The Assassination of Dr. Ghassemlou and His Colleagues: 36 Years of Austria’s Complicity Through Silence, 36 Years of State Terrorism by the Islamic Republic

The Assassination of Dr. Ghassemlou and His Colleagues: 36 Years of Austria’s Complicity Through Silence, 36 Years of State Terrorism by the Islamic Republic

Thirty-six years have passed since the assassination of Dr. Abdulrahman Ghassemlou, Abdullah Qaderi Azar, and Fazil Rasoul on July 13, 1989, in Vienna. In that time, Austria’s judicial and security institutions have neither prosecuted the perpetrators nor the masterminds of this crime, nor have they clearly acknowledged their legal and political responsibility. Moreover, existing international mechanisms for pursuing this deliberate act of political assassination have not been meaningfully employed. Succumbing to diplomatic immunity claims, commercial and political considerations, and pressure from Tehran, Austria released the suspects and effectively buried the judicial process.

While the perpetrators now occupy senior positions within Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Ministry of Intelligence, the Islamic Republic continues to face sustained international condemnation for its policy of extrajudicial executions on European soil and its systematic violations of the right to life. Nonetheless, tools such as universal jurisdiction, Magnitsky-style targeted sanctions, and UN special procedures remain viable and effective avenues for breaking this entrenched cycle of impunity and reopening the case.

On July 13, 2025, we stand against a crime that was not only a pivotal moment in the Islamic Republic’s campaign of transnational repression, but also one of the most notorious failures of justice on European soil. On that day, three individuals—unarmed, present in good faith, and participating in an official negotiation—were assassinated by a delegation composed of Iranian intelligence and military agents.

This assassination was neither accidental nor exceptional. It was part of a premeditated strategy within the Islamic Republic’s security apparatus aimed at systematically eliminating political opponents in exile—a policy that intensified after the Iran-Iraq war and continued in subsequent years with the assassinations of political and cultural figures in France, Germany, Italy, and Switzerland.

Despite incontrovertible evidence—including a full audio recording of the meeting, physical crime scene evidence, contradictory testimonies by the perpetrators, and even an arrest warrant issued by Austria’s Attorney General—this case never entered a proper judicial trajectory. On the contrary, some of the suspects were escorted by officials to the airport and flown back to Iran, effectively shielding them from prosecution.

This report, marking the 36th anniversary of the crime, aims to provide a meticulous, evidence-based recounting of the events, a legal and political analysis of the case, and an unequivocal call for international prosecution of the perpetrators and an end to the structural impunity surrounding Iran’s state-sponsored terrorism.

 

1. The Assassination Unfolded: Murder in Apartment No. 5, Vienna

In the summer of 1989, Dr. Abdulrahman Ghassemlou—an internationally recognized Kurdish political leader and Secretary-General of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (PDKI)—reengaged in peace negotiations with representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Motivated by a desire to reach a peaceful resolution to the Kurdish question in Iran, Ghassemlou had already participated in two prior negotiation rounds held in January 1989. These talks had been initiated at the behest of the Iranian authorities and were facilitated by Fazil Rasoul, an Iraqi Kurdish academic and activist residing in Vienna. Dr. Ghassemlou had publicly expressed cautious optimism about the process.

Following renewed contact from Iranian officials, a third round of negotiations was scheduled for July 13, 1989 (22 Tir 1368 in the Iranian calendar). The meeting took place in a residential apartment located at 5 Linke Bahngasse, Vienna—a location arranged by Rasoul. Neither negotiating party was informed in advance of the exact meeting site. Rasoul separately escorted both delegations to the apartment.

At the appointed time, Dr. Ghassemlou and Abdullah Qaderi Azar entered the apartment without any personal security measures. Shortly afterward, the Iranian delegation—consisting of Mohammad-Jafar Sahraroudi, Mostafa Ajoudi, and Amir Mansour Bozorgian (alias Ghafoor Darjazani)—joined them. The discussion commenced and revolved around sensitive topics such as Kurdish autonomy, disarmament of Peshmerga forces, and the possibility of open political activity by the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan.

During the conversation, Sahraroudi reportedly emphasized the need for strict confidentiality to prevent "enemies" from sabotaging the talks. However, without any warning signs or confrontation, the sound of multiple gunshots abruptly shattered the silence.

According to police reports, all three Kurdish negotiators were executed at close range, each with "finishing shots" to the head. Dr. Ghassemlou sustained gunshot wounds to the forehead, temple, and throat. Forensic evidence indicated the use of silenced weapons. The bodies were discovered in positions suggesting the victims had been caught completely off guard, with two of them still seated when they were shot.

