چکیده:
On November 27, 2020, Dr. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, one of Iran's most prominent nuclear scientists and head of the ministry of defense's research and innovation organization, was assassinated near Tehran and achieved the grace of martyrdom. Given that the assassination of Martyr Fakhrizadeh took place outside the framework of an armed conflict during peacetime, it is a clear example of the use of lethal force in peacetime and the arbitrary deprivation of the right to life. Accordingly, the question of the paper is what is the nature of the targeted assassination of this nuclear scientist from the perspective of the rules of IHRL and IHL? In order to reach the answer, the research studied the issue by a descriptive-analytical method and in the framework of the international IHRL and IHL regimes, collecting valid and credible documents through documents and libraries and referring to the materials published in reputable international think tanks. The findings show that this assassination is in objective contradiction with the rules of IHRL and IHL regimes, therefore violates the most obvious principles and rules of this legal regime, including the arbitrary deprivation of the right to life, which has led to extrajudicial killings.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Given that the assassination of Martyr Fakhrizadeh occurred outside the framework of an armed conflict and during peacetime, it is a clear example of the use of lethal force in peacetime and is considered an arbitrary deprivation of the right to life.
The findings show that this assassination is objectively inconsistent with the rules of international law in general and international humanitarian law and human rights law in particular, and therefore violates the most basic principles and rules of these legal regimes, including the arbitrary deprivation of the right to life, which has led to extrajudicial killing.
117) The death penalty under human rights conventions and also according to general international law is the only case where the death of an individual may be the goal or end of an action, therefore in any other context, killing with a direct first-degree intent is not allowed.
3. targeted killing The United States and Israel have entered the literature of international human rights and humanitarian law as a justification for fighting terrorism and current asymmetric wars (Lesani & Monfared, 1396: 246).
” According to a report by the United Nations Human Rights Council regarding the study of targeted killing on May 28, 2010, this concept is defined as “the intentional, pre-determined, and lethal use of force by governments or organized armed groups against specific individuals who are not physically in the custody of the perpetrators (executors of targeted killing)” (.
(
, 
, 
)
