Holding Iran accountable for shooting down PS752

On January 8, 2020, Ukraine International Airlines flight PS752 was shot down by Iranian military forces near Tehran. There were 176 people on board, citizens of at least ten countries, most Canadian and Ukrainian. The plane was hit by two anti-aircraft missiles shortly after takeoff while in civilian airspace. Iran initially denied any involvement in the tragedy, citing technical problems. Still, under pressure from open-source evidence and the international community, it admitted to “human error” in the actions of the air defense unit.

This essay aims to comprehensively analyze the mechanisms for holding Iran accountable for the downing of PS752, both in criminal, civil, and interstate dimensions. We will consider the following key issues:

• The factual circumstances and chronology of events that influenced the investigation;
• The role of Iranian military justice and the issue of transparency of criminal proceedings.
• Civil legal compensation available to relatives of victims of the accident.
• International legal remedies;
• Conclusions on civil-military coordination;
• broader legal and political implications to prevent similar tragedies.

The Ukrainian airline Ukraine International Airlines (UIA) Boeing 737-800 (registration UR-PSR) was operating a regular flight PS752 from Tehran (Imam Khomeini International Airport) to Kyiv (Boryspil International Airport). Due to technical reasons, the flight was delayed for an hour. It took off at 06:12:08 local time (UTC+3:30). Between 06:14:17 and 06:14:45, it was within the civilian zone over Parand Park, when two Tor M-1 anti-aircraft shells struck the fuselage, destroying the aircraft and killing all 176 people on board.

At the time of the accident, tensions between Iran and the United States were escalating in the region: a few hours before takeoff, Iranian forces had fired missiles at American bases in Iraq. Iran’s air defense forces were on high alert. Initially, Iranian officials categorically denied any involvement in the crash, citing a “technical malfunction” or “engine failure.”

Independent digital investigators, including Bellingcat and The New York Times, used open data — videos and photos from social media, metadata, and geolocation — to establish the fact of the missile launch and the moment it hit the hull of PS752. As early as January 10, an analysis of public evidence showed that the technical version did not correspond to the real state of affairs, which forced Iran to admit responsibility for the disaster — its air defense mistakenly fired on a civilian plane, qualifying the accident as “human error.”

⮚ TL;DR: PS752 departed Tehran at 06:12, gained altitude, and was hit by two IRGC Tor M-1 missiles. Iran initially claimed “engine failure,” but under pressure from OSINT investigations, it admitted “human error” on January 11, 2020.

After officially admitting “human error” on January 11, 2020, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) referred the accident to its Armed Forces Judicial Organization for criminal prosecution of the air defense operators. The investigation followed military procedures and focused on qualifying the air defense personnel’s actions under Iran’s Criminal Code.

At the same time, an air accident investigation commission was to conduct a civilian technical investigation under Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention. However, the exchange of evidence between these two processes (military criminal and civilian technical) was limited due to the “secrecy of military data” and the lack of an independent audit committee.

On April 16, 2023, a Tehran military court found ten IRGC servicemen guilty and sentenced them for their role in the downing of PS752. The commander of the air defense unit received 13 years in prison for aiding and abetting manslaughter and disobeying orders, while the others received sentences ranging from 5 to 10 years. From an international law perspective, such sentences formally meet the requirement to impose criminal liability for “manslaughter.” Still, they do not cover the senior command or consider the command’s actions in the context of “guilt for omission,” which has led to criticism that the punishment is insufficient.

Human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, have criticized the process as “showy” and opaque: hearings were held behind closed doors, without the participation of independent observers, and without the full texts of the verdicts being made public. Families of the victims called the verdicts “insignificant” and “unacceptable” because they failed to punish those who ordered and controlled the air defense system.

⮚ TL;DR: The IRGC Military Judicial Organization conducted the Iranian criminal proceedings. On April 16, 2023, 10 members of the air defense unit were sentenced (the commander in chief—13 years), but the process was deemed opaque and flawed due to the closed hearings and the lack of punishment of the high command.

