Simin Rouzgar

Mohammad Saleh Nikbakht, a well-known Iranian lawyer, has a long track record in the field of human rights. He has also taken on the representation of a large number of victims of chemical bombings in Iran. Mr. Nikbakht has played a significant role in the formation of the “Association for the Defense of the Rights of Chemical Injured of Sardasht” and has not only filed numerous complaints on behalf of the people, but has also undertaken extensive research and actions in this area.

He was also among the visitors of the Dutch prosecutor in the famous case of Frans van Anraat – a Dutch businessman who was accused of selling raw materials for the production of chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein’s government in the Hague court – at the office of the legal deputy of the former Iranian president and has made commendable efforts regarding the lawsuit for the chemical bombings of Iranian border areas by the Iraqi government during the 8-year war between these two countries; efforts that, however, have not yet led to any results.

In this issue of the monthly magazine “Peace Line”, we have a conversation with Saleh Nikbakht about the reasons for the Iraqi government’s use of chemical weapons and the mass killings, as well as why efforts like his in Iran to reach justice for victims, especially non-combatants, have not been successful on an international level.

Dear Mr. Nikbakht, as the first question, please explain why, despite 27 years passing since the end of the Iran-Iraq war, we have not seen any lawsuits filed in the criminal courts of Iraq or the International Court of Justice regarding the chemical bombings of certain border areas of Iran by the former Iraqi government?

This section of the damages inflicted on war victims is related to the people of Iran as those who have incurred the costs, and the government of Iran should provide the grounds for the activities and actions of Iranian individuals in this regard. On the other hand, in such cases, international courts, such as the International Court of Justice in The Hague or criminal courts in Rome, usually do not intervene due to lack of jurisdiction. According to the four Geneva Conventions adopted in 1948 and after World War II, occupying countries must protect the lives and property of the people and refrain from attacking them, and any action taken by the occupying government must be compensated by that government. There is also a principle in international law known as the principle of state succession. This principle means that when a previous government has made commitments or caused damages intentionally or unintentionally through war, by sea, air, or land, the successor governments are responsible and liable to compensate for those damages. In this regard, the government of Iran

The reason why this matter has not been realized until now is the lack of interest from the Iranian government. However, the question of why the Iranian government has not taken any action in this regard has always been raised and myself and others who have taken action in this matter have objected to it and have previously addressed it.

Why is the Iranian government not inclined to file a lawsuit and demand compensation from the Iraqi government?

Perhaps the reason for this can be evaluated as follows: after recent developments in Iraq, namely the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime by international coalition forces, new governments came to power in Iraq that declared themselves close to Iran, although they also took actions against Iran. This was evident when Iraq voted to condemn Iran at the recent Islamic Conference Organization in Istanbul. In contrast, the Iranian government did not take any steps to compensate for the damages caused by the war, unlike Kuwait. According to Iranian officials, the war caused one trillion dollars in damages to Iran. However, this figure only refers to material damages. As you are aware, there were also significant human and psychological damages inflicted on the people of the country, including many individuals who were affected by chemical bombings in areas surrounding Abadan, Khorramshahr, Shadegan, Kermanshah – including the famous village of Zardeh – as well as in villages near Baneh, Marivan, Oshnavieh

Despite the existence of international conventions, especially the 1925 Convention and other international documents that have been signed by various countries around the world, and even approved by Iraq, the Iranian government has unfortunately taken no action to compensate the victims and, in my opinion, has forgiven them in this matter.

If the Iranian government continues to have no interest in pursuing the case, are there alternative ways to bring the voice of the victims of chemical warfare in Iran to light?

About 12 years ago, several different seminars were held at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs convention center and the topic was discussed. In those meetings, both lawyers and officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and representatives of the country’s military participated. At that time, based on the investigations and explanations that we, as lawyers, presented, we reached a consensus on the handling of the case by international courts and judicial bodies. It was agreed that we would first take action through the Iraqi criminal courts. At that time, the conditions in Iraq were very suitable for this, as the Ba’athist government had recently been overthrown and the interim government of Iraq was in place. On the other hand, Saddam Hussein had not only used chemical weapons against citizens of other countries, but also against his own citizens. Therefore, at that time, a special criminal court was formed to address Saddam’s crimes and in the city of Sulaymaniyah, which was the center of the province that included the most

Unfortunately, one of the fundamental issues in our country is the government’s policy in Iran, which seeks to carry out any action through its own channels and official authorities, and does not allow much room for the activities of NGOs and independent organizations outside of the government’s control (of course, by independent I mean operating independently and legally according to Iran’s laws).

During that time, we ourselves had become 30-40 lawyers and we wanted to participate in Saddam’s criminal court and take action through that route. Mr. Talebani, who had traveled to Iran, told me that if we take action, we will provide you with all the resources. But now, such conditions no longer exist and if we want to go there, it is uncertain what trouble Mr. Nouri al-Maliki may bring upon us!

As an attorney for many chemical injury victims, how do you evaluate the outlook of this issue?

Given that this crime is a public offense and not subject to statute of limitations, it can be committed at any time and in any place. However, the outlook on this issue depends on the policies of the Iranian government. The positive policy is that while we recognize our friends, we do not turn away from our own interests. But it does not seem that this policy will continue and we hope that a government with a positive balance policy – similar to the policies of the late Dr. Mosaddegh – will do this and determine friends and enemies based on their own interests and not just the interests of friends.

