Viviana Krsticevic is the Executive Director of the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), a civil society organization that works throughout the Americas to promote human rights using international law and the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights. She received her law degree from the University of Buenos Aires, has a master’s degree in Latin American studies from Stanford University, and a master’s degree in law from Harvard University. She litigated more than two hundred cases before the Inter-American Commission and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on key issues for the protection of human rights and the strengthening of the rule of law. Alongside two other experts, she was a part of the team behind the recent groundbreaking International Fact-Finding Mission in Iran. Marija Šajkaš, CGFoE’s Communications Specialist, spoke with Viviana Krsticevic about the current state of human rights and women’s rights in Iran, potential legal remedies, and the legacy of Jina Mahsa Amini.

CGFoE: Could you provide a brief overview of the main objectives of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran? 

Viviana Krsticevic: The Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) on the Islamic Republic of Iran was established in late 2022, to respond to the deteriorating human rights situation in Iran, in the context of the protests that began there on 16 September 2022, following the death in custody of Jina Mahsa Amini, a young Iranian woman of Kurdish origin who died in custody following her arbitrary arrest and detention for what the authorities considered an improper use of the hijab.  The Human Rights Council appointed three experts: Sara Hossain, from Bangladesh, Professor Shaheen Sardar Ali, from Pakistan, and myself as its member of the Fact-Finding Mission. Sara is our Chair.

The Mission was tasked to thoroughly and independently investigate alleged human rights violations in Iran related to the protests that began on 16 September 2022, especially focusing on women and children, as well as to establish the facts and circumstances surrounding the events and to document patterns-. Additionally, it was mandated to collect, consolidate, and analyze the evidence of such violations and preserve it to enable cooperation in proceedings.

CGFoE: How did you approach collecting and verifying evidence, given the fact that there is a high degree of surveillance in Iran?

Viviana Krsticevic: Due to the lack of cooperation of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran with our mandate, we were forced to undertake the investigation entirely from outside the country, taking steps to avoid the risks created by the potential of retaliation by different entities and individuals. We gathered over 27000 pieces of evidence.

The FFM verified massive amounts of data, collected testimonies, and historical and contextual information. Throughout the process, we insisted on asking for State cooperation and sending detailed requests and letters, to no avail. However, the nature of some of the violations made it possible to establish some of the facts and patterns supported by open-source data, laws and practices of the Government, public and official statements, and uncontested facts. The FFM also complemented and contrasted the information with dozens of testimonies, expert witnesses, and forensic reports.

This is not unusual though, many other UN Commissions of Inquiry and Fact-Finding Missions like ours also carry out their investigations from outside the country of concern, caring for those who cooperate with them, and reaching solid conclusions.

For open sources, the FFM strictly adhered to the Berkeley Protocol, and only made findings based on verified and authenticated audio-visual materials. Concerning the interviews with victims and witnesses, we adopted a strict security protocol to minimize the risk of surveillance, and most importantly, the risk of reprisals against those in contact with us. 

CGFoE: What were some of the most significant findings from your investigation concerning women, and what measures does the report suggest to protect them?

Viviana Krsticevic: The FFM Iran found that the right to equality and non-discrimination on the grounds of sex, gender, age, religion or belief, ethnicity, political or other opinions have been violated. This was evidenced when looking at gross violations as a response to the legitimate exercise of freedom of expression and the right to assembly and protest.  

Violations of the rights of women and children were particularly severe, as were violations of the rights of ethnic and religious minorities. The FFM Iran also established that many of these serious violations were committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population, namely women, girls, and others who rejected the mandatory hijab laws, expressed support for human rights, or acted in solidarity with protestors. As such, these acts amounted to the crimes against humanity of murder, imprisonment, torture, rape and other forms of sexual violence, persecution enforced disappearance, and other inhumane acts.  The Mission made a significant finding of gender persecution which also intersected with discrimination on political, ethnic, and religious grounds, and that affirmed that the conduct of the authorities in relation to these groups constituted a severe deprivation of their fundamental rights as distinct groups.

In terms of measures suggested to protect women, the FFM made a variety of recommendations, including the immediate release of all protesters arbitrarily detained, stopping the online and offline harassment of protesters for protected freedom of expression, and banning the use of the death penalty against protestors. It also called for the repealing of all laws and policies that discriminate against women and girls, including those related to the mandatory hijab, and to disband the “morality police” and for the authorities to unequivocally condemn all sexual and gender-based violence.

CGFoE: Are there any legal implications of your findings?

Viviana Krsticevic: As noted earlier, the FFM Iran made a range of findings under both international human rights law as well as international criminal law. The evidence collected by the FFM Iran upon which these findings were made can form the basis of transformative reparations that will ensure not only mitigation of the harm done to individuals or groups but also the structural changes needed to ensure that all women and children can have the opportunity to thrive. This will require, for example, deep changes in the normative and institutional structures, as well as practices of the Islamic Republic of Iran to eliminate some of the norms that discriminate against women and/or minorities. Moreover, our findings can support future accountability efforts, be they judicial or non-judicial, including processes for compensation, asylum, criminal cases, etc.  

