainwashing and indoctrination.
OR: In the massacres of the 1980s in Iran, religious groups such as Baha’is suffered numerous victims. One instance was the execution of 16 Baha’i citizens in Shiraz on June 16 and 18, 1983. Prior to their executions, the victims were asked if they continued to believe in the Baha’i faith. Considering what you mentioned earlier about the components of the definition of genocide, can the conditions of the Baha’is in Iran be considered as a crime of genocide?
HS: In the case of the Baha’is, it is easy to conclude that they are a protected group. A common religion and a distinct identity. Also, there is no doubt that the Islamic Republic’s leaders intended to terminate them. Therefore, the two main factors that demonstrate the commitment of the crime of genocide against them is present.
In this regard, measures have been undertaken, with the help of the Baha’i community of the United Kingdom, to collect documentation of arrests, torture, deprivation of the means of living, including the deprivation of the right to education and the right of Baha’i marriage.
If all this evidence goes to court, it is likely that all the acts committed by the Islamic Republic against Baha’is over the past 45 years amount to genocide. However, in order to bring this claim to an international court, it would need to be brought by a nation that is a party to the convention. For example, South Africa, as a party to the convention, has filed a genocide lawsuit against Israel. Currently the British court does not have jurisdiction to hear such a lawsuit.
In 2019, Lord David Alton, a member of the British Parliament, introduced a bill that would allow British courts to prosecute the crime of genocide. We also cooperated in the preparation of this bill. The first bill was introduced in the House of Lords, but when elections were announced, the House was dissolved, and the bill was eliminated.
Q. The geography of Iran includes different ethnicities, each of which is subjected to oppression and discrimination in one way or another and is deprived of the possibility of education in their mother tongue. Some ethnic activists refer to their situation as a cultural genocide. From a legal point of view, is it correct to use such a title?
HS: In the initial draft of the genocide prepared by the Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, one of the mentioned factors was cultural genocide. Unfortunately, in the final document, the fourth paragraph, which was about cultural genocide, was deleted. As such, cultural genocide was not defined as a punishable crime in the Genocide Convention by international law. It is unfortunate that various countries involved in the preparation of Genocide Convention decided to remove this clause. I continue to believe that one of the cases of genocide is the cultural genocide that occurs in many countries.
Q. Therefore, with the removal of this clause, is it not possible to file a lawsuit against those who accuse heads of state and governments of cultural genocide?
HS: Unfortunately, it is not moving forward for now. We can refer to the custom of international law, which raises cultural issues. Citing these cases, Raphael Lemkin had added cultural genocide to the draft convention of genocide. There are such cases in the historical record, but in practice, unfortunately, they did not move forward. The commission that ratified the Genocide Convention, eliminated this aspect of cultural genocide.
Leave a Reply