The tragic missile strike by the United States on Kouhestak, which until yesterday was regarded in some circles as a disputed issue between Tehran and Washington, has now been settled by an independent UN-affiliated fact-finding body. After examining evidence and information it described as “credible,” the United Nations fact-finding committee announced that a US airstrike on a house in the city of Kouhestak, Hormozgan Province, on September 1, while a wedding ceremony was taking place there, killed five civilians, including two children and a woman, and injured dozens of others. The finding marks a turning point in the case, as it elevates the issue from the level of political claims to that of a documented legal finding.
Nevertheless, Washington’s official position remains that “the matter is under review.” This gap between the findings of a UN fact-finding body and the cautious language of the US government raises a fundamental question for the international legal order: If justice is delayed even after the truth has been established, what purpose were international mechanisms designed to serve? Kouhestak is now a test of the credibility of international law.
Under international law, fact-finding is not the end of the process; it is the beginning of accountability. UN fact-finding missions are established precisely to document realities on the ground and create the basis for legal follow-up and accountability. The latest report is significant in exactly this context. When an independent body states that, based on credible information, a military strike killed civilians, the matter can no longer be reduced simply to competing narratives.
International humanitarian law contains clear principles in this regard. The principle of distinction between military targets and civilians, the principle of proportionality in the use of force, and the principle of precaution in military operations are among the most fundamental rules of the law of war. If an attack results in the deaths of civilians at a wedding ceremony, these principles must necessarily become the subject of judicial investigation and legal assessment, rather than merely an internal administrative review by the accused government. No country, regardless of its military power or political standing, should be immune from such questions.
One of the greatest harms inflicted on the international system in recent decades has been the selective application of justice. In the case of some countries, fact-finding committees or commissions, special rapporteurs, courts and sanctions are activated swiftly; but when major powers are involved, the language of law gives way to the language of expediency. Kouhestak must not become a victim of this double standard.
If the world’s legal institutions want to preserve their credibility, they must apply the same standards to the United States that they apply to other governments. This means that a transparent, independent and impartial process should be initiated to determine responsibility, examine the chain of command, assess the legality of the operation and hold those responsible accountable. Justice has meaning only when it is not subordinate to power.
This case is not only about Iran. If an attack on a wedding ceremony, particularly after being confirmed by a UN fact-finding body, is left without effective legal follow-up, its message to the world will extend far beyond Iran’s borders: that some governments are effectively immune from accountability and that international law is not applied equally to all.
Washington will likely argue that it is conducting its own internal investigation. But a domestic investigation can never replace an international investigation and legal follow-up. The experience of many contemporary conflicts has shown that public trust is built when investigations are independent, transparent and verifiable, rather than conducted within the political considerations of a government involved in the conflict.
Responsibility now falls on a range of international institutions: the Human Rights Council, judicial mechanisms related to international humanitarian law, special rapporteurs, and all bodies entrusted with protecting civilian lives. Their inherent duty is neither to side with Iran nor to confront the United States; their duty is to defend the fundamental principle that civilian lives have equal value everywhere in the world. The child killed in Kouhestak was neither American nor Iranian; above all, the child was a civilian. That fact alone is sufficient to trigger legal responsibility.
Today, the main question is no longer what happened in Kouhestak; the UN fact-finding report has answered an important part of that question. The central question is whether the world has the will to turn the truth into justice. If the answer is no, the damage will not be confined to the victims of Kouhestak; the credibility of the entire international legal order will be wounded. Justice has meaning only when it does not fall silent in the face of power; and silence in the face of an established truth is nothing less than complicity in injustice.
NOURNEWS