Since PS752 was an international flight, the carrier should have compensated for the damage caused by the accident according to international private air law rules. This area is regulated by two universal conventions with the same name – for the unification of certain rules relating to international air transport, but which were signed at different times. These are the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions, which establish different levels of liability for death or bodily injury to passengers during air travel without the need to prove the airline’s fault. However The Rules of Air Carriage and Handling of Passengers and Baggage in the version at the time of the accident provided for a compensation amount significantly higher than the Warsaw System and the Montreal Convention, and accordingly, regardless of the passenger’s citizenship, UIA was to pay the heirs of each deceased person compensation in the amount of 250,000 SDRs (about 360,000 US dollars). This compensation was to be paid by reinsurers. According to the requirements of Ukrainian legislation, the carrier’s liability to the passenger for causing damage during international transportation was subject to adequate insurance, the amount of which was exactly 250,000 SDRs.

The rules of air transportation and passenger and baggage handling require the carrier to pay each family of the deceased passengers an advance payment of 16 thousand SDRs (approximately 22 thousand USD), which UIA made.

The Government of Canada has also introduced an advance payment mechanism to support the families of deceased citizens and permanent residents. Each affected family was paid 25,000 Canadian dollars to cover immediate expenses – repatriation of remains and burial arrangements. In addition, a nationwide fundraising campaign was initiated in Canada – 3.29 million Canadian dollars were collected, of which 1.5 million Canadian dollars were directed to long-term support for the victims’ families.

The Iranian government, in turn, approved ex gratia payments of $150,000 to each family of the deceased passengers of PS752 on December 30, 2020. However, these payments began only after 2 years and were made selectively, and relatives of some of the deceased refused them until the real causes of the plane’s death were established.

Families of deceased passengers could file a claim for compensation against the carrier in several jurisdictions within two years of the accident:

• at the place of the carrier’s principal place of business – a Ukrainian court;
• at the place through which the transportation contract was concluded – to the court of the country of the place of purchase of the ticket;
• at the destination of the flight – a Ukrainian court;
• at the place of departure of the flight, if the plaintiff has consented to such jurisdiction in writing, an Iranian court.

As of mid-2025, there is no evidence that any of the heirs of the PS752 victims have filed a claim in an Iranian or Ukrainian court. The explanation may be twofold: low levels of trust in the Iranian and Ukrainian judicial systems when alternative jurisdictions with higher levels of access and transparency are available. 

Arsalani v. Iran (Carriage Reasons) (2021 ONSC 634770/635078)

In October 2020, Omid Arsalani and Ali Ashgar Gorji (Gorji) filed lawsuits against the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran) and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) (collectively, the “Iran” Defendants) and Ukraine International Airlines (UIA). These lawsuits were consolidated into a single proceeding with Zarei v. Iran. Ontario’s jurisdiction was justified by the large number of Canadian victims and the desire to avoid duplication of evidence. The Arsalani decision set the stage for further lawsuits against UIA regardless of Iran’s actions.

Zarei v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al (2021 ONS C 3377) (Decision on liability)

Relatives of five families of the victims, led by Mehrzad Zarei, filed a lawsuit against the Islamic Republic of Iran and other Iranian authorities and officials in January 2020. The plaintiffs sought to terminate Iran’s international immunity and subject it to the jurisdiction of Canadian courts, and to declare the downing of the civilian aircraft a “terrorist act” under the State Immunity Act, the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, and the Criminal Code of the Province of Ontario, Canada. If granted, the plaintiffs sought an award of moral damages and loss of custody, support, and companionship under family law. On May 20, 2021, the Ontario Supreme Court, in its decision in Zarei v. Iran, 2021 ONSC 3377, established the fact of a “terrorist act” and the existence of the intentional shooting of the aircraft.

December 31, 2021 Ontario Supreme Court in Zarei v. Iran, 2021 ONSC 8569 (Reparation Decision) awarded plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages, awarding $107 million in compensatory damages under family law for loss of custody, support, and contact – $200,000 each to plaintiffs Mehrdad Zarei, Jane Doe, and John Doe, and $400,000 to Shahin Moghaddam; $6 million in compensatory damages for pain and suffering – $1 million each to plaintiffs; and $100 million in punitive damages to be divided among plaintiffs, as well as $94,947.28 in legal costs.

