Violaciones graves de derechos humanos y protección internacional: el caso de Irán a la luz de la Responsabilidad de Proteger

Legal and Politico-Strategic Review Paula Cisneros Cristóbal, “Grave Human Rights Violations and International Protection: The Case of Iran in Light of the Responsibility to Protect”, CODESEL Bulletin (Cadre of Defense and Security Law), Vol. 2, No. 7, February 2026 This article delivers a rigorous and normatively sophisticated analysis of the systematic repression of fundamental rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, examined through the conceptual and legal framework of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Its central contribution lies in demonstrating that large-scale and sustained violations of human rights—occurring outside the context of an armed conflict—may nevertheless activate the material thresholds of international protection, thereby challenging restrictive interpretations of sovereignty and non-intervention. From a legal standpoint, the article is firmly grounded in treaty law and customary international law. The author carefully reconstructs Iran’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), emphasizing that these obligations are binding irrespective of domestic political or religious structures. The analysis of non-derogable rights—most notably the right to life and the absolute prohibition of torture—is doctrinally precise and reflects the settled jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee and other UN mechanisms. A key strength of the article is its treatment of state violence as a systemic policy rather than a series of isolated abuses. Drawing on reports from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission established by the UN Human Rights Council, the author convincingly argues that the repeated use of lethal force, mass arbitrary detentions, torture, and judicial persecution reveals a coordinated pattern of repression attributable to state authorities. This characterization is crucial, as it underpins the legal qualification of such conduct as potentially amounting to crimes against humanity, even in the absence of armed conflict. The discussion of the death penalty is particularly incisive. While acknowledging that international law does not categorically prohibit capital punishment, the article demonstrates that Iran’s practices—especially executions following unfair trials, vague national security charges, or confessions extracted under torture—constitute arbitrary deprivations of life under Article 6 of the ICCPR. This analysis effectively situates the death penalty within a broader architecture of repression rather than treating it as a discrete penal issue. From a gender perspective, the article makes a significant contribution by highlighting the gendered nature of repression in Iran. The disproportionate targeting of women and girls—through enforcement of mandatory veiling laws, sexual violence in detention, and judicial persecution of female activists—is correctly analysed as a violation of the principles of equality and non-discrimination, and as a potential element of the crime of persecution under international criminal law. This dimension reinforces the argument that repression operates across multiple, intersecting axes of vulnerability. The article’s engagement with the Responsibility to Protect doctrine is both cautious and analytically robust. The author correctly notes that R2P is a norm of soft law rather than a binding treaty obligation, while emphasizing its status as a guiding principle of collective response to mass atrocity crimes. By situating Iran within the material scope of R2P—due to credible evidence of crimes against humanity—the article reframes sovereignty as responsibility rather than privilege. At the same time, it realistically assesses the political obstacles to coercive action, particularly the structural constraints of the UN Security Council. Importantly, the article avoids equating R2P with military intervention. Instead, it highlights a spectrum of non-coercive and semi-coercive measures, including international investigations, evidence preservation, targeted sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and support for civil society. This approach underscores the preventive and accountability-oriented dimensions of R2P, which are often overshadowed by debates on the use of force. From a politico-strategic perspective, the article situates Iran’s internal repression within a broader regional and international security context. Iran’s role in Middle Eastern conflicts and its contentious relationship with the nuclear non-proliferation regime mean that internal human rights violations cannot be neatly separated from concerns of regional stability and international peace and security. This linkage strengthens the legitimacy of sustained international scrutiny and engagement. Overall, this contribution stands out as a methodologically rigorous and normatively compelling study that bridges international human rights law, international criminal law, and security studies. It provides a clear demonstration of how grave human rights violations within a functioning state can generate legitimate international concern and potential responsibility under R2P, while also exposing the limits and selectivity of the current collective security system. The article is of high relevance for scholars and practitioners working on human rights protection, atrocity prevention, and the evolving meaning of sovereignty in international law.