The only survivors were members of the Iranian delegation. Sahraroudi, reportedly wounded, left the apartment and sought help from a neighbor. Austrian police arrived at the scene soon after. Despite substantial physical evidence, inconsistencies in the Iranian delegation’s statements, and overwhelming indications of premeditated murder, the Iranian negotiators were not arrested. In the days that followed, under facilitation by the Austrian government, they were allowed to leave the country, avoiding any judicial inquiry or accountability.

 

2. Irrefutable Evidence Against Agents of the Islamic Republic in the Assassination of Dr. Ghassemlou

Although the Islamic Republic of Iran immediately disclaimed any responsibility for the assassination of Dr. Abdulrahman Ghassemlou and his colleagues, a wealth of forensic evidence, eyewitness accounts, and field documentation—collected by Austrian police and independent sources—clearly established the direct involvement of official Iranian state agents who were present at the meeting.

● Crime Scene Analysis

Austria’s elite counter-terrorism police unit (EBT), led by Oswald Kessler, launched an immediate investigation. Key findings included:

• No signs of forced entry or tampering with locks were found at the apartment.
• All three victims were seated and unarmed at the time of the attack, showing no evidence of struggle or resistance.
• Each victim had been executed with a close-range “coup de grâce”, a method consistent with state intelligence operations.
• The precise location of bullet wounds, bullet trajectories, and shell casing placements all indicated that the shots were fired from the side of the Iranian delegation, not from the apartment entrance.

● Weapons, Suppressors, and Ties to Iran’s Military Procurement

Two Spanish-made pistols equipped with silencers were recovered at the scene. Forensic analysis revealed that these weapons were identical to a batch procured by Iran’s Imperial Army in the 1970s. The pistols, along with a bloodstained coat and a motorcycle key, were found discarded in a trash bin near the crime scene.

Further investigation revealed that the motorcycle had been purchased under a false identity by Mohammad-Jafar Sahraroudi, using the alias “Mostafa Mostafavi.”

● Contradictory Testimonies and Suspicious Behavior

Sahraroudi, who had sustained a superficial wound, initially claimed at the hospital that the attack was carried out by unknown assailants who entered through the front door. In contrast, Bozorgian stated he had not even been present at the apartment and was instead at a nearby McDonald’s. However, physical evidence, including ballistic trajectories, body positioning, and the identification of the motorcycle seller, thoroughly discredited these statements.

● Full Audio Recording of the Negotiation

Dr. Ghassemlou, apparently aware of potential risks, had secretly recorded the meeting. The audio cassette was discovered by police after the murders and handed over to the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan. The recording captured a calm and constructive discussion with no signs of dispute, hostility, or imminent threat, further reinforcing the theory of a premeditated assassination carried out in cold blood.

● Final Statement by the Austrian Counter-Terrorism Chief

Oswald Kessler, the lead investigator, concluded the police inquiry with a pointed summary:

“The Kurds were killed, and the agents of the Islamic Republic walked away. The case is clear to us. The rest is up to the politicians.”

 

3. Austria’s Failure: Complicity Through Silence in the Face of State Terrorism

In the immediate aftermath of the political assassination in Vienna, it was expected that a state committed to democracy, the rule of law, and human rights would act decisively and transparently to prosecute a politically motivated murder on its own soil. However, what transpired was not mere indifference—it was a tacit collusion in the escape of the perpetrators of state-sponsored terrorism, a failure that sent a clear message to the Islamic Republic of Iran: assassination in Europe carries no cost.

● Release of Suspects and Departure Without Trial

Despite the abundance of incriminating evidence—including recovered firearms, an audio recording of the meeting, contradictory testimonies, and the official police report—two members of the Iranian delegation, Mohammad-Jafar Sahraroudi and Amir Mansour Bozorgian, were released without charge. Sahraroudi, though wounded during the incident, was not arrested. Instead, he was escorted under police protection to the airport and returned to Tehran. Bozorgian is believed to have left Austria on November 30, 1989, without any legal proceedings.

● Delayed Arrest Warrants: A Four-Month Window for Escape

Austria’s Attorney General eventually issued arrest warrants for Sahraroudi, Mostafa Ajoudi, and Bozorgian on November 28, 1989—over four months after the crime. By that time, all suspects had safely exited the country. This deliberate delay provided the Islamic Republic with a safe window to extract its operatives, shielding them from prosecution.

