On May 7, 2023, the Iranian group “Ghiam ta Sarnegouni” declared control over 210 websites, software apps, servers, and databases belonging to Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They are releasing documents gradually, revealing cooperation between the ministry and intelligence agencies to discredit the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) using false information.
The documents obtained offer undeniable proof of the Iranian regime’s deep fear of its primary opposition, the MEK. Multiple ministries actively work towards discrediting and opposing the organization. The “political committee” within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs consistently devises strategies to counter the MEK and hinder its global endeavors. One such strategy involves pushing for the MEK’s blacklisting in the European Union to impede their activities.
Within this document, the “political committee” has conducted a comprehensive assessment of the available legal avenues. Subsequent to this meticulous examination, the committee has arrived at the definitive determination that it is unfeasible to undertake the reclassification of the MEK within the European Union’s list of terrorist organizations by means of the existing legal framework.
This outcome stems from the fact that the legal approach necessitates the submission of supporting documentation highlighting the organization’s involvement in acts of terrorism, which the MEK has not committed.
Consequently, the sole recourse to pursue the reintroduction of the MEK into the EU’s list lies in political mechanisms, contingent upon the support and cooperation of a benevolent European nation.
As for the political approach, the documents reveal how Tehran fears that their attempts to re-include the MEK in the list of foreign terrorist organizations can fail, “given the current political situation, it is a challenging task.”
This once again proves how the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism tried to use political leverage to have its dissidents blacklisted, justifying the regime’s crimes against them.
Considering the MEK as its viable alternative and a serious threat, the Iranian regime squandered billions of dollars of people’s wealth to demonize the organization and include them in the blacklists of European countries.
The terrorist designation of the MEK was a baseless and unjustified designation that granted the regime unrestricted freedom to target the organization and its members, both within and outside of Iran.
Following extensive investigations and the examination of numerous documents during a protracted legal struggle, courts in the European Union and the United States revoked the terrorist designation imposed on the MEK. These decisions compelled their respective governments to recognize that the organization is, in fact, a victim of Iran’s terrorist regime.
Below is a translated excerpt from an MFA document on the regime’s news effort to counter the MEK:
Obstacles and solutions ahead regarding relisting the MEK on the European Union’s terrorist list.
As listing the hypocrites [a derogatory term Tehran uses to refer to the MEK] on the terrorist list of the European Union is seen as a way to restrict the group’s activities, this report seeks to analyze the political and legal barriers to this action and assess potential solutions going forward.
Obstacles ahead
- Legal barriers
The mechanism used by the European Union to designate individuals and groups as terrorists.
As per the regulations mentioned above, either Iran or one of the EU member states must formally request the inclusion of the MEK on the terrorist list to the Secretariat of the Council of Ministers of the European Union. If Iran intends to submit such a request by itself, it must follow three steps:
The first step would be to provide the required documents that demonstrate the group’s conviction based on the principle of fair trial with the right to defend themselves in a competent court of law within their country.
The second step involves providing the necessary documents demonstrating the MEK’s involvement in terrorist activities after their removal from the list in 2009. This is because, after the MEK’s removal from the EU terrorist list in 2009, France had raised objections to the court’s decision. However, the court’s justification was based on the fact that the MEK had not committed any criminal acts in the preceding year.
The third step involves the requirement of presenting Iran’s definition of terrorism to the MEK after their conviction. This necessitates that the trial be based on Iran’s anti-terrorism law.
- Political and legal obstacles
If Iran has not prosecuted the MEK within its borders according to the criteria set forth by the European Union, and if it has not produced compelling evidence of terrorist acts, particularly since the MEK’s removal from the EU list in 2009, then the process of reinstating the MEK on the EU’s terrorist list cannot be carried out in accordance with the law.
Based on examining the dates of the MEK’s inclusion and subsequent removal from the European Union’s terrorist list, it can be inferred that political factors played a role in these determinations.
Based on the current tense relationship between Iran and the European Union regarding the JCPOA, it appears unlikely that the MEK will be added to the EU’s terrorist list due to the political climate.
Two solutions
The most effective approach would be for a European country to take action, as was done in 2002.
Two solutions currently exist for re-including the MEK in the terrorist list of the European Union, which require the provision of necessary legal frameworks and political conditions.
As there is currently a lack of necessary legal frameworks within Iran, the most viable option for re-including the MEK in the terrorist list of the European Union is for a European country to take action, as was done in 2002. At present, the case of this group is being pursued by private plaintiffs in France, and if this case concludes with a conviction, it may lead to the group’s re-inclusion in the EU’s terrorist list1. However, given the current political situation, it is a challenging task.
The second approach entails establishing legal frameworks internally and gathering the necessary documents and evidence requested by the European Union concerning the MEK from the appropriate authorities. This would enable the MEK to be relisted on the EU’s terrorist list through political consultations and legal measures once the political conditions have been met.
Department of European Institutions – August 3, 2020
A recent setback for the regime
The Iranian regime launched a demonization campaign targeting the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and MEK, filing multiple complaints in France to criminalize the movement. Extensive resources and funds were allocated to this effort. Documents obtained from legal proceedings reveal high-ranking officials, including the General Prosecutor, actively involved in fabricating a substantial dossier. This included forging documents, including testimonies attributed to individuals the regime had executed over 30 years ago, to support their false claims.
The Iranian regime filed a total of six complaints, accusing the MEK of various alleged terrorist acts. However, after extensive investigations, three of these complaints were dismissed due to a lack of evidence. The cases were found to be so absurd that the investigative judge did not even deem it necessary to request clarifications from the NCRI/MEK.
Later, the investigative judge, with the prosecutor’s agreement, dismissed all the cases, but the clerical regime and its agents lodged appeals against the decisions.
On April 5, 2023, the Paris Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals. The court noted that between 2003 and 2009, the President of the investigative judge of the Paris Court received five private complaints from Iranian individuals who claimed to be victims or relatives of attacks or assassinations attributed to the MEK. The ruling also mentioned that the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security asserted twice that the perpetrators of those attacks were present in France but failed to provide substantial evidence or reasoning to support their claims.
The ruling also highlights testimonies provided by NCRI officials, exposing the regime’s fabrications and false statements made by its agents. Among the witnesses presented by the regime was an individual involved in the assassination of Dr. Kazem Rajavi in Geneva. Additionally, the regime claimed that the alleged attacks were planned by France, but the court concluded that after examining the documents provided by Iran, there was no evidence to support the notion that any attack was orchestrated by France.