More Stories
Shahin Milani, the executive director of the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center (IHRDC), told Iran International's English podcast Eye for Iran, the case marks a turning point – warning that even mid-level officials can no longer assume impunity.
“Iranian officials – even mid-level ones – should understand they are not safe anymore. If they leave Iran, justice may follow them.”
Why Argentina and why this matters now
The complaint was filed by a group of survivors together with the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center and supported by the Strategic Litigation Project at the Atlantic Council.
It asks Argentine judges to investigate crimes against humanity committed during the Islamic Republic's violent response to the 2022 protests, including murder, torture, gender-based persecution and targeted blinding.
Argentina was chosen because its courts recognize universal jurisdiction, allowing them to investigate atrocity crimes even when they were not committed on Argentine soil.
Crucially, Iranian officials – the alleged perpetrators – do not need to set foot in Argentina for a criminal investigation to begin.
Milani says that distinction changes the calculus inside Iran’s power structure.
“If Argentina issues arrest warrants, that alone is a success. Travel becomes risky. Borders become unpredictable.”
Argentina has already heard cases linked to abuses in Venezuela, Myanmar, and Spain’s Franco era, and has dealt with Iran-related cases before, including proceedings tied to the 1994 AMIA bombing – an attack on a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people.
The list of 40 accused officials remains confidential for now. Much of the case, however, draws on years of documentation, including findings by the UN Fact-Finding Mission, which concluded that Iran’s crackdown amounted to crimes against humanity.
Three of the complainants have chosen to be publicly identified.
Kosar Eftekhari was 23 when she was shot in the eye during the protests. Mersedeh Shahinkar was also blinded at close range, but later returned to the streets wearing an eye patch as an act of defiance. Mahsa Piraei joined the case after her mother, Minou Majidi, was killed by security forces while demonstrating against the clerical establishment.
Majidi’s case drew international attention after an image of her daughter, Roya Piraei, standing without the mandatory hijab beside her mother’s photograph at her gravesite went viral. Majidi’s other daughter, Mahsa, is now seeking justice through the landmark lawsuit.
“In our own country, Iran, we were unable to find justice for my mother’s killing because there is no fair or independent judiciary,” Piraei told the Atlantic Council. “Our insistence on preserving human dignity is a global cause that knows no borders.”
Their stories form both the moral heart and legal backbone of the complaint.
Not compensation, only accountability
Unlike civil lawsuits in courts, this case does not seek financial damages.
“This is a criminal complaint,” Milani said. “It’s about responsibility, something painfully rare when it comes to the Islamic Republic.”
Even without immediate arrests, he said, the case lays the legal groundwork for accountability when conditions change.
Milani avoids predicting political collapse or transition. But he is clear about the role of human rights lawyers: they build cases now so they are ready when circumstances change.
“We don’t know what’s going to happen in the future. It’s possible that some of these officials’ circumstances change and they have to leave Iran – and they should know they’re not going to be immune from prosecution.”
In other words, even if justice does not arrive immediately, the legal architecture is being laid brick by brick – quietly, deliberately, and beyond Iran’s borders.
No one expects Argentina’s courts to deliver overnight justice. Similar cases against authoritarian officials elsewhere have taken years, and many defendants remain free.
For the families and survivors behind the complaint, however, this marks the clearest indication yet that the struggle that began in the streets in 2022 is now moving into courtrooms – and that justice, however delayed, may no longer be out of reach.
Citing a US official and two other sources familiar with the discussion, Axios said Netanyahu argued that further action could be needed to prevent Iran from rebuilding its nuclear and missile capabilities after last June’s 12-day conflict, which both leaders have described publicly as a success.
Trump told reporters after the meeting that the United States would strike Iran again if it attempted to reconstitute its nuclear program, while saying he would prefer to reach a nuclear agreement with Tehran.
A US official told Axios that Trump would likely support renewed military action if Washington judged Iran to be taking “real and verifiable” steps to rebuild its nuclear program.
Trump says he'd ‘absolutely’ back possible Israeli strikes on Iran
Iran pushes back at Trump warning, stresses need for ballistic deterrence
Axios said Netanyahu briefed Trump on Israeli concerns that Iran was rebuilding its ballistic missile program and also raised Hezbollah’s efforts to replenish long-range missile stockpiles in Lebanon.
Israel struck both nuclear-related and conventional military targets in Iran during the June fighting, while US forces focused on nuclear facilities.
The sources said no agreement was reached on specific timelines or conditions for future strikes.
Axios added that some US and Israeli officials see the greatest near-term risk of a wider conflict as miscalculation, with either side acting pre-emptively on fears of an impending attack.
