(a) The court distinguishes between an early phase that covered among other things the

attack on the embassy by the militants the overrunning of its premises the seizure of
its inmates as hostages the appropriation of its property and achieves and the
conduct of the Iranian authorities in the face of those occurrences and a subsequent
phase that commenced when the occupation of the premises was a reality. it was
only in the latter phase that the activities of the demonstration could be attributed
to the Iranian government. Why was it not the case with regard to the first phase?
A state is only responsible for acts or omissions which can be attributed to it for any organ,
agency official employee or other agents of its government or any subdivision acting within
the scope of their employment.therefor a state is not responsible for the acts commited by
one of its nationals acting in his private capacity against a foreigner. In the first phase, we
can see that the militants attacked the US embassy which was carried out on 4 November
1979 and they did not receive any order from the Iranian government authorities to the
militants to do what they actually did and that there was no link between the militants and
any organ of the state. Therefor the court held that the iran was not responsible for the
acts of militant as they were not the agents of the iran country in that they did it
independently and unofficially.

(b)how could Iran violate its obligations under international law during the first phase of
the assault on the embassy if the Iranian government was not internationally responsible
for the acts of the demonstrators
In as much as the initiative of storming the US embassy was done by individuals who did that without
involving the Iranian government , the Iranian government is still held liable since it violated
international law obligation under international law for failing in its own duty to protect the embassy. In
that the court accepted that in principle a state could be held liable for genocide through the acts of its
functionaries, such as soldiers and police forces.

This can be seen during the three hours attack of the US embassy the Iranian authority did not in the
first place secure the embassy and also the police officers of the uranian government did not intervene
to stop it yet they had the capacity to ensure safety in the country.In the case of yeager v Iran ,’
revolutionary guards’ had caused the unlawful expulsion of the plaintiff from iran.The tribunal found, as
a fact , and relying on the original ILC draft articles that these acts were attributable to iran , especially
ince iran could not prove that it was unable to control the guards had it wished to do so . In other words,
iran could have avoided the attribution of the guards’ actions had it been able to show a bona fide
reputation of those acts, coupled with genuine attempt to avert them. Which is the same case in USA V
IRAN in that the iran authority police did not in any way perform their obligations in as much as they had
the power to ensure safety of the US embassy by either stopping the mob from attacking US the
embassy as it was done during broad daylight .

Therefor the Iranian state violated article 22 2 of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations which
states that “ the receiving state Is under a special duty to take all appropriate step to protect the
premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any ditrurbance of the peace of
the mission or impairment of it dignity” which is clearly seen when the police officers did not stop the
mob and did not make any effort of protecting the US embassy.

Also the uranian government went against article 29 of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations
which clearly states” the receiving state shall treat him with due respect and take all appropriate steps
to prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity” and in this case the Iranian government held US
diplomats as hostages.

(c)why did the court conclude that Iran was internationally responsible for the activities that took
place during the second phase? which provision in the ILCs articles on state responsibility is of
relevance

A state may be internationally responsible for the activities of individuals or groups in respect of acts or
omissions taking place within its own territory, in instances where harm is caused to a foreign national.
In that a state may be responsible in its own right for failing to prevent individuals or groups using its
territory to commit wrongful acts against foreigners within the territory.

During the second phase the court held the Iranian authoritys inability to secure the premises violated
irans responsibility under the two Vienna conventions and the bilateral trearty of the 1955 that the
militants became agents of the state which itself became responsible for their acts.

The Iranian government had the responsibility to restore consulates Tabriz and Shiraz to US control and
to also reestablish the status quo and also be liable for the damage they caused . in this case the Iranian
embassy did not make any step to but consulated Tabriz and Shiraz and also took over the US embassy
by holding a total of sixty six hostages and nine managed to escape with the help of the Canadian
diplomat who they held hostage for four hundred and forty four days .

The Taking over of the US embassy was supported by Ayatellah Khomeini who was the Iranian religious
by claiming that the embassy as a ‘”US center of plots and espionage “ and members of the diplomatic
staff as “US mercenaries and spies “ in as much as the Iranian university students stormed the embassy
to get the attention of the US and they did not have the intention of keeping the hostages made him an
agent of the iranian government .

Thereafter the uranian government took over the embassy and kept the hostages until the US was to
hand over the former Shah for trial although they knew they were going to execute him as they saw
him as not being an uranian but as he was the US puppet as he allowed the US to get uraniun oil at a
very cheap and he never questioned the US.

Some women were released and some African American men on the grounds that the African American
were seen as the oppressed minorities and they had a soft spot for women and they were not spies and
the rest were not released.

The acts turned out to be acts of the state on the ground that Ayatollah Khomeini and other state
organs of iran approved the acts of the militants and even supported the taking over of the US embassy
and holding the hostages also the militants invadided the US embassy and being in charge of holding of
the hostages they became agents of the iran government as they were acting on their behalf .

The court had ordered the Iranian government on 15 December 1979 indicating provisional measures,
which called for the immediate restoration of the Embassy to the United States and the release of the
hostages, and which was publicly rejected by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. This was later on the
following day ignored by all Iranian authorities. Also in the letters by the Iranian foreign affairs minister
where he blamed the US government for various criminal actions against their government it was clear
that he was trying to say that they were revenging or taking advantage of the actions and way paying
back but the court said that this issue had to be proved to establish whether it was true or not. Also
when they were called upon to appear in court the minister did not show up

which provision in the ILCs articles on state responsibility is of relevance.

Article 8 Conduct directed or controlled by a State The conduct of a person or group of persons shall
be considered an act of a State under international law if the person or group of persons is in fact
acting on the instructions of, or under the direction or control of, that State in carrying out the
conduct.

Article 11 Conduct acknowledged and adopted by a State as its own Conduct which is not attributable
to a State under the preceding articles shall nevertheless be considered an act of that State under
international law if and to the extent that the State acknowledges and adopts the conduct in question
as its own