• In a normal investigation only a request for an international criminal probe could be made to Iranian officials. But the judicial investigators in the case were prohibited for two substantive reasons. In the first place, because the Iranian government injected into the French case numerous items in an attempt to hammer down its terrorist depiction of its principal opponents. In that case, what value could the items entering the case as such possibly have? In the second place, because the request for cooperation by France, in the absence of a joint agreement between the two countries, could necessarily turn out to be a bilateral cooperation in principle, while no reciprocation could take place. In reality, if the Iranian government had relied on the principle of reciprocation to request access to the items within the current case, it would have been rebuffed due to the persistent implementation of the death sentence in Iran especially against PMOI members. In addition, since numerous items have been collected about the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the PMOI, and the National Liberation Army, and in general about the Iranian regime’s opponents, obvious security imperatives could not have been overlooked.
In another part of the ruling of the investigative judges about the imperative of dismissing the terrorist accusation, it has been stated:
• The defense lawyers have specifically noted that at present there are no longer any investigations about the presumed aspects of terrorism in this case. … In so far as the request by the defense attorneys relates in some way to the terrorist description, it would be legitimate since most of the people concerned have been under investigation since 2003 but there have been no instances of terrorism about the events under investigation since that time.
• It does not appear that international law is a definitive source for the definition of terrorism. … But it is evident that the French definition of terrorism cannot underpin the prohibition of actions that are consistent with the fundamental and essential right of resistance against tyranny. … The question is whether the actions under review aim at frightening or terrorizing the general population, or whether they aim at frightening and terrorizing a state in a bid to compel it to abandon its practice of terrorizing or frightening its own people? If the latter is the case, then one is clearly talking about resistance against tyranny.
• There is no evidence in this case pointing to armed action deliberately targeting civilians.
• More concretely, this investigation shows that dismissing the terrorist description will lead to a complete end of prosecution of those individuals who were solely accused of terrorism as well as to the judicial restrictions imposed on them.