When human rights experts, former international prosecutors, and UN officials convened online from Paris on September 4, 2026, the calendar marked a grim milestone: the 38th anniversary of the 1988 prison massacres in Iran. Yet, the focus of the international conference titled “Ongoing Crimes Against Humanity: Political Executions in Iran and the Responsibility to Act” was not merely historical commemoration.
Organized by the Justice for Victims of the 1988 Massacre in Iran (JVMI), the proceedings unraveling over the day pointed to a chilling hypothesis: The relentless wave of political executions terrifying Iran today is not a new phenomenon—it is the direct, unpunished continuation of the 1988 atrocities.
So, why has the Iranian regime been able to deploy state-sanctioned execution as a tool of political suppression for nearly four decades without facing international judicial consequences? And more importantly, what realistic legal mechanisms exist today to finally break this cycle of impunity?
The Thread of Impunity: Connecting 1988 to the Present Day
Opening the session, Dr. Hanifeh Khayri, an expert in international politics who moderated the panel, framed the central question of the conference. She urged attendees to look past the wall of historical distance and examine how past atrocities dictate current state policy.
“Our discussion today is not only about the past, nor is it purely about internal repression in Iran,” Dr. Khayri noted. “It is about a continuous pattern of impunity that directly links the mass murder of political dissidents in 1988 to the new surge of political executions taking place across Iran today”
For observers following Iran’s judicial violence, the structural parallel is unmistakable. In the summer of 1988, thousands of political prisoners were systematically liquidated in secret based on arbitrary religious and political decrees. Fast-forward to the present, and the Iranian regime continues to use vaguely defined capital charges—such as Moharebeh (enmity against God), Efsad-fil-Arz (corruption on Earth), and armed rebellion—to eliminate peaceful protesters, minority activists, and political critics.
THE CONTINUUM OF IMPUNITY IN THE IRANIAN REGIME
1988 Mass Executions → Decades of Inaction → Modern Execution Surge
Secret executions → Lack of accountability → Continued political repression
Can National Courts Succeed Where International Tribunals Stall?
One of the most provocative debates at the conference centered on actionable forum-shopping for justice. When international bodies like the UN Security Council face geopolitical deadlocks, where victims can turn?
Dr. Mark Ellis, Executive Director of the International Bar Association (IBA), argued that the legal community must look beyond traditional international courts. He emphasizes that the wave of executions in Iran should be treated as an ongoing, coordinated campaign violating basic humanitarian standards, rather than isolated domestic incidents.
Ellis highlighted the untapped potential of Universal Jurisdiction —a legal principle allowing domestic courts in third-party countries to prosecute individuals for heinous international crimes, regardless of where the crime was committed or the nationality of the victims and perpetrators.
“Adjudication and judicial proceedings for international crimes are not confined to international tribunals,” Dr. Ellis explained. “National courts can, and should, exercise jurisdiction over appalling atrocities. The architects and perpetrators of these crimes in Iran must not harbor the illusion that time is on their side. Evidence is being preserved, and accountability is inevitable”
Trial in Absentia: Building an Unshakeable Record of Truth
What happens when a repressive state refuses to extradite its officials to face trial? Geoffrey Robertson KC, former President of the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone, offered a pragmatic path forward.
Having personally interviewed nearly 50 survivors and analyzed state-controlled Iranian media from 1988, Robertson recalls how “Death Commissions”—comprising a religious judge, a prosecutor, and an intelligence official—condemned thousands to death in total secrecy, without right to counsel or appeal.
To confront the regime’s ongoing denial, Robertson proposed trials in absentia organized under UN mandates or by coalitions of willing nations.
Why are trials in absentia crucial, even if the perpetrators remain in Tehran?
- Creating an Official Judicial Record: It establishes a vetted, irrefutable factual record that prevents regime propaganda from rewriting history.
- Stripping Diplomatic Immunity: Convictions in absentia generate international arrest warrants, making it impossible for accused officials to travel abroad without risk of detention.
- Validating Victim Suffering: It formally acknowledges the atrocities endured by survivors and families of victims.
The Human Cost: A Legacy of Secondary Torture
Behind the legal frameworks lie harrowing human stories that illustrate how state violence extends beyond the execution chamber.
Elham Sajedian, a conference participant, shared the story of her father, Mohammad Sajedian, an Iranian oil drilling engineer. Arrested in 1984 for supporting democratic opposition movements, he was executed in a public square in Shiraz when Elham was just two days old.
Sajedian described how the regime’s cruelty did not end with her father’s death:
“The regime does not just kill the prisoners; their families are subjected to relentless harassment, surveillance, and mental torture for decades after,” she stated, drawing a direct line between her family’s past suffering and her observations of the crackdowns against young protesters in recent years.
