By Press TV Website Staff
Muhammad Azhar Siddique, a senior advocate at the Supreme Court of Pakistan, chairman of the Judicial Activism Panel (JAP), and a prominent human rights and public interest litigation advocate, visited Iran recently as part of a high-ranking delegation of legal experts.
The visit focused on understanding Iran’s resilience amid economic sanctions and the consequences of the recent wars imposed on the country by the US-Israeli alliance, examining the humanitarian impact of the unprovoked and illegal military aggression, and exploring legal avenues for accountability under international law.
During the visit, the delegation engaged with senior judicial, legal, academic, and government officials, observed aspects of Iran’s judicial system, and visited areas affected by US-Israeli bombings during the two imposed wars in June last year and February this year.
The programme also involved discussions on strengthening institutional cooperation between Pakistani and Iranian legal and judicial bodies. The signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) marked a step towards collaborative legal research, evidence-based documentation, and coordinated efforts to address alleged violations of international law.
In an interview with the Press TV website, Siddique shared his legal assessment of the two imposed wars against Iran, the attacks on civilian facilities in Minab and Lamerd, Iran’s right to self-defence, and potential mechanisms for pursuing accountability through international courts, United Nations institutions, and domestic legal systems.
He also emphasised the importance of protecting civilian lives, respecting state sovereignty, and ensuring the impartial application of international law.
Q. What was the purpose of your visit to Iran, and how did you observe the situation here, especially after the two recent US-Israeli imposed wars?
A. My visit, along with our team of experts, including former Punjab Governor Sardar Latif Khosa, to the Islamic Republic of Iran had two primary objectives.
First, as Chairman of the Judicial Activism Panel, a human rights and public interest litigation association, and former President of the Punjab Chapter of the International Lawyers Association, I wanted to understand how the Iranian nation has sustained itself despite severe economic sanctions, extraordinary hardships, and the consequences of the recent wars. Second, the pilgrimage to the Holy Shrine of Imam Reza (AS) in Mashhad was an important spiritual purpose of our visit.
During our stay, we had the opportunity to meet senior judicial, legal, academic, and government officials, observe aspects of Iran’s judicial system, and witness public participation and the relationship between the people and their institutions.
What particularly impressed me was the resilience, discipline, and sense of unity among the Iranian people. Despite the difficult circumstances, we observed considerable calm in public life and the continued provision of essential facilities and services.
The resilience of the nation and the determination of its leadership to maintain national sovereignty were among the most significant aspects of our observations.
Another important objective was to visit areas affected by bombings and military attacks, including civilian-populated localities, to better understand the human consequences of the war. We wanted to assess these incidents through the lens of international humanitarian law and explore practical legal mechanisms for accountability.
Our visit also focused on developing a framework for cooperation with Iranian legal and judicial institutions. We discussed avenues for pursuing matters before appropriate international judicial and human rights forums, engaging the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), and exploring domestic legal remedies.
The signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) marked an important step towards institutional cooperation, legal research, documentation, and coordinated efforts to pursue accountability for alleged violations of international law.
Q. As a lawyer, how do you view the wars imposed on Iran, particularly the 40-day war that began with the bombing of a school in southern Minab? Do these attacks amount to war crimes?
A. From the perspective of international law, any use of armed force must be examined under the United Nations Charter, particularly Article 2(4), which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of a state, subject to recognised exceptions under international law. The right of self-defence under Article 51 must also be considered where its legal conditions are satisfied.
Equally important is international humanitarian law, particularly the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols where applicable. These rules require parties to distinguish between civilians and combatants, prohibit deliberate attacks against civilians and civilian objects, and require compliance with the principles of proportionality and precaution in attacks.
The bombing of a school in Minab and attacks affecting other civilian locations, including a sports hall in Lamerd, raise grave legal and humanitarian concerns.
Educational institutions, sports facilities, and other civilian objects are protected against attack unless, and only for such time as, they qualify as military objectives under the applicable law. Even then, the rules governing distinction, proportionality, and precautions remain binding.
If an investigation establishes that a school was deliberately targeted as a civilian object, or that an attack was launched with the requisite knowledge and intent in violation of applicable international humanitarian law, the conduct may constitute a war crime. The same applies to attacks on civilians or civilian objects that meet the relevant legal elements.
However, a definitive legal determination requires independent investigation, reliable evidence, and an assessment of the circumstances of each attack, including the target, available intelligence, anticipated civilian harm, and military advantage claimed.
Q. What legal options does Iran have to hold the perpetrators accountable for civilian killings, particularly the bombing of the Minab school and the sports hall in Lamerd, and to take the case to international courts?
A. Iran has several potential legal avenues to pursue accountability, although each requires careful consideration of jurisdiction, admissibility, evidence, and the legal obligations of the states concerned.
First, proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ): Iran may examine whether a contentious case can be brought against a responsible state on the basis of a recognised jurisdictional ground, such as a treaty containing an applicable compromissory clause or the consent of the parties.
The ICJ determines disputes between states; it does not conduct criminal trials of individual political leaders or military commanders. Therefore, the relevant treaty obligations and jurisdictional requirements must be established before proceedings can be initiated.
Second, international criminal accountability: The International Criminal Court (ICC) may be relevant where the Court has jurisdiction over the alleged crimes and the persons responsible.
Because Iran and the United States are not parties to the Rome Statute, and jurisdiction cannot be assumed merely because alleged crimes occurred, the available jurisdictional routes must be examined carefully. These may include territorial or nationality-based jurisdiction where legally applicable, an accepted jurisdictional basis, or a United Nations Security Council referral. Individual criminal responsibility must be established through the applicable legal process.
Third, United Nations mechanisms: Iran can pursue diplomatic and legal initiatives through relevant UN bodies, seek independent fact-finding and investigation, submit documented allegations to appropriate mechanisms, and request that competent international bodies examine possible violations.
The Human Rights Council and its investigative mechanisms may provide avenues for documentation and reporting, although they do not automatically exercise criminal jurisdiction.
Fourth, international human rights organisations and humanitarian institutions: Credible evidence may be submitted to organisations such as Amnesty International and other independent human rights bodies. Their investigations and reporting can help preserve evidence, establish patterns of alleged violations, and strengthen demands for accountability. Such organisations do not themselves convict perpetrators, but their findings may support further legal proceedings.
Fifth, domestic proceedings and universal jurisdiction: Iran should examine available domestic remedies and whether proceedings can be pursued in foreign national courts under applicable laws. Some states permit prosecution of certain international crimes under universal-jurisdiction provisions, subject to national legislation, evidentiary requirements, immunities, and procedural restrictions.
The essential first step is to establish a comprehensive and professionally managed evidentiary record. This should include verified casualty figures, victim and witness testimony, photographs, videos, satellite imagery where available, medical and forensic reports, the identification of weapons and their remnants, the location and civilian status of the affected facilities, and evidence concerning the planning and execution of each attack.
Our proposed cooperation seeks to help develop precisely this kind of legally sustainable approach. The objective is not merely to condemn violations, but to build cases capable of scrutiny by competent courts and investigative bodies.
The OIC can also play a more effective role by facilitating coordination among member states, supporting independent investigations, and strengthening collective diplomatic and legal efforts.
Q. Overall, from a legal perspective, how do you assess the unprovoked US-Israeli wars against Iran and Iran’s response as a state defending itself?
A. The legality of the use of force against Iran must be assessed under the United Nations Charter, particularly Article 2(4), and the recognised exceptions to the prohibition on force.
If an armed attack was launched without a valid legal justification, the circumstances would raise serious questions concerning compliance with the Charter. The legal assessment must consider the facts, the justification advanced by the states involved, and whether any recognised exception applies.
Article 51 of the UN Charter recognises the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs, subject to the Charter’s requirements. Accordingly, Iran is entitled to invoke self-defence if the applicable legal conditions are met. However, the exercise of that right must satisfy the requirements of necessity and proportionality under the law governing the resort to force, alongside the separate obligations of international humanitarian law.
It is essential to distinguish between the legality of initiating hostilities and the legality of conduct during hostilities. Even a state acting in self-defence remains bound by the rules protecting civilians and civilian objects. Equally, the legality of another state’s initial use of force does not exempt the defending state from its own international legal obligations.
In my view, the international community must reject the selective application of international law. The sovereignty and territorial integrity of states cannot be protected in one case and disregarded in another because of political alliances or strategic interests.
Unlawful aggression, attacks on civilian infrastructure, and civilian deaths must be investigated impartially, and responsibility must be determined on the basis of evidence and applicable law.
The appropriate response is to combine the lawful exercise of self-defence with sustained diplomatic engagement, independent investigations, judicial proceedings wherever jurisdiction exists, and institutional cooperation among states and legal organisations.
Lasting peace cannot be secured through impunity. It requires respect for the UN Charter, protection of civilian life, accountability for serious violations, and equal application of international law to every state.
Q. How productive was your visit to Iran and what lies ahead?
A. Our visit to Iran was an important opportunity to observe the resilience of its people, engage with legal and judicial institutions, and examine the humanitarian consequences of the war.
We intend to build upon the cooperation established during the visit by contributing to legal research, evidence-based documentation, and the pursuit of appropriate remedies under international and domestic law.
The central principle is clear: civilian lives must be protected, sovereignty must be respected, and credible allegations of serious violations must be investigated through lawful and impartial mechanisms. International law must remain a universal standard, not an instrument applied selectively according to political convenience.
This makes it easy to access the Press TV website