● Political Considerations and Security Bargaining

According to various reports, diplomatic pressure from Iran, economic interests tied to Austrian arms manufacturer Voest Alpine’s dealings with Tehran, and fears of retaliatory terrorist attacks were major factors behind Austria’s judicial inaction.

In a revealing 1994 interview with Time Magazine, an unnamed senior Austrian official candidly admitted:

“No country wants to pursue a terrorism case. A conviction means 15 years of risk—15 years of being a target.”

Published on the 25th anniversary of the Ghassemlou assassination, this quote reflects the Austrian government’s security-driven calculus in abandoning judicial proceedings. However, such considerations do not justify the abdication of justice. Austria’s silence and inaction constitute not only a dereliction of duty but also a breach of its obligations under international law.

● Violation of Austria’s International Commitments

Austria’s failure represents a blatant breach of international legal standards, particularly the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (adopted June 1989), specifically Principles 1, 2, 4, and 10, which require:

• Prompt and impartial investigations into all suspected extrajudicial killings
• Full accountability and access to legal remedies for victims’ families
• Protection of evidence and prevention of suspect escape

Rather than meeting these obligations, Austria facilitated the escape of state-backed assassins, thereby undermining its own legal system and emboldening further acts of transnational repression.

● A Call for Justice: Ending Complicity and Enforcing Accountability

Thirty-six years later, Austria must confront its historic failure and take concrete steps toward justice. This includes:

• Public acknowledgment of its political and legal shortcomings in the case;
• Reopening the criminal case under Austria’s legal jurisdiction;
• Utilizing universal jurisdiction statutes to prosecute the perpetrators in absentia;
• Imposing targeted sanctions under Magnitsky-style human rights regimes;
• Supporting international accountability efforts through the United Nations Human Rights Council, special rapporteurs, and Interpol mechanisms.

Austria’s inaction is not simply a historical error—it is an ongoing injustice. As long as the perpetrators of this extrajudicial execution remain unprosecuted, and as long as the Islamic Republic continues to benefit from impunity for cross-border terrorism, the international human rights framework itself remains compromised.

 

4. Why Has Austria Failed to Pursue the Case for 36 Years?

4.1 Immediate Release of Suspects and Silencing of the Case

Three Iranian diplomats/intelligence agents took refuge in the embassy after the shooting and returned to Tehran in the following days without judicial interrogation; the Austrian government, citing diplomatic immunity and "economic interests," permitted their departure.
 (Sources: ANF English, theviennareview.at, LiquiSearch)

The Vienna investigative judge did not issue an international arrest warrant until November 1989, but the Austrian Foreign Ministry sidelined the case “in favor of bilateral relations.”
 (Sources: RealClearDefense, blog.iranrights.org)

Security experts emphasize that Austria, at the time, was engaged in post-war energy and arms deals with Iran, and there was a political incentive to appease Tehran.
 (Sources: RealClearDefense, theviennareview.at)

4.2 Legal Gaps and Inaction of the Judicial System

Austria’s public prosecutor did not issue a formal indictment due to the absence of the suspects on Austrian soil and the lack of a universal jurisdiction mechanism for “state terrorism” at that time.
 (Sources: Combating Terrorism Center, United Nations)

Analysts note that the lack of political pressure from the European Union and the absence of formal complaints from the involved states (Iraq/Kurdistan) further widened the space for impunity.
 (Sources: rudaw.net, dckurd.org)

 

5. The Islamic Republic’s Response: Denial, Deflection, and Distortion

In response to the assassination of Dr. Ghassemlou and his colleagues, the Islamic Republic of Iran immediately adopted a three-pronged strategy: direct denial of involvement, deflection of blame onto a third party (Iraq), and distortion of the purpose and nature of the negotiations. This approach was not only an attempt to erase traces of the assassination, but also part of a broader official policy used consistently by the Islamic Republic to manage domestic and international public opinion following most of its extraterritorial political killings.

● Denial of Involvement and Blaming a Third Party

In the first official reaction, Ali Akbar Mohtashami, then-Minister of the Interior, claimed at a press conference that the “Ba'athist regime of Iraq” was likely responsible for the assassination. He further asserted that the meeting was not a political negotiation with the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, but rather a discussion on the repatriation of “remorseful Kurds” to Iran. This claim directly contradicted the recorded content of the meeting, documentation from prior negotiation rounds, and the publicly stated goals of the PDKI.

