Mohammad Hossein Saket is a retired judge, former justice of the Supreme Court of Iran, university professor, and practicing attorney. He has authored works in the fields of law and Islamic studies, including books and articles on legal procedures in Islamic law, a historical perspective on the philosophy of law, legal theory, legal advocacy, and the nature and evolution of the judiciary.

In this interview, we asked him about legal strategies concerning Iranian civilians who were killed, injured, or suffered major financial losses during the twelve-day war with Israel. We also addressed the legal needs of these individuals and possible paths to securing their rights.

The full interview with Peace Mark Monthly Magazine follows.

Is there a codified and defined law in Iran regarding the government’s responsibilities toward those harmed by war?

Yes. In fact, we have three mechanisms for this. One is that the injured individuals can file civil lawsuits in domestic courts. Another is that the government itself uses its own mechanisms to compensate the damages—for example, as we see now, the municipality and the government have declared readiness to rebuild damaged and destroyed areas and homes. The third path lies with the judiciary, to bring a comprehensive case before international forums.

Is the documentation of these cases the responsibility of the municipality?

Yes, with help from the Engineering Organization and, I should add, the expert associations.

Some of those harmed were killed. What about their families—what should they do?

They too can receive compensation in the form of diya (blood money) and also seek damages within a legal package presented in international courts.

In your view, can bringing such a case to international courts, legally and diplomatically, compel the other side to pay damages?

Yes. But that’s only after the aggressor country has been clearly identified, the court has issued a ruling, and the consequences and outcomes have been determined. However, as you’ve seen, despite rulings by the court, there is often no regard for them—they trample the verdict. They present themselves as defenders of international law, norms, and humanitarian rights, but sadly, they do not adhere to them. Political considerations have overshadowed humanitarian and legal concerns.

In wars, a term often used is “unavoidable” or “justifiable” costs. What consequences can this kind of logic have in the realms of ethics, politics, and even international law?

All of this has been addressed in international conventions. Financial rights, humanitarian law, attacks on civilians, civilian infrastructure, etc.—these are all anticipated in the legal frameworks, and we do have regulations. Based on such rules, parties were condemned in World War II. However, for Iran—unfortunately quite isolated now—to benefit from such structures, global conditions need to be more supportive. In this twelve-day war, wherever we saw international reactions, at best they resulted in shallow and ineffective condemnations. We have not been successful in establishing international legal mechanisms or conducting effective legal defense based on the principles of international law. Creating legal mechanisms does not mean issuing slogans like raising money to kill someone or issuing a fatwa for someone’s death. Such actions not only have no effect but damage our international credibility. Under these circumstances, we cannot expect the global community to support us compassionately or to frame themselves as combatants against terrorism. Please reflect this clearly. In such campaigns, one cannot act emotionally. It’s like being a plaintiff or defendant in court and beginning to hurl insults. Aside from the fact that insulting is itself a crime, such behavior is neither substantiated nor constructive. These matters must be resolved through thoughtful and legal solutions. I don’t understand why our intellectuals do not address this problem. We must use logical, rational, and internationally acceptable mechanisms—not, for example, threaten someone with an axe during Friday prayers.¹ You cannot defend justice with an axe. Such behavior is truly unbecoming for a nation with a proud name, history, culture, peaceful legacy, and Shia tradition rooted in the intellect and mysticism of Imam Sadiq. It must be stopped. In a private gathering or a short internal symposium, it may be tolerable—that’s another matter—but if you present it as a global weapon and later expect sympathy or condemnation of the aggressor, that expectation is misplaced.

Let’s return to the issue of compensation inside the country. Suppose the government is supposed to pay the diya of those harmed or killed, but for any reason is unable to. What consequences might this failure to fulfill legal obligations have on public trust?

It’s possible—though limited—that the government takes responsibility for reconstruction. But paying all the diya requires appointing a responsible body or organization. We have rules and laws about guarantee (zeman). This responsibility—civil or criminal—applies when a perpetrator is identified. If I damage your car deliberately or accidentally, I am responsible for the compensation—not my brother—unless, hypothetically, an internal or international institution determines that a particular organization or ministry was negligent and therefore liable for the damage.

Meaning, if they say that due to the negligence of a certain body, security was weakened, which led to property damage. But this would require the victim to file a legal complaint and wait. Or should the government itself pursue these people’s rights?

The claim absolutely must be registered. Any legal pursuit requires a claimant. If you don’t demand compensation from me, what is there to pursue? Of course, that third mechanism I mentioned—international—is a different matter.

Some private factories and small businesses have also been damaged or completely destroyed, losing their entire capital. What can this group do?

My view is that support for these types of entities should be sought through other relief measures. For example, by providing long-term loans with low interest. Such support packages must be made available to factories.

But what if the entire factory and business were already built with loans? Should they build again with another loan?

In any case, these groups must be treated with compassion, in whatever way possible.

Is there a specific legal framework for this issue?

Not in our laws, no.

What happens in wartime, for example, if this kind of damage occurs? Isn’t this a legal gap?

These things should be reviewed—and that’s not a problem. You could pass a law for it within 24 hours. These days, they write laws easily anyway.

But Parliament is busy…

Yes. Busy writing laws on hijab and so on! In any case, everyone must help solve these problems. This requires collective action—you can’t resolve it through slogans and the like.

Let’s hope that happens. If there’s anything you’d like to say that I didn’t ask, please go ahead.

Since your publication is beautifully named Peace Mark, I would offer a prayer—that the shadow of war be lifted from the world, especially from Iran.

The most bitter and tragic events in human history—those we bear witness to—have always been wars, bloodshed, raids, and invasions carried out by neighbors or distant powers. Sadly, Iran has historically been one of the main centers of such invasions and wars—attacked time and again both by neighbors and far-off forces. When the United Nations was formed on the global stage, many hoped this international body—backed by broad power and the support of nations—would stand against tyranny, aggression, and military attacks, and by referring to international courts and prosecuting aggressors, not only reduce such incidents, but more optimistically, pave the way for their total eradication. But that didn’t happen. Today more than ever, we need a comprehensive and sociological analysis to understand why that hope went unfulfilled. Why is it that humanity, rather than progressing morally and legally generation by generation—or even, with today’s advancements, week by week—is regressing? If we set aside tools, technology, and science, we find that anti-humanitarian tendencies haven’t changed from ancient myth to the present; only their forms have. The same violations of human rights now occur with more advanced and deadly instruments. Meanwhile, human rights are proclaimed everywhere and used as justification for countless actions. But the essential question is: where exactly does this “human” stand today in history? Where in the world are their rights to be upheld? This is a fundamental philosophical issue—one tied to the philosophy of law—for which no convincing and practical answer has yet been found.

Thank you sincerely for the opportunity you’ve given us at Peace Mark Monthly Magazine.

I thank you as well.

Footnote:
¹ Image of a Friday prayer leader using a sickle and axe during sermons, Khabar Online, October 5, 2024 (13 Mehr 1403).