Iranian Americans for Liberty Condemns “Transitional Justice Committee” as Undemocratic and Dangerous

Iranian Americans for Liberty (IAL) strongly condemns the so-called “Committee for Drafting Transitional Justice Regulations,” chaired by Shirin Ebadi and composed of Afshin Ellian, Iraj Mesdaghi, and Leyla Bahmany. The committee’s orientation, composition, and publicly stated positions stand in direct contradiction to the rule of law and the sovereign will of the Iranian people.

IAL reaffirms the legitimacy of Reza Pahlavi as the rightful representative under Iran’s constitutional monarchy, which remains the only legitimate constitutional framework of the country. Within this framework, legislative authority resides exclusively in the nationally elected Majlis, separation of powers is guaranteed, and the rule of law forms the foundation of governance. Any authority must derive from this constitutional order; bypassing it risks plunging Iran into legal ambiguity and institutional disorder.

The committee—an unelected body with no popular mandate—has presumed to both draft and oversee the implementation of transitional justice mechanisms. This merging of legislative and judicial authority constitutes a direct violation of the principle of separation of powers. Such overreach is especially alarming when undertaken by individuals presenting themselves as legal experts, from whom stricter adherence to these principles should be expected.

Moreover, the committee’s approach reflects a deeply concerning top-down detachment from Iranian society. By attempting to predetermine frameworks of judgment and punishment for the nation, its members adopt a posture fundamentally incompatible with democratic governance and popular sovereignty.

As chair, Shirin Ebadi bears particular responsibility. Having once sworn to uphold Iran’s constitutional monarchy as a judge, she later supported the 1979 Revolution, contributing to the dismantling of Iran’s independent judiciary. Today, she seeks to define justice for victims of that same system. This record raises serious concerns about judgment and consistency. Her explicit opposition to capital punishment—declaring it will have no place in transitional justice—alongside similar statements by Afshin Ellian, reveals a predetermined framework imposed without public consent.

IAL emphasizes that the question of capital punishment is not a matter for unelected individuals to decide in advance. It must be determined by the Iranian people through legitimate institutions after liberation. Prematurely removing this option sends a dangerous signal: that perpetrators of violence may ultimately face leniency regardless of their actions.

Maintaining the possibility of capital punishment at this stage serves as a critical deterrent. Members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and other repressive apparatuses—who continue to carry out violence against civilians—are influenced by the expectation of future accountability. Removing this deterrent risks emboldening further repression and increasing the cost in human lives.

The committee’s attempt to model its approach on South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission is fundamentally flawed. In South Africa, conditional amnesty was granted within a specific socio-political context and did not require dismantling the entire judicial system. By contrast, Iran’s repressive structures lack such functional necessity, and many of their actions are unlawful even under the current legal framework.

IAL also raises concerns regarding the qualifications and impartiality of certain members. Questions surrounding Leyla Bahmany’s experience in transitional justice and Iraj Mesdaghi’s past affiliations raise doubts about the committee’s credibility and technical foundation.

More broadly, this initiative reflects a troubling elitist, top-down mindset promoted by certain advisors, including Saeed Ghaseminejad. While presenting themselves as proponents of strong governance, the outcome of their influence has been the rapid exclusion of key justice mechanisms—revealing inconsistency and strategic miscalculation.

Iranian Americans for Liberty unequivocally condemns this initiative. By signaling premature leniency toward perpetrators of violence, it risks emboldening repression, undermining accountability, and endangering Iranian lives.

True justice can only emerge from the will of a free Iranian people, expressed through legitimate institutions grounded in the principles of constitutional governance. It cannot be imposed by a small group of unelected individuals operating outside the country and beyond democratic accountability.