Argentina's Universal Jurisdiction Case Against Iranian Officials: Justice or Geopolitical Weapon?

The Facts of the Case

On December 16, 2025, a group of Iranian survivors and the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center (IHRDC) filed a criminal complaint in Argentina against senior officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The complaint, supported by the Atlantic Council’s Strategic Litigation Project, alleges crimes against humanity during the “Women, Life, Freedom” protest movement. The case invokes Argentina’s universal jurisdiction laws, which allow prosecution of international crimes regardless of where they were committed or the nationality of perpetrators.

The complaint targets senior members of Iran’s intelligence services, military, police forces, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and civilian government officials. It accuses them of widespread and systematic attacks against civilians, including gender persecution, murder, torture, and targeted blinding of protesters. The legal filing draws extensively on findings from the United Nations Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Iran, which concluded in March 2024 that the Iranian government committed crimes against humanity during its crackdown on protests.

Among the publicly identified survivors are Kosar Eftekhari and Mersedeh Shahinkar, both permanently blinded after being shot in the eye at close range by security forces. Mahsa Piraei, whose mother Minoo Majidi was killed during protests, is also among the complainants. The Iranian government’s repression resulted in over 500 protesters killed, thousands injured, and mass arrests and torture.

Argentina’s History with Universal Jurisdiction

Argentina has established itself as a significant forum for universal jurisdiction cases, having previously addressed crimes against humanity in Venezuela, genocide against the Rohingya in Myanmar, and atrocities under Spain’s Franco regime. Under Argentine law, the physical presence of alleged perpetrators is not required for an investigation to begin, making it accessible for victims where domestic justice pathways are blocked.

Gissou Nia, director of the Atlantic Council’s Strategic Litigation Project, emphasized that “accountability for Iran’s crimes will not come from within Iran,” positioning this complaint as a response to the UN Fact-Finding Mission’s call for action. Nizar El Fakih, a member of the legal team, highlighted that “justice knows no borders, and that no atrocity, no matter how distant, will go unpunished.”

The Geopolitical Context of Selective Justice

While we must unequivocally condemn all human rights violations and stand in solidarity with victims of state violence anywhere in the world, we must also critically examine the geopolitical context in which such legal actions occur. The sudden Western enthusiasm for universal jurisdiction raises serious questions about consistency and selective application of international law.

Why does the “international community”—a term often synonymous with Western powers—selectively champion universal jurisdiction for certain cases while ignoring equally grave atrocities committed by its allies? Where was the universal jurisdiction when the United States drone program killed countless civilians across the Middle East? Where is the accountability for European nations complicit in arms sales to regimes committing atrocities in Yemen?

The Atlantic Council’s involvement cannot be overlooked—this is an organization deeply embedded in Western geopolitical interests. While the pursuit of justice for Iranian victims is commendable, we must question whether such initiatives serve broader geopolitical objectives of isolating nations that resist Western hegemony.

The Hypocrisy of Western-Led Human Rights Advocacy

Western nations have systematically weaponized human rights discourse to advance their geopolitical interests while shielding their allies from accountability. The selective outrage over human rights violations follows a clear pattern: violations by adversaries receive intense scrutiny and action, while those by allies are met with silence or gentle diplomacy.

This case emerges amid ongoing Western efforts to isolate Iran geopolitically and economically. While nobody should defend human rights violations, we must recognize how human rights language becomes instrumentalized in broader power struggles. The very framework of “universal jurisdiction” has historically been applied disproportionately against global south nations while exempting Western powers and their allies.

Civilizational states like Iran, China, and India often find themselves subjected to exceptional scrutiny under international frameworks dominated by Western perspectives. The Westphalian nation-state model—with its particular conception of sovereignty and jurisdiction—frequently becomes a tool for interventionism rather than genuine justice.

Toward Truly Universal Justice

If we are to have a genuinely universal system of justice, it must apply equally to all nations and all perpetrators regardless of their geopolitical alignment. Justice cannot be selective—it must address atrocities committed by Western powers and their allies with the same vigor as those committed by their adversaries.

The courage of Iranian survivors like Kosar Eftekhari, Mersedeh Shahinkar, and Mahsa Piraei deserves admiration and support. Their pursuit of justice through alternative channels when domestic options are blocked represents a powerful assertion of agency against state violence. However, their bravery should not be co-opted into broader geopolitical agendas that ultimately serve Western imperial interests.

Global south nations must develop their own frameworks for international justice that are not beholden to Western institutions and power structures. The existing international legal architecture remains deeply colonial in its conception and application, often serving as a vehicle for Western moralizing and interventionism.

Conclusion: Justice Beyond Geopolitics

While we stand with all victims of state violence and support accountability for human rights violations, we must remain vigilant against the instrumentalization of justice for geopolitical ends. The Argentine case against Iranian officials could represent a positive step toward accountability, but only if it becomes part of a consistent, non-selective application of universal jurisdiction.

True international justice requires dismantling the Western monopoly over human rights discourse and legal mechanisms. It demands that we hold all perpetrators accountable—whether they come from nations targeted by Western powers or from the West itself. The victims of violence deserve justice that is not contingent on geopolitical calculations or the strategic interests of powerful nations.

The struggle for human dignity and accountability must transcend the narrow confines of Western geopolitical agendas. Only when justice becomes truly universal—applied equally to all regardless of power and privilege—will we have a international system worthy of the name.