In June 2025, Israeli airstrikes on Evin Prison in Tehran killed more than eighty civilians, including detainees, staff members, and family visitors. The sheer scale of the casualties immediately attracted international attention. The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued one of the strongest condemnations, denouncing the attack as a clear violation of international humanitarian law (IHL) and calling for accountability through international mechanisms. Other states and human rights organisations echoed similar concerns, noting not only the high civilian toll but also the absence of any credible military justification. These reactions placed the Evin incident among the most controversial uses of force in recent years, comparable to earlier debates surrounding the Dubrava, Olenivka, and Gaza prison strikes. This article examines the legality of the Evin strike under IHL, with particular emphasis on the principles of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity as codified in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. The principle of distinction, articulated in Article 48, obliges belligerents to distinguish at all times between civilians and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives. Any attack that deliberately or recklessly targets civilians, or civilian infrastructure without military necessity, violates this cardinal rule. Proportionality, set out in Articles 51 and 57, further restricts attacks that may cause incidental civilian harm that is excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. Together, these principles form the cornerstone of IHL’s protective regime.



Adopting a descriptive–analytical approach and drawing on comparative case studies, the article argues that the Evin attack failed to meet these fundamental requirements. Unlike cases where prisons were alleged to house enemy combatants, arms depots, or command structures—however contested such claims may have been—no such justification has been advanced with respect to Evin. Israeli officials openly described the strike as “symbolic,” a characterisation unprecedented in the jurisprudence of armed conflict. Symbolic targeting strips away the conventional veil of military necessity, revealing an intent that is psychological or political rather than operational. In doing so, it collapses the protective boundary between military and civilian objects and approaches conduct explicitly prohibited by Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I, which forbids acts of terror against the civilian population.



The article also considers potential counter-arguments. It is conceivable, though unsubstantiated, that Israeli planners suspected intelligence operations being conducted from within Evin against Israeli interests, or that the strike carried a retaliatory motive in response to Iran’s prior missile attack on Israeli territory in April 2025. Yet, crucially, Israel itself has not invoked these rationales. In the absence of any articulated military objective, the strike remains anchored in its symbolic characterisation, setting Evin apart from other prison bombings in recent armed conflicts. This absence of military necessity is decisive: under Article 52(2) of Additional Protocol I, only objects which by their nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to military action may be considered lawful targets. Evin Prison, as struck in June 2025, does not meet this test. The humanitarian implications are stark. The majority of those killed were detainees without freedom of movement, who cannot plausibly be characterised as voluntary human shields. Under IHL, involuntary human shields retain full civilian protection, and their deaths cannot be justified based on military advantage. The targeting of a detention facility for political messaging, therefore, represents a particularly acute violation, compounding the vulnerability of an already protected population. The strike on Evin constitutes a war crime under Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Specifically, it falls within the prohibition on intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects and on launching disproportionate attacks causing excessive civilian loss. The absence of military necessity, coupled with the explicitly symbolic rationale, strengthens the case for criminal liability. While accountability mechanisms in such contexts face substantial political obstacles, the principle of universal jurisdiction provides a pathway for states to prosecute individuals responsible, regardless of their nationality or the location where the crime was committed.



The article concludes that rigorous legal analysis and systematic documentation are indispensable for advancing accountability. By presenting, for the first time, a schematic depiction of Evin Prison with located strike sites based on satellite imagery, the study contributes to both the factual and legal record. Such documentation may assist future proceedings before international tribunals or domestic courts exercising universal jurisdiction. More broadly, the Evin case highlights the dangers of symbolic targeting in modern warfare: it erodes the distinction between civilians and combatants, undermines respect for IHL, and risks normalising attacks whose primary purpose is political theatre rather than military necessity. In sum, the Evin Prison attack represents a turning point in the discourse on the legality of targeting detention facilities during armed conflict. Its uniquely symbolic character, combined with the absence of any credible military justification, renders it a clear violation of IHL. By situating the incident within broader comparative practice and illustrating its spatial dimensions through original cartographic evidence, the article not only strengthens the case for accountability but also underscores the urgent need to reaffirm the protective norms at the heart of international humanitarian law.