● Unawareness of the Secret Recording

Iranian officials were unaware that Dr. Ghassemlou had secretly recorded the meeting. The audio tape, later recovered by Austrian police, provided irrefutable evidence of the peaceful and serious nature of the talks, as well as the complete absence of tension or confrontation. This critical evidence discredited the Iranian narrative of a surprise attack by “unknown assailants.”

● Security-Driven Narrative to Justify the Crime

A coordinated media narrative quickly emerged in Iranian state outlets. In addition to blaming Iraq, the Islamic Republic attempted to reframe the negotiations as a meeting with a “repentant individual”. However, both the seniority of the Iranian delegation (Sahraroudi, Ajoudi, Bozorgian) and the substantive political issues discussed (autonomy, disarmament, public political activity) made it clear that this was a high-level political negotiation—not a reconciliation session with alleged defectors.

● Silence After the Return of the Perpetrators

Following the return of Sahraroudi and Bozorgian to Iran, no investigation or accountability was pursued. On the contrary, both men were promoted within official state structures. Mohammad-Jafar Sahraroudi went on to become senior advisor to the Speaker of Parliament (Ali Larijani) and, in 2013, traveled to Geneva using a diplomatic passport—with no action taken by European governments to enforce the outstanding arrest warrant against him.

 

6. Current Status of the Assassination Perpetrators and the Legal Responsibility of the Islamic Republic

A. Identified Perpetrators and Their Current Roles

Mohammad-Jafar Sahraroudi

• Role in the Assassination: Head of the Iranian negotiation team; directly present at the meeting with Dr. Ghassemlou; the primary suspect in carrying out the fatal shots.
• Current Status: Multiple credible reports indicate that Sahraroudi was later promoted to the rank of Brigadier General in the Quds Force and served as Special Advisor to the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament (Ali Larijani).
• Legal Status: Subject to an international arrest warrant issued by Austrian authorities since 1989. Iran has refused to extradite or prosecute him.

Amir Mansour Bozorgian (a.k.a. Ghafoor Darjazani)

• Role in the Assassination: Intelligence officer; a member of the operational team sent to Vienna; likely responsible for the coordination and execution of the operation.
• Current Status: Limited official information is available; however, opposition media and Western intelligence sources have linked him to other overseas operations, including a political assassination in Rome.
• Legal Status: Listed as a wanted suspect under international pursuit.

Mostafa Ajoudi

• Role in the Assassination: The third member of the Iranian delegation in Vienna; believed to have actively participated in the assassination.
• Current Status: No verified information is available regarding his current position, but reports suggest post-assassination involvement in Iran’s administrative operations in Kurdistan.
• Legal Status: Remains under an outstanding Austrian arrest warrant.
   

B. The Islamic Republic’s Legal Responsibility

The Islamic Republic of Iran has neither investigated nor prosecuted any of the individuals involved in the assassination. On the contrary, it has rewarded and protected them through political promotions and official immunity. This conduct constitutes:

• A violation of Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees the right to life and prohibits arbitrary and extrajudicial killings.
• A clear case of state terrorism, involving targeted killings on the territory of a third state.
• An example of organized state crime against political opponents, fitting within a broader pattern of transnational assassinations orchestrated by the Islamic Republic over the past decades.

From the standpoint of international law, such actions may be legally categorized as crimes against humanity, particularly if it can be demonstrated that they were systematic and orchestrated by state authorities with full knowledge and intent.

Furthermore, Iran’s refusal to cooperate with Austrian judicial authorities and its harboring of internationally wanted suspects constitutes a serious breach of the principle of international cooperation in combating grave transnational crimes. These actions solidify the Islamic Republic’s political and legal liability before international forums and provide the basis for:

• Targeted international sanctions;
• Legal proceedings under the principle of universal jurisdiction;
• Activation of United Nations mechanisms, including special rapporteurs and treaty bodies.
   

7. The Chain of Political Assassinations in Europe: From Vienna to Berlin

The assassination of Dr. Abdulrahman Ghassemlou and his colleagues in Vienna was not an isolated incident. It formed part of a systematic strategy of transnational repression pursued by the Islamic Republic of Iran following the end of the Iran-Iraq War. This campaign involved the physical elimination of political dissidents abroad, and was often carried out within European countries, facilitated by the silence or inaction of local security authorities. The Vienna assassination, while symbolically and politically significant, marked the beginning of a new phase of exporting political violence to the West.

