Case Digest: US v. Iran (1980)

 Public International Law | Acts of Other Persons

In its Judgment in the case concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, the Court decided:

1. that Iran has violated and is skill violating obligations owed by it to the United States; 
2. that these violations engage Iran’s responsibility; 
3. that the Government of Iran must immediately release the United States nationals held as hostages and place the premises of the Embassy in the hands of the protecting power; 
4. that no member of the United States diplomatic or consular staff may be kept in Iran to be subjected to any form of judicial proceedings or to participate in them as a witness; 
5. that Iran is under an obligation to make reparation for the injury caused to the United States, and that the form and amount of such reparation, failing agreement between the parties, shall be settled by the Court.

The events of 4 November 1979 (paras. 56-68)

• The first phase of the events underlying the Applicant’s claims covers the armed attack on the United States Embassy carried out on 4 November 1979 by Muslim Student Followers of the Imam’s Policy (further referred to as “the militants” in the Judgment), the overrunning of its premises, the seizure of its inmates as hostages, the appropriation of its property and archives, and the conduct of the Iranian authorities in the face of these occurrences.
• The Court points out that the conduct of the militants on that occasion could be directly attributed to the Iranian State only if it were established that they were in fact acting on its behalf. The information before the Court did not suffice to establish this with due certainty. However, the Iranian State which, as the State to which the mission was accredited, was under obligation to take appropriate steps to protect the United States Embassy did nothing to prevent the attack, stop it before it reached its completion or oblige the militants to withdraw from the premises and release the hostages. This inaction was in contrast with the conduct of the Iranian authorities on several similar occasions at the same period, when they had taken appropriate steps. It constituted, the Court finds, a clear and serious violation of Iran’s obligations to the United States under Articles 22(2), 24,25,26,27 and 29 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, of Articles 5 and 36 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and of Article 11(4) of the 1955 Treaty. Further breaches of the 1963 Convention had been involved in failure to protect the Consulates at Tabriz and Shiraz.
• The Court is therefore led to conclude that on 4 November 1979 the Iranian authorities were fully aware of their obligations under the conventions in force, and also of the urgent need for action on their part, that they had the means at their disposal to perform their obligations, but that they completely failed to do so.

Events since 4 November 1979 (paras. 69-79)

• The second phase of the events underlying the United States’ claims comprises the whole series of facts which occurred following the occupation of the Embassy by the militants. Though it was the duty of the Iranian Government to take every appropriate step to end the infringement of the inviolability of the Embassy premises and staff, and to offer reparation for the damage, it did nothing of the kind. Instead, expressions of approval were immediately heard from numerous Iranian authorities. Ayatollah Khomeini himself proclaimed the Iranian State’s endorsement of both the seizure of the premises and the detention of the hostages. He described the Embassy as a “centre of espionage,” declared that the hostages would (with some exceptions) remain “under arrest” until the United States had returned the former Shah and his property to Iran, and forbade all negotiation with the United States on the subject. Once organs of the Iranian State had thus given approval to the acts complained of and decided to perpetuate them as a means of pressure on the United States, those acts were transformed into acts of the Iranian State: the militants became agents of that State, which itself became internationally responsible for their acts. During the six months which ensued, the situation underwent no material change: the Court’s Order of 15 December 1979 was publicly rejected by Iran, while the Ayatollah declared that the detention of the hostages would continue until the new Iranian parliament had taken a decision as to their fate.
• The Iranian authorities’ decision to continue the subjection of the Embassy to occupation, and of its staff to detention as hostages, gave rise to repeated and multiple breaches of Iran’s treaty obligations, additional to those already committed at the time of the seizure of the Embassy. (1961 Convention: Arts. 22, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 29 1963 Convention: inter alia, Art. 33; 1955 Treaty, Art. 1114])
• With regard to the Charge d’affaires and the two other members of the United States mission who have been in the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs since 4 November 1979, the Court finds that the Iranian authorities have withheld from them the protection and facilities necessary to allow them to leave the Ministry in safety. Accordingly, it appears to the Court that in their respect there have been breaches of Articles 26 and 29 of the 1961 Vienna Convention.
• Taking note, furthermore, that various Iranian authorities have threatened to have some of the hostages submitted to trial before a court, or to compel them to bear witness, the Court considers that, if put into effect, that intention would constitute a breach of Article 31 of the same Convention.