CGFoE: The report calls for the application of universal jurisdiction. Could you explain what this principle entails and how it might be applied to the situation in Iran?

Viviana Krsticevic: Absent effective remedies within Iran, legal avenues outside the country at the domestic and international levels constitute the primary available options for accountability. The FFM on Iran concluded that third States exercising universal jurisdiction over the violations it found are an important avenue for accountability for victims.

Pursuant to the principle of universal jurisdiction, States may and, under certain circumstances, are under the obligation to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over crimes under international law, in the absence of any other national link (territorial or nationality). This is based on the understanding that States share a common interest in the adjudication of certain crimes under international law. Applying the principle of universal jurisdiction, some national criminal codes provide for holding individuals liable for crimes under international law committed outside of the territory of the State, including torture and enforced disappearance, irrespective of whether the State in which the violation was committed is a party to a relevant international treaty.

The FFM called on States that apply universal jurisdiction to consider opening structural investigations into the general situation linked to the protests of 2022 without an identified suspect, especially where victims of the violations described in this report may be present on their territory.

CGFoE: The report noted increased Iranian government repression against families of victims, human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, and others for merely expressing their views, supporting protesters, or advocating for justice. In light of the Esperanza Protocol, could these actions by the State be viewed as threats against human rights defenders for speaking on matters of public concern?

Viviana Krsticevic: The threats and harassments, both physical and judicial, against a wide range of individuals for their activism and support to the “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement are indeed the type of situations that the Protocol on the effective investigation of threats against human rights defenders, known as the “Esperanza Protocol” envisages to address. Many of these threats were made to those inside and outside the country in order to limit the ability of human rights defenders to exercise their right to defend human rights. In some cases, in line with the Protocol, threats by public officials can be considered a means of torture, such as the threats of rape or mock executions of those detained. 

Applying this Protocol could illuminate the obligations of businesses, other States, judicial authorities in States where victims reside, and international institutions dealing in good faith with the country. Moreover, as we have done in other regions with the Minnesota Protocol on the investigation of potentially unlawful death, the Esperanza Protocol can also be useful as a yardstick of the specific obligations to guarantee some basic policies for the exercise of rights and analyze if the criminal investigation in a particular case was diligently conducted.

CGFoE: Based on your findings, what next steps should international bodies and individual States take in response to these human rights violations?

Viviana Krsticevic: Exercising jurisdiction over the violations is an important avenue for accountability for victims, but it is not the only avenue. Other measures can include the acceleration of asylum applications by victims of the protests and ensuring that survivors of SGBV and linked repression have access to safe legal pathways out of Iran. States can and should also provide funding for psychological trauma support programs, with a focus on trauma therapy for women and girls, and explore various other avenues for accountability and redress. The FFM Iran has played an important role in truth-telling, but there is more that could be done inside and outside the country to guarantee the victims’ right to truth. We know from our shared history that truth is critical for amending the wrongs of the past and building a more hopeful future.

CGFoE: As one of the leading figures in this Mission, how has this experience influenced your view on the state of human rights and rights for women in the world?

Viviana Krsticevic: I am from Argentina and have been an active participant in the Latin American human rights and women’s rights movements for the past two decades. My interactions with colleagues, experts, and activists over this past year have deepened my understanding of the obstacles faced by Iranian women—ranging from historical and cultural challenges to legal barriers. These exchanges have also influenced my perspective on the path forward for human and women’s rights globally.

When I consider the experiences of women across the Americas, we share common struggles with inequality and injustice, as well as similar dreams and strategies with many Iranian women. However, there are key differences in the actors and patterns that hinder progress toward gender equality, both domestically and internationally, which are relevant to the Islamic Republic of Iran and other nations. 

One significant distinction is the deeply entrenched discriminatory system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is embedded in its laws, institutions, and practices, limiting domestic accountability. International processes are also constrained, partly due to the absence of international courts with jurisdiction over most human rights issues, as well as the impact of hostage diplomacy and undue pressure on foreign nations to hold others accountable. Furthermore, given the restrictions on speech and protest, the digital sphere plays a critical role in activism and solidarity, while the government continues its efforts in digital repression. My fellow experts and activists have revealed the depths of this complex world to me, offering invaluable lessons in history, politics, art, and society—not only in Iran but also in places like Bangladesh, Pakistan, and within the UN.

This experience also reshaped my view on the future of human and women’s rights. Witnessing Iranian women from all walks of life speak up, alongside men standing in solidarity, has strengthened my belief that the authoritarian playbooks can be cracked. Their strategies highlighted speech, online and offline mobilization, organization, and the persistence of those claiming equality and rights as part of the playbook for advancing human rights worldwide. The unexpected displays of solidarity from around the globe were equally striking. Moreover, in my interactions with victims and activists through the FFM, I was reminded that international justice and solidarity are essential components of this roadmap, helping to pave the way for a more equitable, just, and peaceful future. While the state of women’s rights is far from where it needs to be, the story is far from over. We owe Jina Mahsa and countless others in Iran and across the world our commitment to persist—not just out of principle alone, but because this is our blueprint for change, and it works.