While in 2015 the U.S. Mission to the United Nations (USUN) had requested that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and its annexes be circulated as a document of the Security Council, three years later the Trump administration claimed the JCPOA is a political agreement and unilaterally withdrew from it. Since that time, the U.S. has launched a wave of economic sanctions against the Iranian people.

In response to the U.S. moves, in January 2020, the members of the Iranian parliament presented a bill that obliges the government to study U.S. inhuman measures against Iranian citizens and present a report every six months. Nevertheless, the Office of Legislations has asserted the bill is similar to the one that requires the government to pursue compensations arising from U.S. measures and crimes against Iran and Iranian citizens. But it seems that this view is not correct. Because in comparison to the previous law, the core of the bill is focused on human rights, and it refers to the indirect action of the U.S. as well. However, how can the U.S. commit human rights violations inside the national borders of Iran?

The bill states that the government is required to provide a report related to U.S. “crimes against human rights which occur directly and indirectly.” However, what is the nature of criminal action and indirect criminal action?

As a whole, to accomplish a crime, its elements must be proven — namely, actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind). In the case of the actus reus, the physical element of the crime is the direct and indirect action of the U.S. government, and it must violate the Islamic Penal Code (IPC) and the human rights that are recognized in international conventions. The assassination of Qassem Soleimani is the best example in case of direct action. Not only it is considered a crime under IPC, but also, it contradicts the “Principle of Necessity” which is accepted under International Humanitarian Law.

However, the situation of indirect action is different and complex. In other words, the side effects of an action can be deemed as actus reus of the crime. For example, according to the OPEC monthly oil market report, which was released on January 15, 2020, due to the return of U.S. sanctions, Iranian crude oil production decreased from 3/553/000 to 2/357/000 between 2018 to 2019 (based on secondary sources). If we accept the accuracy of the report, we see a sharp decline in the revenues of Iran’s Ministry of Petroleum. Hence, making dismissal of employees or banning employment for job-seekers at the ministry will be unavoidable. In fact, in this case, the side effects of U.S. sanctions violate international human rights, such as the right to work that is recognized in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

In the case of the mental element of the crime, direct or indirect actions of the U.S. must be accompanied by criminal intent. That is, the action must be aimed at hitting an Iranian citizen or a group of them. To prove mens rea, it is sufficient to know that the U.S. was aware of the nature of sanctions. As a simple fact, the main target of sanctions are civilians, and it has a direct effect on their daily lives. Therefore, the sanctions by themselves have criminal intent because it leads to the gradual death of vulnerable people in the long-term and leads to a violation of a chain of human rights that are binding to all nations. Therefore, the U.S. sanctions can be perceived as a human rights violation, in the form of indirect action, so it will be prosecutable under article 1 of the bill.

All in all, according to the matters above, it is clear that U.S. allegation to friendship with Iranian people just a slogan, and it is a trick for U.S. political purposes.