● Targeted Killings in Europe After Vienna

Between 1989 and 1993, in the immediate aftermath of the Vienna killings, a wave of extraterritorial assassinations was carried out in France, Switzerland, Italy, and Germany, targeting opponents of the Islamic Republic. The victims were predominantly Kurdish political leaders, Arab dissidents, exiled cultural figures, and human rights activists.

Within five years of the Vienna assassination, the following killings occurred:

In France, five opposition leaders and activists were murdered, including:

• Dr. Seyfollah Ghazi (Central Committee member of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan),
• Karim Haki,
• Najm al-Din Sharifian,
• Hassan Arman (members of Komala).

In Italy, Mohammad Sadegh Kordestani, a Kurdish political activist, was assassinated.

In Germany, the most infamous attack occurred at the Mykonos restaurant in Berlin, where:

• Dr. Sadegh Sharafkandi, the newly appointed Secretary-General of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan,
• Fattah Abdoli,
• Homayoun Ardalan, and
• Nouri Dehkordi
•  were all shot dead.

In the same year, Fereydoun Farrokhzad, a prominent dissident intellectual and artist, was brutally murdered in Munich.

These assassinations, carried out with complete impunity, reflected a state-sanctioned policy to physically eliminate dissidents and instill fear among the Iranian diaspora. The lack of serious response from European governments directly enabled the recurrence of such crimes.

● The Consequences of Europe’s Silence: Legitimizing State Terrorism

The failure of states like Austria to pursue justice for the Vienna assassination sent a clear and dangerous signal to the Islamic Republic: political murder on European soil would be tolerated. This inaction emboldened Iran not only to continue its targeted killings, but also to use such operations as a deterrent strategy against dissidents in exile.

● State Terrorism with a Diplomatic Smile

Security officials of the Islamic Republic, using diplomatic passports and under the guise of official delegations or participation in international conferences, moved freely across European territory. Even in 2013, Sahraroudi, who was under an international arrest warrant, traveled to Geneva by official invitation and returned to Iran without being arrested.

 

8. The Families’ Testimony and Failed Justice Efforts

Following the assassination of Dr. Abdulrahman Ghassemlou and his colleagues, the victims' families—especially his wife, Hélène Krulich (Ghassemlou)—embarked on a difficult and obstructed path of legal, media, and diplomatic efforts to achieve justice, a path repeatedly blocked by the Austrian state.

● Official Complaint Against the Austrian Government

In August 1991, Hélène Ghassemlou filed a formal complaint, accusing the Austrian government of "a deliberate refusal to conduct effective criminal investigations" and of knowingly allowing the assassins to leave the country for political reasons. She also pointed to clandestine arms deals between the Austrian company Voest and the Islamic Republic during the Iran-Iraq war, arguing that such economic interests had influenced the state’s interference in the legal process.

● Court Ruling: Dismissal of the Complaint and Upholding Immunity

Austrian courts dismissed the complaint without hearing witnesses, ruling that Hélène Krulich had failed to present a claim that was “plausibly credible.” The courts also stated that crimes involving foreign state actors fell outside their jurisdiction. This ruling was later upheld by the Court of Appeal.

● The Financial Cost of Justice-Seeking

Eventually, the Austrian judiciary ordered Hélène Ghassemlou to pay 80,000 schillings in court costs. Courageously, she declared that she was prepared to go to prison as an insolvent debtor rather than pay “even a penny to a judiciary that supports state terrorism.” The authorities took no action to enforce the ruling.

● Beyond a Family’s Legal Battle

The efforts of Dr. Ghassemlou’s family were more than a private pursuit of justice—they became part of the collective memory of Iranian civil society and a living historical case within the broader record of state-sponsored assassinations by the Islamic Republic. Despite the passage of 36 years, the case remains open, urgent, and symbolic of the fight against impunity.

 

9. Legal Analysis: Impunity and Violations of International Obligations

The assassination of Dr. Abdulrahman Ghassemlou is not only a grave political and moral failure but also a clear breach of international law—including the principles of accountability, anti-terrorism obligations, and effective criminal justice procedures. In this case, two states bear legal responsibility: one as the perpetrator of the crime (the Islamic Republic of Iran), and the other as its host (Austria).

● Violation of the Prohibition on Extraterritorial Assassinations by the Islamic Republic

By organizing and carrying out a political assassination beyond its national borders, the Islamic Republic of Iran flagrantly violated the UN Charter and the fundamental principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states.
 According to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, the use of force on the territory of another state—including for political objectives—is explicitly prohibited.

