In the mountains that have for years become an arena of security and ideological rivalries, a lesser-seen reality is repeating itself: the enforced disappearance of Iranian Kurdish citizens within the mechanisms of armed groups.
Data compiled by the Iranian Kurdistan Human Rights Watch, comprising more than 800 documented cases, indicates that this phenomenon is not an exception but a persistent pattern – a pattern that simultaneously challenges the fundamental rights of individuals, the credibility of local actors, and the effectiveness of international institutions.
What distinguishes these cases from scattered incidents is their legal nature. According to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, depriving an individual of their liberty followed by a refusal to disclose information about their fate or whereabouts constitutes enforced disappearance – conduct that, if organized, can rise to the level of a crime against humanity.
In many of the cases under review, individuals – often adolescents and young adults – after being recruited or abducted, are deprived of any contact with their families and held in a closed structure where they are subjected to various forms of torture and abuse, with no possibility of independent oversight.
Groups such as PJAK, Komala, the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, and PAK have long presented themselves as political actors, but field evidence points to a serious gap between rhetoric and practice.
These groups not only face persistent allegations of forced recruitment and the use of underage individuals, but in numerous instances have also completely severed members' ties with their families – a situation that effectively places them under "absolute control."
Such control, in human rights terminology, is a clear indicator of enforced disappearance and a violation of the right to family life. This contradiction becomes even more striking when one examines the formal commitments of these groups themselves. Several of these groups, within the framework of international mechanisms – including their declared commitments to Geneva Call – have accepted and pledged to refrain from using children in armed conflicts and to end gender-based violence. This implies that, at the time of signing the commitments, they acknowledged, based on submitted documentation, the practice of these inhumane acts.
These commitments are recognized in contemporary international humanitarian law as "accepted standards of conduct."
The persistence of reports concerning the recruitment of adolescents, the enforced detention of individuals, and the restriction of contact with the outside world shows that these commitments have either not been implemented or are being selectively ignored.
Under such circumstances, the issue is no longer merely a human rights violation, but rather the delegitimization of voluntary mechanisms designed to regulate the conduct of armed groups.
Responsibility for this situation does not lie solely with the armed groups. The government of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI), as an authority exercising effective control over parts of this geography, cannot cite political complexities as a justification for inaction. The visible presence of bases and the free movement of members of these groups in some areas raise the question of whether the commitment to prevent the use of territory for harmful actions against nationals of other states is being seriously enforced. In international law, "knowing inaction" in the face of such activities can give rise to international responsibility.
At a higher level, the central government of Iraq faces a similar challenge. Allowing semi-independent armed structures to form within official borders not only undermines national sovereignty but also conflicts with the country's obligations under foundational instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Effective border control and the prevention of the forced movement of individuals are the minimum expectations of a member state of the international community.
Meanwhile, Iran's diplomatic apparatus cannot content itself with general statements. Effective protection of nationals requires the pursuit of specific cases through bilateral and multilateral mechanisms, as well as the use of tools such as international notices, judicial cooperation, and targeted diplomatic pressure. Without transforming these cases into a "continuous legal demand," the likelihood of the current situation persisting will remain high.
But perhaps the most serious gap is seen at the level of international institutions. The silence or neglect of institutions that consider themselves global defenders of human rights risks creating a double standard – where certain violations are less visible due to political complexities or ideological image-making. If mechanisms such as the dispatch of independent fact-finding missions or access for bodies like the International Committee of the Red Cross to detention sites are not provided, the concept of international oversight will be effectively hollowed out.
Ultimately, the issue goes beyond statistics and reports. Enforced disappearance is the gradual erasure of a person from the legal and social sphere – a situation in which the individual is deprived not only of liberty but also of the "capacity to be known." Ending this cycle requires clear minimum measures: disclosure of lists of individuals held, guarantees of contact with families, an end to forced recruitment – especially of children – and acceptance of independent oversight. Without such measures, any claim of fighting for freedom will remain in stark contradiction with on-the-ground reality.
Justice in these cases will be found not in statements but in the return of individuals who have for years been kept in a state of suspension between being and non-being. This is the point where international law, politics, and ethics – if they are to have any meaning – must converge.
By Mahdi Maleki – International Relations Expert