Her testimony resonated with insights offered by Stephanie Wolfe, President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars. Wolfe condemned the regime’s systematic destruction of mass graves, such as the bulldozing and cementing over of Khavaran cemetery.
“The regime can pour concrete, but it cannot cement over the memories of a mother,” Wolfe noted. “Memory is the ultimate form of resistance. Memory endures, and ultimately, memory will win”
Key Perspectives from the Paris Conference
| Speaker | Role / Background | Key Takeaway/Legal Contribution |
| Dr. Hanifeh Khayri | International Politics Expert | Showed how the 1988 impunity acts as the structural foundation for current executions. |
| Dr. Mark Ellis | Executive Director, IBA | Urged national prosecutors worldwide to apply universal jurisdiction against Iranian officials. |
| Geoffrey Robertson KC | Former UN Special Court Judge | Advocated for trials in absentia to establish an official, unalterable historical record. |
| Prof. Claudio Grossman | UN International Law Commission | Highlighted individual criminal responsibility under customary international law. |
| Stephanie Wolfe | President, IAGS | Analyzed memory as an active tool of resistance against regime erasure of mass graves. |
| Ambulance Joachim Rücker | Former President, UN Human Rights Council | Outlined concrete steps for UN General Assembly resolutions and Security Council recommendations. |
| Prof. Javaid Rehman | Former UN Special Rapporteur on Iran | Urged the UN to adopt his report’s recommendation for an international accountability mechanism. |
| Grażyna Baranowska | UN Working Group on Enforced Disappearances | Confirmed 617 active, open cases of enforced disappearances regarding Iran. |
Crimes Against Humanity Do Not Expire
A recurring theme among international prosecutors at the conference was the principle of statute of limitations—or rather, the lack thereof when dealing with crimes against humanity.
Prof. Leila Sadat and Annalisa Ciampi, both former special advisors to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), stressed that under customary international law, crimes such as extrajudicial murder, torture, arbitrary detention, and enforced disappearance never expire.
INTERNATIONAL LEGAL STRATEGY FOR ACCOUNTABILITY
UN Fact-Finding Missions → Preserve Digital Evidence → Universal Jurisdiction Cases → Sanction Perpetrators → No Expiration → Future Prosecutions
Adding to this framework, Richard Goldstone, former Chief Prosecutor for the UN International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, drew parallels to past historic tribunals. He pointed out that perpetrators in the Balkans and Rwanda often felt invincible until international political momentum shifted.
Goldstone noted that accountability requires three elements:
- Formal recognition of victim suffering.
- Rigorous collection and preservation of digital and physical evidence.
- The political will of democratic nations to act on available evidence.
In an era of internet blackouts and heavy state censorship in Iran, Annalisa Ciampi highlighted the vital role of digital archiving and civil society reporting in capturing real-time evidence of modern executions and hospital crackdowns before the regime can erase them.
The Ongoing Crime: 617 Open Cases of Enforced Disappearance
One of the most starting statistics presented at the conference came from Grażyna Baranowska, Vice-Chair of the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.
Baranowska revealed that the UN working group currently maintains 617 open, unresolved cases of enforced disappearances in Iran. Under international law, an enforced disappearance is considered an ongoing crime that persists every single day until the fate and exact location of the victim—or their remains—are disclosed to the family.
“The UN has repeatedly called on Iranian authorities to uphold their legal obligations to locate, protect, and preserve all mass graves,” Baranowska stated, highlighting that her group is submitting a dedicated study to the UN Human Rights Council on honoring victims and upholding the right to truth.
A Call for International Action
Ambassador Joachim Rücker, former President of the UN Human Rights Council, alongside former US Special Envoy Stephen Rapp and former UN Special Rapporteur Prof. Javaid Rehman, concluded the conference with a clear roadmap for Western governments and the United Nations:
- Establish an International Accountability Mechanism: UN member states must sponsor resolutions creating an independent body specifically tasked with investigating and preparing case files on Iran’s 1988 massacres and ongoing political executions.
- Condition Diplomatic Relations: Human rights and the immediate cessation of political executions must be placed at the center of all bilateral, diplomatic, and trade discussions with the Iranian regime.
- Expand Fact-Finding Mandates: Ensure UN-mandated bodies have the backing and resources to track criminal liabilities down to individual commanders and judges.
The consensus from Paris was unyielding: the world can no longer treat Iran’s execution surge as a routine domestic legal matter. Until the architects of the 1988 slaughter and today’s execution squads are brought to trial, the systemic violence of the Iranian regime will continue to claim innocent lives.
English 
German 
French