Dhirani et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran

In March 2022, the family of the deceased passenger Dhirani filed a lawsuit based on claims for compensation under Canada’s Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (JFTA), which allows relatives of victims of terrorist acts and dangerous acts to receive compensation. The amount of the claim was 35 million Canadian dollars in compensation for the death of their relative, including funeral expenses, loss of custody, moral damage, and other non-pecuniary losses. Iran did not participate in these proceedings and did not file any response, which was why the case was considered default (the fact of non-compliance was established). The court divided the proceedings into two phases: (1) determination of liability – establishing the fact of a “terrorist act” and the absence of state immunity of Iran; and (2) determination of the amount of compensation and how it meets the stated requirements.

Under the JFTA, any person who has been injured or whose loved one has been killed as a result of a terrorist act can seek compensation from the perpetrator state if it is a state sponsor of terrorism. Since the Ontario Supreme Court in Zarei v. Iran (2021 ONSC 3377) had already found that the downing of PS 752 was a “terrorist act,” Iran was stripped of immunity. Dhirani et al. essentially repeated this argument regarding the “terrorist nature” of the IRGC’s actions.

The award in Dhirani et al. v. Iran has not been published. The case is currently being scheduled for a hearing.

Smith et al v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 2023 ONSC 4420

On January 6, 2022, the remaining eight plaintiffs filed suits, consolidated into a single case. On July 31, 2023, the Ontario Supreme Court ruled on these suits, relying on the reasoning of Justice Belobaba J. in Zarei v. Iran, regarding the amount of compensation for the families of the victims of Flight PS 752. The court applied three categories of damages: moral damages under the Family Law Act, damages for pain and suffering, and punitive damages. The total payments under this decision exceeded $200 million Canadian dollars, including $16 million Canadian dollars for each of the plaintiffs in punitive damages for Iran’s terrorist activities.

S.v. Ukraine International Airlines JSC (2024 ONSC 3 303)

On October 22, 2023, and January 10, 2024, the Ontario Superior Court (Case No. CV-21-00659475-0000 et al.) heard a class action (families of 21 passengers) and six individual claims brought by families of passengers on flight PS752 against the carrier. All claims were based on the 1999 Montreal Convention, which provides that a carrier is “strictly” liable for death or personal injury to passengers in the event of an accident up to SDR 128,821 only if proven negligent. Otherwise, the carrier’s liability is unlimited.

In his ruling on June 10, 2024, Judge JT Akbarali concluded that UIA had failed to prove the absence of negligence, in particular because:

• Insufficient threat analysis. Despite the escalation between the US and Iran, UIA left the flight on schedule without additional security checks or consultations with relevant authorities.
• No change or suspension of the flight. Despite the current high-risk situation, UIA did not suspend the flight, despite available sources of information about potential strikes on American military facilities.
• Inadequate communication between UIA departments. The relevant departments of the company did not receive timely updates on threats from partners or aviation regulators.

These circumstances showed that UIA had failed to fulfil its duty to “take all reasonable steps” to avoid the risk, and therefore was unable to avail itself of the limited liability established by the Montreal Convention, and was therefore unlimitedly liable for the accident with the aircraft. The court ruled that all claimants in these proceedings were entitled to compensation for actual damages (including pain and suffering, loss of care, custody and family, funeral expenses, etc.) without any limit provided for by the Montreal Convention. UIA was obliged to compensate the families and heirs of the deceased for their individual claims.

However, there was no question of any real payment, since UIA’s bankruptcy procedure was launched in November 2023, during which the most valuable assets were sold off. Despite this, the Ontario Supreme Court’s decision sets an important precedent for international aviation law and standards for assessing flight safety in conflict regions.

This decision’s practical consequence for air carriers is that it creates an incentive for them to rethink security criteria in high-risk areas. Carriers should develop clear internal procedures for risk assessment and flight termination if the airport is in a conflict or escalation zone.

⮚ TL ; DR : The lawsuits in Canada have shown the possibility of circumventing Iran’s state immunity, using the JFTA and the Montreal Convention to collect compensation. The precedent of S. v . UIA has raised the bar for risk assessment for airlines in conflict zones.