In addition, Article 1 of the 1973 International Convention for the Suppression of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons (New York Convention) defines the targeted killing of foreign nationals on another country’s territory as an international crime. While Iran has not signed this convention, it remains bound by customary international law, which recognizes the illegality of such acts.

● Austria’s Breach of Its International Legal Obligations

By releasing the assassination suspects, blocking judicial proceedings, and facilitating their safe return to Iran, Austria violated core provisions of international human rights and criminal law:

• The UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, adopted in June 1989 (two months before the assassination), required Austria to conduct a prompt, impartial, and effective investigation. Austria failed to comply with any of these obligations.
• Articles 13 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) guarantee the right to legal remedy and fair trial for the relatives of victims. Austria’s obstruction of Hélène Ghassemlou’s complaint constitutes a violation of these fundamental rights.
• Under the customary international law principle of “no immunity for serious crimes”, states are obligated to deny immunity, even to foreign state officials, when the crime involves grave violations such as political assassination. Austria failed to fulfill this duty.

● Conclusion: An Open Case Under International Law

Legally, the Ghassemlou assassination remains prosecutable in a variety of international and national legal forums, including:

• The UN Human Rights Council,
• Global transitional justice mechanisms,
• Courts in third-party states exercising universal jurisdiction.

As long as the perpetrators remain shielded, this crime is subject to the principle of non-applicability of statutory limitations. The case continues to stand as an active and unresolved violation of international law.

 

10. Global Responsibility for Pursuing Justice in the Ghassemlou Assassination: Competent Institutions and Existing Legal Mechanisms

The assassination of Dr. Abdulrahman Ghassemlou and his two colleagues on Austrian soil is not a closed historical case, but rather an ongoing legal responsibility under international law. This political killing, carried out with the direct involvement of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s security apparatus, constitutes a clear case of state terrorism and a systematic violation of the right to life. More than three decades later, responsibility for ensuring justice still lies with multiple national and international institutions, and achieving accountability will require legal activation and strategic civic pressure.

1. The Republic of Austria (State Where the Crime Occurred)

Austria, as the country where the crime was committed, holds the primary legal obligation to investigate and prosecute. Based on the principle of territorial jurisdiction, the Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office opened a case in 1989, but has since suspended effective proceedings, including the execution of arrest warrants against Iranian suspects. This inaction has triggered serious legal and political criticism, and Austria remains obligated to revive the case and ensure judicial cooperation.

Austria’s continued failure to act leaves it legally accountable. Although no active prosecution has taken place for over three decades, victims’ families, Austrian civil society, and human rights groups can exert renewed pressure for reopening the case.

Austria’s Criminal Code (Section 65) allows the case to be reactivated if new evidence emerges or if a suspect enters Austrian jurisdiction.

Austria is also bound by international human rights law to effectively investigate unlawful killings on its soil. Concrete steps may include:

• Launching a civil and legal campaign inside Austria;
• Formation of a family committee or coalition of Kurdish organizations demanding formal reopening of the case.

2. Foreign Courts under the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction

Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, countries like Germany, Sweden, France, and the Netherlands are empowered to prosecute crimes such as assassination, extrajudicial killing, and crimes against humanity, even if these crimes did not occur within their territory.

Universal jurisdiction allows states to prosecute on the basis of the crime’s gravity, irrespective of the location. It has been applied in cases of torture, genocide, state-led killings, and transnational terrorism.

Several countries—including Sweden, Germany, France, and Norway—have precedent for applying this principle.

The Hamid Nouri trial in Sweden (for crimes during the 1980s prison massacres in Iran) demonstrated how Iranian nationals can be tried abroad under international criminal law, offering a realistic precedent for prosecuting perpetrators of the Ghassemlou assassination.

If a suspect such as Mohammad-Jafar Sahraroudi or Amir Mansour Bozorgian enters one of these countries, it may trigger arrest and judicial proceedings.

Practical steps:

• Documenting the case,
• Engaging international law experts,
• Rapid public reporting if suspects travel abroad.

3. INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization)

Austria has already issued international arrest warrants for the three main suspects. As a result, Red Notices have been circulated by INTERPOL. While Red Notices do not automatically mandate arrest, they facilitate international cooperation and judicial coordination across jurisdictions.

However, enforcement depends on the political and legal will of INTERPOL member states. Countries receiving a Red Notice must decide whether to act based on domestic and foreign policy priorities.

