Abdorrahman Boroumand Center

for Human Rights in Iran

https://www.iranrights.org

Violence Without Borders: Interactive Map Methodology

Our documentation methodology is guided by the principles of do no harm, confidentiality, and the secure handling of sensitive information. We gather and verify data through trusted, credible sources, including first-hand testimonies from victims’ families, independent eyewitness accounts, and interviews with lawyers and other informed sources, and official records as well as published sources. Publicly accessible sources used include, published official reports of incidents, official statements, reports by the United Nations and governments, human rights organizations’ reports, and credible media reports. Our open source investigation includes relevant and credible social media posts. By employing a range of secure digital tools, we ensure the systematic collection, cross-verification, and storage of information, prioritizing the safety and privacy of victims, witnesses, and sources at every stage.

Interviews are conducted with the utmost care and sensitivity, adhering to survivor-centered approaches to minimize the risk of retraumatization. Participation is strictly voluntary, with clear oral consent obtained after explaining the purpose, nature, and intended use of the information. We emphasize confidentiality, implementing robust data protection protocols to safeguard identities. In cases where anonymity cannot be fully ensured, we may withhold or refrain from publishing specific details to protect individuals at risk.

Our approach is inclusive, documenting all cases of extra-judicial executions without discrimination based on gender, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or political affiliation or any other criteria. We strive to restore dignity to victims and their families, amplifying voices often silenced or ignored by formal judicial processes.

ABC prioritizes primary sources and strives to collect the best available information from multiple sources, understand the context of extrajudicial killings, and establish motives and patterns. However, extrajudicial killings are by nature secretive and politically sensitive. They also spread fear that can effectively silence victims and witnesses. Any investigation conducted in such circumstances, without free and safe access to victims and/or official records is by nature constrained and incomplete; ABC verifies information it collects to the best of its ability. In some cases, local officials have avoided attributing killings to the Islamic Republic; in such cases, ABC also relies on established patterns, motives, and previous death threats to designate a case as an extrajudicial killing.

Data processing follows a meticulous protocol to ensure clarity, consistency, and accuracy while highlighting violations of due process and human rights standards. ABC is transparent about its sources to the extent that it does not endanger or violate their privacy. Real-time digital tools facilitate secure documentation and updates, empowering victims’ families and promoting accountability, justice, and public awareness of systemic abuses.

Extrajudicial Killings in International Law

An extrajudicial killing is an illegitimate and arbitrary deprivation of life, which denies its victim the due process of law and the right to defense. Unlawful killings caused by authorities of the state, police, security and armed forces, or other agents of the state and other groups or individuals acting under the direction or with the permission or acquiescence of the State, among others, qualify as extrajudicial killings.

The right to life and the right to be free from the arbitrary deprivation of life are fundamental rights formally codified in Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “[e]very human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”

In addition, the prohibition of extrajudicial killing under all circumstances including but not limited to situations of internal armed conflict is recognized in international law through multiple United Nations statements and instruments. Exceptional circumstances including a state of war or threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify such executions.

In the 2016 Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death, extrajudicial killing is defined more broadly and includes instances when:

  • “[t]he death may have been caused by acts or omissions of the State, its organs or agents, or may otherwise be attributable to the State, in violation of its duty to respect the right to life;”
  • “[t]he death occurred when a person was detained by, or was in the custody of, the State, its organs, or agents;” or
  • “[t]he death occurred where the State may have failed to meet its obligations to protect life.”

For the purpose of this map, ABC has focused on the extrajudicial killing of individuals specifically targeted because of their activities, influence, and beliefs for example. The map does not include cases where state agents or proxies act with the intent to take lives without targeting specific victims.

States’ Obligations

States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Iran has also ratified, have a duty to protect the right to life by law. (ICCPR, Article 6). The 1989 Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Execution, provides that states have not only an obligation to prohibit “all extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions,” but they must “ensure that any such executions are recognized as offenses under their criminal laws, and are punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account the seriousness of such offenses.”

The duty to protect the right to life also includes an obligation for States parties to take appropriate measures to protect individuals against deprivations of life by other States operating within their territory. The duty to protect the right to life requires States parties to take special measures of protection towards persons in situation of vulnerability whose lives have been placed at particular risk because of specific threats or pre-existing patterns of violence.

Transparency reinforces the rule of law, while secrecy and failure to hold perpetrators accountable often leads to the repetition of killings. A State’s obligation to ensure the right to life includes a duty to investigate alleged violations of that right promptly and effectively and prosecute human rights violations. According to the UN Special Rapporteurs on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, states are obligated under international law “to conduct full, independent and impartial investigations into all allegations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions transmitted to them, with a view to clarifying the circumstances, identifying and prosecuting those responsible, granting compensation to the victims or their families, and preventing future violations.”

Moreover, victims and their representatives should be entitled to seek and obtain information on the causes leading to their victimization and on the causes and conditions pertaining to the gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law and to learn the truth about these violations. The right to the truth is an inalienable and autonomous right, linked to the duty and obligation of the State to protect and guarantee human rights, to conduct effective investigations and to guarantee effective remedy and reparations.

The right to the truth, as defined in a 2006 study of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, “implies knowing the full and complete truth as to the events that transpired, their specific circumstances, and who participated in them, including knowing the circumstances in which the violations took place, as well as the reasons for them.”

Investigations and their outcome must be transparent and open to the scrutiny of the general public and of victims’ families. Any limitations on transparency must be strictly necessary for a legitimate purpose, such as protecting the privacy and safety of affected individuals, ensuring the integrity of ongoing investigations, or securing sensitive information about intelligence sources. In no circumstances may a state restrict transparency in a way that would result in impunity for those responsible.

------------------------------

Sources: