Statement: Iranian Americans for Liberty Strongly Condemns the So-Called Transitional Justice Committee

Iranian Americans for Liberty strongly condemns the “Committee for Drafting Transitional Justice Regulations,” chaired by Shirin Ebadi and composed of Afshin Ellian, Iraj Mesdaghi, and Leyla Bahmany. Its orientation, composition, and publicly stated positions stand in clear contradiction to the rule of law and the sovereign will of the Iranian people.

At the same time, we first and foremost affirm the legitimacy of Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi as the rightful representative and heir under Iran’s constitutional monarchy, which remains the only legitimate constitution of the country. Under this constitutional order, legislative authority is vested exclusively in the nationally elected Majlis, separation of powers is guaranteed, and the rule of law forms the foundation of governance.[i]Prince Reza Pahlavi has repeatedly affirmed his commitment to justice, rule of law, and democracy. Any role or authority he holds derives directly from this constitutional and monarchist framework. Any attempt to bypass or disregard these foundations risks plunging Iran into legal uncertainty, where authority, responsibility, and leadership lack clear definition.

This unelected group of four individuals, without any popular mandate or parliamentary legitimacy, has presumed to draft the rules governing transitional courts while simultaneously positioning itself to oversee their implementation. Such a merging of legislative and judicial authority in a single unelected body constitutes a direct violation of the principle of separation of powers, one of the foundational pillars of the constitutional monarchy, which recognizes the Majlis as the sole legislative authority. It is precisely from legal experts that stricter adherence to these principles should be expected.

Furthermore, the approach of this committee reflects a troubling top-down detachment from the realities of Iranian society. By placing themselves in a position to predetermine frameworks of judgment and punishment for the entire nation, they adopt a posture fundamentally incompatible with democratic governance and popular sovereignty.

As chair of the committee, Shirin Ebadi bears the greatest responsibility. Having once sworn an oath as one of Iran’s first female judges to uphold the constitutional monarchy, she enthusiastically supported the 1979 Revolution, greeting it with the slogan “Long live Khomeini,” and thereby contributed to the dismantling of Iran’s independent judiciary. Today she seeks to define justice for the victims of the very revolution she once embraced. This history reveals poor judgment and opportunism. She and her colleagues, who have not been direct victims of the regime’s current crimes, have no right to preemptively offer leniency or amnesty to IRGC elements and those who have murdered Iranians.[ii]Shirin Ebadi has repeatedly and explicitly declared her absolute opposition to the death penalty and stated that it will have no place in the framework of the transitional justice committee.

Afshin Ellian has likewise declared: “Execution and torture will have no place.”[iii]These statements reveal the committee’s true direction, removing capital punishment for regime criminals before the Iranian people have even had the chance to decide. This is not only strategically wrong, it is immediately dangerous.

Maintaining the possibility of capital punishment at this stage serves as a vital deterrent that saves Iranian lives. IRGC members and other instruments of repression, who murder innocent people in the streets every day, know that if they continue their unrestrained savagery, public opinion after the regime’s fall will demand harsh justice, including execution. This awareness forces them to exercise restraint and preserves more lives. Yet these four have destroyed that deterrent by preemptively removing the option, sending a clear message to the repressors: “No matter how much blood you spill, you will ultimately be forgiven.” This is a catastrophic strategic mistake that risks causing more bloodshed.

The attempt to model this approach on South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission is entirely flawed and even insulting. In South Africa, the white minority possessed essential knowledge, skills, and a central role in running the country and received conditional amnesty in exchange for confessions. Moreover, the end of apartheid did not require a complete overhaul of the judicial system; discriminatory laws were simply repealed. In contrast, the operational forces of the IRGC and other repressive organs possess none of that value; removing them does not harm the functioning of the state but rather paves the way for justice. Furthermore, many of their crimes are unlawful even under the current regime’s own laws.

The decision on capital punishment, or any form of criminal justice, belongs exclusively to the Iranian people through an elected Majlis after liberation, not to the premature judgment of four unelected individuals operating from abroad.

Leyla Bahmany lacks a substantial or foundational record in transitional justice and appears to have been included more for the sake of superficial balance and DEI initiative than for proven expertise. This choice exposes the technical weakness of the committee.

Iraj Mesdaghi, with his history of support for and membership in the Marxist-Islamist People’s Mojahedin Organization (PMOI/MEK), and without a fundamental ideological condemnation of that organization, cannot credibly claim impartiality. Has anyone asked Mr. Mesdaghi his position on the summary executions of pre-revolutionary political and military officials in the early years after 1979, particularly the rooftop executions at Refah School and elsewhere? At that time, the PMOI (of which he was a member) not only applauded those executions but accused the revolutionary courts of being too lenient and demanded even more. Those who collaborated in or cheered such injustices in the past cannot simply leap from the position of the accused to that of simultaneous lawmaker and judge.[iv]

This entire approach stems from an elitist, top-down mindset promoted by certain advisors, including Saeed Ghaseminejad. He presents himself as a staunch right-winger, yet the practical result of his influence is the formation of a committee that, in a very short time, removed capital punishment from consideration. This glaring contradiction reveals inconsistency in commitment to earlier promises.[v]

We strongly condemn these four individuals for their statements, histories, and dangerous direction. By sending premature messages of leniency or amnesty to the regime’s killers, they embolden the forces of repression, destroy the life-saving deterrent, and weaken the Iranian people’s path to genuine justice.

True justice can only arise from the will of a free Iranian people, through legitimate institutions grounded in the principles of the constitutional monarchy, which remains the only legitimate constitution of Iran. It cannot emerge from the hasty judgments of a small group of expatriates who consider themselves wiser than the nation and, through this approach, place even more Iranian lives at risk.

_____________________

[i] The 1906 Constitution of Persia and its 1907 Supplementary Fundamental Laws

· Articles 26–29: Establishment of the Principle of Separation of Powers

· Articles 24–25: Exclusive Legislative Authority Vested in the National Consultative Assembly (Majlis)

[ii]
https://youtube.com/shorts/eGIAmYZ89GY?si=p4vCaiUlvGypq1qf

[iii]

https://x.com/fardadfarahzad/status/2034008905307619678?s=46

[iv] https://x.com/Tootferangian/status/2004579457538183423?s=20

[v] https://x.com/sghasseminejad/status/1978169983784943993?s=46