مرکز امور حقوقی بین المللی ریاست جمهوری- مدیریت علمی و پژوهشی مجله حقوقی بین المللی 2251-614X 43 شماره 81 (بهار) 2026 04 21 From Symbolism to War Crime: Legal Analysis of the Evin Prison Attack under International Humanitarian Law From Symbolism to War Crime: Legal Analysis of the Evin Prison Attack under International Humanitarian Law 357 385 733543 10.22066/cilamag.2026.2071811.2825 FA Mahin Sobhani Assistant Professor, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran 0000-0002-5871-6242 Amirmasoud Pourmousa M.A. in Criminal Law & Criminology, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran. 0009-0004-0550-300X Journal Article 2025 09 16 In June 2025, Israeli airstrikes on Evin Prison in Tehran killed more than 80 civilians, including detainees, staff, and visiting family members. The attack provoked strong international condemnation, notably from France, due to its civilian toll and the absence of a credible military justification. The present article examines the strike's legality under international humanitarian law (IHL), with particular emphasis on the principles of distinction and proportionality as codified in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. Using a descriptive-analytical approach, this paper argues that the Evin attack lacked a legitimate military objective and violated the fundamental requirement of Article 48 to distinguish between civilian and military targets. Israel’s claim of “symbolic” intent falls short of IHL standards and highlights the absence of lawful military necessity. While detention facilities may, in some contexts, be misused as human shields, no such justification existed in this case. The strike appears politically and psychologically motivated, potentially amounting to acts of terror against civilians. In accordance with Article 8 of the Rome Statute and relevant IHL instruments, the attack constitutes a war crime due to breaching the principles of proportionality and distinction. Rigorous legal analysis and comprehensive documentation are essential to advancing individual criminal responsibility, including through mechanisms such as universal jurisdiction. In June 2025, Israeli airstrikes on Evin Prison in Tehran killed more than 80 civilians, including detainees, staff, and visiting family members. The attack provoked strong international condemnation, notably from France, due to its civilian toll and the absence of a credible military justification. The present article examines the strike's legality under international humanitarian law (IHL), with particular emphasis on the principles of distinction and proportionality as codified in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. Using a descriptive-analytical approach, this paper argues that the Evin attack lacked a legitimate military objective and violated the fundamental requirement of Article 48 to distinguish between civilian and military targets. Israel’s claim of “symbolic” intent falls short of IHL standards and highlights the absence of lawful military necessity. While detention facilities may, in some contexts, be misused as human shields, no such justification existed in this case. The strike appears politically and psychologically motivated, potentially amounting to acts of terror against civilians. In accordance with Article 8 of the Rome Statute and relevant IHL instruments, the attack constitutes a war crime due to breaching the principles of proportionality and distinction. Rigorous legal analysis and comprehensive documentation are essential to advancing individual criminal responsibility, including through mechanisms such as universal jurisdiction. https://www.cilamag.ir/article_733543_8042f6ad54be3345ee6cad55c3690dcc.pdf