4. United Nations Mechanisms

At the international level, the United Nations offers several avenues for legal and political pursuit of this case:

• The UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Iran and the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions can frame the assassination as a case of organized state-sponsored extrajudicial killing in their annual reports, urging international action.
• The UN Human Rights Council can be called upon to establish a Fact-Finding Mission or investigation mechanism, especially with support from NGOs and cooperating states.
• The UN Human Rights Committee, under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), can hear individual complaints against Austria (for failure to prosecute) and against Iran (for perpetration of the killings).

Practical steps:

• Filing formal legal complaints on behalf of the victims’ families through legal representatives;
• Advocating with UN special procedures to include the case in country reports and thematic mandates.

 

5. European Union and Member States

On the political level, the European Union and Western governments possess powerful tools of targeted sanctions.

“Magnitsky-style sanctions regimes” in the EU, United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom allow for punitive measures—including asset freezes, travel bans, and diplomatic restrictions—against individuals responsible for gross human rights violations, including political assassinations.

With sufficient documentation of figures such as Sahraroudi, formal requests can be submitted to place them on sanctions lists.

Practical steps:

• Preparing and submitting a documented case file;
• Petitioning relevant bodies, such as the European External Action Service (EEAS), the U.S. Department of State, and Global Affairs Canada.

6. Civil Campaigns, Documentation, and Media Advocacy

None of the above mechanisms will succeed without public pressure and sustained civil society engagement.
 Human rights organizations, Kurdish community groups, and political activists must continue to:

• Document the case in detail;
• Hold international forums and events;
• Conduct media campaigns;
• Raise the case in European parliaments and institutions.

The assassination of Dr. Abdulrahman Ghassemlou is not merely a historical injustice, but a living symbol of systemic impunity granted to the Islamic Republic for its cross-border crimes. Pursuing this case is both a legal and moral obligation, achievable only through a strategic combination of legal advocacy, civic pressure, targeted sanctions, and international coordination.

If pursued with determination and strategy, this case can revive hope for justice, and serve as a precedent-setting model for dismantling state impunity for extraterritorial human rights violations worldwide.

 

11. The Assassination of Dr. Ghassemlou and His Colleagues: An Open Case in International Law; A Clear Example of a Crime Not Subject to Statutory Limitation

The case of the assassination of Dr. Abdulrahman Ghassemlou, after 36 years, has neither been closed nor become time-barred under international law. According to accepted legal principles in international human rights law and international criminal law, crimes such as extrajudicial killings, state terrorism, and the systematic violation of the right to life are not subject to statutory limitation due to their grave and transnational nature.

Legal basis for “non-applicability of statutory limitation” in this case:

• Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity (1968): This convention states that “no time limit shall apply to the prosecution and punishment of war crimes and crimes against humanity, regardless of the date of their commission.”
• International and domestic judicial precedents: Courts in European countries such as Germany, France, Sweden, and Spain have, based on the principle of universal jurisdiction and non-applicability of statutory limitation, prosecuted many cases related to torture, extrajudicial killings, and political assassinations from the 1970s and 1980s in later decades.
• Human rights instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): The right to life, enshrined in Article 6 of this covenant, is protected from violation, and any organized killing constitutes a fundamental breach of this right. Since the Islamic Republic has never prosecuted the perpetrators, this violation remains ongoing.
• The principle of continuing crime: As long as the perpetrators of the assassination remain under official protection of a government—neither prosecuted, nor tried, nor punished—the crime is ongoing. Therefore, starting the clock for limitation is essentially meaningless.
•  

12. Specific Demands to the International Community, Austria, and Human Rights Institutions

• The official reopening of the Vienna assassination case by the Austrian government, based on the substantial body of evidence and existing eyewitness testimonies.
• Reissuance and activation of international arrest warrants for Mohammad-Jafar Sahraroudi, Mostafa Ajoudi, and Amir Bozorgian (a.k.a. Ghafoor Darjazani).
• Appointment of a Special Rapporteur by the UN Human Rights Council to investigate the Islamic Republic of Iran’s extraterritorial assassinations, with the Ghassemlou case as a symbolic and representative example.
• An end to European appeasement policies toward the Islamic Republic in regard to political crimes committed in exile.
• A formal guarantee from the Austrian government to uphold the principle of non-repetition and to provide official compensation to the families of the victims.
• Effective support from international human rights institutions and Iranian civil society networks for the justice campaign related to this case, recognizing it as part of collective memory and transitional justice.