It is regrettable that after almost 13 years since the overthrow of Saddam’s government, and in a situation where the replacement government should be responsible for the damages caused by the previous government, no action has been taken and none of the billions of dollars in damages have been compensated. It is worth mentioning that currently the Iraqi government, with its increase in oil production to four million barrels (twice our oil production, while Iraq’s population is one-third of Iran’s), is acting against Iran’s interests, but the Iranian government never mentions Iraq as a country acting against Iran. This shows that the Iranian government’s perspective is not comprehensive, but rather one-sided and narrow-minded.

As you yourself have correctly pointed out, many areas of Iran, including Sardasht which were subjected to chemical attacks, were essentially non-military areas and only residential areas for civilians. What is your assessment of Saddam’s goal in this action?

Saddam Hussein was actually facing two problems: one was with the issue of Iran, which his delusions in the Algiers Conference and the privileges taken from him during the Shah’s reign that included policies opposing Saddam, and the other was the issue of years of war with the Kurdish people of Iraq and he wanted to resolve both issues.

It seems that, considering that Saddam added chemical weapons to his military arsenal in 1982, he began using them in various regions from that date. Initially, he used chemical weapons mostly in areas that were either war zones or close to war zones, but later on, he did not hesitate to use them in any region where Iran could potentially attack from. As I mentioned, he first used chemical weapons in Shadegan, Abadan, and Khorramshahr, and then gradually moved towards the northern regions of Iran. He mainly used these weapons in Kurdish regions; at the same time or around the time he signed the Algiers Agreement, Saddam always claimed that he was under attack by the Kurds and that he was in a situation where Iraq could be destroyed, etc. Therefore, in the final years of the war, he focused on using chemical weapons in the northern regions of Kurdistan or the border regions towards the north of Iran.

Keep in mind that at the same time, Kurdish forces fighting against Saddam’s regime in northern Iraq had relations and were traveling to and from inside Iran and even war zones in Iran. Saddam was unable to capture any of the western and northwestern regions of the country because Iraqi Kurds were preventing their forces from entering and attacking border areas. In fact, Kurdistan was not like the provinces of Ilam and Khuzestan. On the other hand, Saddam had recently acquired these chemical weapons with the help of more than 10 other countries and focused on how he could use them to solve his problem with Iraqi Kurdistan and Kurdish areas. Therefore, after realizing that the massacre was being carried out effectively in some areas of Iran, he used them in the city of Halabja.

What are the current problems of chemical victims in Iran and do you think that the legal or government support for these victims has been acceptable during these years?

Unfortunately, these individuals have not been given the attention they deserve and perhaps need; the disease or condition that chemical victims are struggling with is not a simple illness that we can consider for a specific period of time. This disease and its effects may also affect future generations; while it is possible for someone to appear healthy on the outside. For example, a woman who is a victim of chemical weapons may appear to be able to become pregnant, but this chemical issue also affects the baby. On the other hand, it is possible for someone to have a normal condition, but inside them, there is a severe mental and emotional distress that torments them.

Mentioning this point is not without kindness that the situation of chemically affected women is much worse than men. As you know, men are not always manly! There are many cases where chemically affected women have been divorced due to their situation, but on the other hand, when a man is chemically injured, his wife usually continues to live with him. This is while, considering the cultural situation of our country, most women cannot work outside the home and if necessary, they are forced to do jobs like street vending. So in such a situation, it is still the woman who suffers from her husband’s illness. Of course, these issues exist to some extent in the whole world; the problem here is that these individuals often need care and a nurse. For example, in Vietnam, which has been the victim of American crimes, conditions have been provided for women to either transfer them to centers where they can live collectively or even if the person cannot live collectively, they will hire a

On the other hand, there is a problem of not increasing the percentage of injuries to victims. While a percentage of injuries may be treatable, in some individuals, especially those with chemical injuries, this percentage increases over time. Unfortunately, according to these victims themselves, officials only consider the state of improvement and say, for example, Mr. “X” has reached a 25% injury level from 40%, and subsequently cut off the benefits that were included in his 40% injury. But if Mr. “Z” reaches a 55% injury level from 40%, unfortunately the services provided to him will be stopped at the same 40% level.

It seems that organizations and related foundations should spend more money on this matter. Consider that these individuals, in addition to being citizens of our country, stood firm against all these bombings. In fact, what wrong did those who remained have, that they had to endure the brunt of war and hardship from both sides…

In your opinion, why do you think there has been much less coverage and documentation of atrocities such as Sardasht and Zardeh compared to similar cases like Halabja? And how is it that even after all these years, we have not seen much historical documentation or written records about these events, with most of the information being passed down orally?

I believe the main reason is the lack of free space for this work. These same issues that have arisen have been due to the blessings of the reformist government, in which NGOs, social activities, seminars, etc. were relatively free and through these freedoms, myself and several others tried to establish an association or NGO in Sardasht so that victims of chemical attacks could have access to address their problems and even be able to go to the court of Mr. Frans van Anraat in the Netherlands.

Note that Iraqi Kurdistan was mostly governed by the Kurds themselves. However, Saddam Hussein’s forces were also present, but in reality, political organizations controlled the hearts of the people and Saddam’s forces ruled over the mountains, deserts, and barracks. As a result, there was more freedom in that area. That is why after the downfall of Saddam’s regime, the Kurds themselves regained control and took many actions to reflect the issue and even condemn the Iraqi government through the UN and internal and external organizations in the Kurdistan region.

But in Iran, this situation does not exist and a force or power called the government believes that everything must go through its channel. The result is that a blind knot and a festering wound remain; it is not forgotten and only leads to more pessimism. In my opinion, if governments pay more attention to such issues, they will also see more good for themselves.

Thank you very much for the opportunity that you have provided us with in the monthly magazine of “Khat-e-Solh”.