On July 4, 2023, Canada, Sweden, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom filed a joint lawsuit against Iran at the International Court of Justice under the 1971 Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation.

The Claimants’ claims are based on Iran’s violations of a number of its obligations under the 1971 Montreal Convention, including (but not limited to) the following:

• Failure to comply with the obligation to conduct a preliminary investigation into the circumstances promptly and to promptly report the results of such investigation, as required by Article 6;
• Failure to comply with the obligation to refer the case to the competent authorities for criminal prosecution, as required by Article 7;
• Failure to take all practicable steps to prevent the destruction of Flight PS752, as required by Article 10;
• Failure to provide the fullest assistance in connection with criminal proceedings, as required by Article 11;
• Failure to provide the ICAO Council with all relevant information available as promptly as possible regarding the circumstances of the offence and the measures taken against the alleged offenders, as required by Article 13.

These violations entail international legal responsibility for Iran, including the obligation to make full reparations.

Based on the above, the applicants ask the court to:

(a) To recognize and declare that Iran has violated the Montreal Convention of 1971, including Articles 6, 7, 10, 11 and 13, in particular:

• Failed to take all practicable steps to prevent the destruction of flight PS752;
• Failed to conduct a timely, effective, independent and impartial preliminary investigation of the accident and report its results;
• Failed to refer the case in good faith to its competent authorities for criminal prosecution under the procedure applicable to grave crimes under the laws of Iran;
• Failed to ensure impartial and transparent proceedings to ensure justice;
• Did not provide the fullest assistance in criminal proceedings;
• Did not report all available information regarding the accident and the measures taken to ICAO.

(b) Order the Respondent to:

• Officially acknowledge their internationally unlawful actions and inactions;
• Publicly apologize to the Applicants and the families of the deceased;
• Provide guarantees of non-recurrence, in particular through specific measures to prevent similar accidents in the future;
• Fulfill its other obligations under the Montreal Convention, including prosecuting or extraditing alleged perpetrators, ensuring a transparent and impartial process.

(c) Award full compensation for the damage suffered by the applicants in connection with Iran’s violations of the 1971 Montreal Convention, including:

• Return of missing personal belongings of victims;
• Pay full compensation to the applicants for the material and moral damage suffered by the victims and their families.

On 16 January 2025, Iran challenged the jurisdiction of the Court and the legality of the inter-State approach, focusing on procedural and immunity arguments. The claimants, as required by procedure, presented their position on this on 16 May 2025. After resolving the issue of jurisdiction, the court will examine the merits – proving the facts, analyzing the admissibility of interstate practice, the amount of compensation and reparations. The decision of this lawsuit will set an important precedent regarding state liability for erroneous actions of the air defense and will become a signal for strengthening civil-military coordination procedures in areas of exacerbation.

On January 8, 2024, Ukraine, Canada, Sweden and the United Kingdom, as members of the International Group for the Coordination of Assistance to the Victims of Flight PS752, jointly submitted a joint application to the ICAO Council for the resolution of the dispute under Article 84 of the 1944 Chicago Convention, after four years of unsuccessful attempts to reach an agreement with Iran diplomatically. In the case, Iran filed an objection to the jurisdiction of the ICAO Council to consider the dispute. Following a secret ballot on March 17, 2025, the ICAO Council rejected Iran’s preliminary objections and decided that it has jurisdiction to consider the dispute initiated by the member states of the International Group.

In their statement, the member states of the International Group asked the ICAO Council to recognize Iran’s violation of Article 3bis of the Chicago Convention and to oblige Iran to:

• admit responsibility and publicly apologize to the families of the victims and the international aviation community;
• provide guarantees that the tragedy will not be repeated — disclose the full course of events and introduce specific security measures;
• to compensate for material damages;
• to return the found personal belongings of the deceased.

On April 17, 2025, the Islamic Republic of Iran filed an appeal with the International Court of Justice against Canada, Sweden, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom against the ICAO Council decision of March 17, 2025, challenging its validity and correctness and asking the court to recognize and rule that:

• The ICAO Council does not have jurisdiction to consider the dispute between Iran and Canada, Sweden, Ukraine and the United Kingdom, according to the application dated January 8, 2024.
• The United Kingdom does not have the necessary legal personality to submit claims and participate in proceedings before the ICAO Council.
• The voting procedure applied by the ICAO Council violated the basic requirements of a fair trial.
• Accordingly, the decision of the ICAO Council is null and void and has no legal consequences.

As a reminder, the court does not act as a full appellate body on the factual or substantive aspects of the dispute but is limited to reviewing the issues of the ICAO Council’s jurisdiction and compliance with basic procedural guarantees. Analyzing the court’s previous practice allows us to assess Iran’s legal chances and formulate general conclusions regarding the court’s approaches to monitoring the ICAO Council’s activities.

The most relevant precedent for the assessment is Qatar v. Saudi Arabia et al. (2018–2021), which concerns Qatar’s claim regarding the blockade of its airspace by an Arab coalition of countries. Similar to the current Iran case, the ICAO Council decided on the existence of jurisdiction, and the Arab coalition appealed this decision to the International Court of Justice, citing the lack of sufficient negotiations between the parties before filing the complaint and a violation of the voting procedure in the ICAO Council.

In its decision of July 14, 2020, the International Court of Justice ruled:

• The sufficiency of negotiations is interpreted flexibly; the requirement for the parties was only to attempt to discuss, not to reach an agreement or conduct lengthy consultations.
• Review of the ICAO Council’s internal voting procedure falls outside the court’s jurisdiction under Article 84 of the Chicago Convention, if this procedure formally complied with the prescribed norms.

Thus, the court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the jurisdiction of the ICAO Council.

Another important example is the India-Pakistan case on the flight ban. The Court confirmed that Article 84 of the Chicago Convention establishes the ICAO Council’s compulsory jurisdiction and that the Court can only review compliance with basic procedural standards and the formal compliance of the decision with the Convention’s requirements.

Analyzing Iran’s arguments (lack of negotiations, procedural violations in ICAO, lack of standing in the UK), we can predict the following reaction of the Court:

• Lack of negotiations: The court will most likely reject this objection, as in the Qatar case, since the very fact of multilateral correspondence and attempts at negotiations between the states already establishes the sufficiency of the negotiation stage.
• Voting procedure: According to Qatar practice, the court is unlikely to interfere with the internal procedures of the ICAO Council, provided that they were formally under the rules.
• Standing of the United Kingdom: this is the only argument that the court could potentially consider; however, there is currently no case law where the court has denied a State Party standing under Article 84.

The downing of Flight PS752 sent a painful signal of the inadequacy of existing procedures for interaction between civil and military aviation. This resulted in the launch by the Government of Canada of the Safer Skies initiative, which established the Conflict Information Office, an advisory committee, and annual forums. At the Safer Skies Forum in April 2025, the President of the ICAO Council reaffirmed the priority of developing a coordination policy between civil and military structures, including intelligence sharing and joint training.

After the PS752 crash, ICAO updated its methodology for assessing the risks of flights over conflict zones and published the 3rd edition of the Risk Assessment Manual (Doc 10084, 2023). The manual now covers threats from MANPADS, ballistic missiles, and guidance systems. Detailed guidance on airspace closures, targeting notification procedures, and post-crisis reassessments has been introduced.

The accident with PS752 clearly illustrates the concept of international state responsibility for the erroneous launch of air defense weapons at a civil aircraft—a direct program of shooting down, even if indirect, entails responsibility for violating the elementary principle of civil aviation safety, enshrined in Article 3bis of the Chicago Convention and customary international law.

PS752, like previous cases, MH17, Iran Air 655 (1988), and Korean Air 007 (1983), creates a new legal precedent that will expand the scope of state responsibility for erroneous military actions directed against civil aviation.

Diplomatic and judicial pressure in the PS752 and MH17 cases reinforces the need for specific changes in the regulation of existing international mechanisms, particularly in ICAO, the International Court of Justice, and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The shooting down of PS752 is not only an aviation tragedy, but also a serious violation of the right to life under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and similar provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The accident with flight PS752 call for creating a synergy of international mechanisms to coordinate responsibility, conduct a fair investigation, provide compensation, and ensure that similar tragedies do not recur.

The article was prepared by Anna Tsirat