Thirty-six years after the brutal assassination of Dr. Abdulrahman Ghassemlou, Abdullah Qaderi-Azar, and Fazil Rasoul in the heart of Europe, none of the perpetrators or masterminds has been effectively prosecuted. The Islamic Republic of Iran has not only refused to acknowledge responsibility, but has promoted some of the direct perpetrators to official and diplomatic positions. Conversely, Austria, as the host state of the assassination, through negligence and appeasement, has enabled the continued cycle of impunity for state-sponsored terrorism.

The assassination of Dr. Ghassemlou is not only a matter of historical injustice; it remains a legally open case and a persistent legal wound. The international community, the Austrian government, and third-country courts continue to bear both legal and moral responsibility to act.

This case is no longer a private grievance or a mere historical incident; it has become a symbol of delayed justice and a test of European states’ commitment to human rights principles.
 The crime in Vienna will only end when the truth is formally recognized, justice is served, and impunity is dismantled.

A list of Persian and English sources on the assassination of Dr. Abdulrahman Ghassemlou will follow, including:

Persian Sources:

1. https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/عبدالرحمان_قاسملو
2. https://www.iranrights.org/fa/memorial/story/30421/abdol-rahman-qasemlu-ghassemlou
3. https://www.iranrights.org/fa/newsletter/issue/53
4. https://peshmergekan.com/?p=48641
5. https://www.radiofarda.com/a/f35_Qasemlou_20_Years_Afetr_Hejri/1776675.html
6. https://old.iranintl.com/ایران/قاسملو؛-رهبری-که-با-حذف-فیزیکی-از-خاطره‌ها-نرفت
7. https://www.radiozamaneh.com/288103/
8. https://www.dw.com/fa-ir/iran/a-49526051
9. https://kurdpa.net/fa/news/روزنامه‌ی-دی-پرس-ترور-دکتر-قاسملو-را-فصل-تاریک-تاریخ-اتریش-توصیف-کرد
10. https://www.cafetarikh.com/news/48674/رازهای-ترور-قاسملو-آیا-پای-صدام-میان
11. https://peshmergekan.com/?p=28406
12. https://www.tudehpartyiran.org/2013/07/15/به-مناسبت-سالروزِ-جنایت-هولناک-ترورِ-د/
13. https://kurdistanmedia.com/fa/news/2023/06/139
14. https://www.avatoday.net/fa/node/5527
15. https://kurdpa.net/fa/news/دکتر-قاسملو-رهبری-کوردستانی-و-اخلاق‌مدار-در-سیاست
16. https://www.kurdipedia.org/default.aspx?lng=11&q=20160913105900133950
17. https://iranwire.com/fa/features/108070
18. https://iranhrdc.org/report-ghassemlou-assassination-in-vienna/
19. https://1946.blogfa.com/post/194
20. https://kar-online.com/به-مناسبت-بیستمین-سالگرد-ترور-دکتر-قاس/
21. https://kurdpa.net/fa/news/rmmk-به-کارگیری-ابزار-ترور-و-خشونت-از-سوی-دولت-علیه-مردم-محکوم-است
22. English-Language and International Sources:
23. https://theinsightinternational.com/mismas/articles/misc2012/7/irankurd868.htm
24. https://iranhrdc.org/report-ghassemlou-assassination-in-vienna/
25. https://pdki.org/english/demanding-accountability-for-the-assassination-of-dr-ghassemlou-and-abdullah-ghaderi-azar/
26. https://pdki.org/english/statement-on-the-35th-anniversary-of-the-assassination-of-dr-a-r-ghassemlou/
27. https://pdki.org/english/gathering-in-brussels-to-demand-justice-in-the-case-of-dr-ghassemlous-assassination/
28. https://www.change.org/p/the-austrian-government-and-the-european-parliament-petition-re-open-the-murder-case-of-dr-ghassemlou-2
29. https://kurdpa.net/en/news/new-document-reveals-that-the-us-was-aware-of-the-assassination-of-kurdish-leader-dr-abdulrahman-ghassemlou
30. https://theinsightinternational.com/mismas/articles/misc2009/7/irankurdistan488.htm
31. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_Ghassemlou
32. https://www.kurdishlobbyaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Why-and-Why-Not-In-commemoration-of-Ghassemlou-1930-1989.pdf
33. https://english.alarabiya.net/features/2018/03/11/From-Ghassemlou-to-Qaderi-Iran-s-history-of-assassinating-its-Kurdish-opposition
34. https://anfenglishmobile.com/features/thirty-years-ago-the-murder-of-dr-abdul-rahman-ghassemlou-36229
35. https://www.pdk-iran.org/english/doc/kasemlu.htm

 

Prepared by: Awin Mostafazadeh