Tuesday 01 December 2020
News ID: 75102
Publish Date: 14 January 2020 - 22:01

By: Kayhan Int’l Staff Writer

Iran, as per international laws, has every right to file a criminal case against the assassins of General Qassem Soleimani, since his targeted-killing by the U.S. in Baghdad on January 3 was without the least doubt an unpardonable criminal act of state terrorism.
It means that simultaneous with its right of retaliation, the Islamic Republic of Iran should explore every legal and judicial avenue to bring to justice the terrorist Donald Trump and his criminal clique involved in the unmanly murder of a famous anti-terrorist icon – although in the Divine Court where the pious Soleimani enjoys a pride of place in Paradise, the most torrid parts of the eternal inferno await the U.S. president and his godless gang of Mike Pompeo and Mark Esper, who wax proud for having committed a cardinal sin.
To quote Spokesman for the Iranian Judiciary Gholam Hussein Ismaeili "there is no doubt that the U.S. military’s action was an act of terrorism”, since "Trump personally has confessed ordering this criminal act, and this is the strongest evidence that a court could have.”
As a member of the United Nations, Iran has the right to file criminal charges against Trump and his team of terrorists, either at the International Criminal Court (ICC) or at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – even though the latter has a dubious record of not convicting any of the many guilty American officials.
Regrettably, the U.N. Security Council which was immediately apprised of the horrific assassination of Iran’s top military commander by the Islamic Republic’s ambassador to the World Body, Majid Takht-Ravanchi, who requested formal denunciation of this criminal act of state terrorism, failed to convene any meeting – perhaps because of the highly questionable right of veto that the U.S. exercises.
In letters to Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and the Security Council president, Takht-Ravanchi pointed out that the U.S. airstrike targeting General Soleimani "clearly invalidates the U.S. claim of fighting terrorism”, since General Qassem Soleimani "played a pivotal role in helping several countries combat and defeat the most dangerous terrorist groups, including Daesh”.
The U.N. Security Council failed to uphold its responsibilities and condemn this unlawful criminal act, despite the fact that Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov said without mincing words that the killing of the senior Iranian general by the U.S. "grossly violates international law and should be condemned.”
Iran is not alone in denouncing this unpardonable U.S. act of state terrorism, which has been condemned by people throughout the world including several countries such as Turkey, Russia, Syria, Malaysia, China, and especially Iraq on whose soil this flagrant violation of international laws was perpetrated by the Americans who, as per the agreement with the government in Baghdad regarding their bases have no right to transgress the sovereignty of the host country.
Even conscientious American experts have strongly deplored the state terrorism of the U.S. president, saying Iran has every right to press criminal charges against Trump and his team.
Dave Inder Comar, Executive Director of the human rights law firm ‘Just Atonement Inc.’, who had sued George W. Bush over the 2003 invasion of Iraq, has said in clear words that the U.S. assassination of General Qassem Soleimani on orders from President Donald Trump constitutes an "act of aggression” and a violation of international law.”
He has dismissed the Trump team’s claim of the drone strike as a ‘legal defensive action’, saying: "The U.S. committed an act of aggression against Iran and killed (General) Soleimani in violation of human rights law.”
Comar argued that the targeted-killing of General Soleimani fits two distinct International Criminal Court (ICC) definitions of "aggression.”
"First, an act of aggression can be "an attack by armed forces of a country on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another country” – in other words, attacking another country’s military. The assassination of (Gen) Soleimani falls under this definition, as he was a high-ranking military official of Iran.”
"The second important definition from the ICC identifies aggression as "the use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement.” This means, armed forces lawfully in a third party’s country suddenly acting unlawfully and in breach of the agreement may constitute "aggression.”
Thus, under two separate International Criminal Court (ICC) definitions of "aggression”, the U.S. has committed an act of aggression against Iran, and the Islamic Republic has every right to sue Trump and his team of terrorists.
Meanwhile, Agnes Callamard, the U.N. special rapporteur on extra-judicial executions, recently tweeted that the assassination of General Soleimani "is unlawful and violates international human rights law.”
Yale University Law Professor Oona Hathaway also agreed, saying: The U.S. strike on Gen. Soleimani is legally tenuous under both domestic and international law, and the Congress should begin hearings and demand answers about the legal basis and the plan for handling the inevitable fallout.”
Thus, in view of these undeniable facts, Iran is entitled to press charges against the criminal Trump and his terrorist clique, reserving at the same time its right of retaliation for this unpardonable crime by striking whichever American target or targets it deems necessary, with the main objective being the closure of all CENTCOM terrorist bases in the entire region from south-central Asia to Africa.

* Comment: