Amid the turbulence of wars and humanity’s struggle against the forces of terrorism, the victim does not remain merely a number in the records of suffering. Rather, the victim stands as a witness to the absence of justice at times, and the weakness of institutional response at many others. From this perspective, the present study explores the dilemma of compensating victims of terrorism—between the rights proclaimed by laws and the justice actually delivered in practice. The study is structured around two interrelated dimensions. The first is the international dimension, which analyses the provisions of conventions and treaties affirming the right of victims to protection and compensation. These provisions, however, have often remained closer to promises than binding obligations, as responsibility is shifted to states, causing rights to dissipate in the labyrinth of politics and sovereignty. The second dimension examines the Iraqi context, focusing on legal texts such as Law No. 20 of 2009 on the Compensation of Victims of Terrorist Operations, and Law No. 2 of 2016 on the Martyrs’ Foundation. It reveals that the difficulty lies not only in the laws themselves, but in the will to enforce them, the vagueness of criteria, and the absence of an institutional framework that treats the victim as a priority rather than as an administrative burden. Accordingly, the study recommends the establishment of a binding international legal framework, along with deep structural reforms in Iraq’s compensation regime, so that justice becomes a present reality rather than a deferred promise.
Arkan Abdul-Kadhim Al-Hamdani Mostafa Fazaeli (Mon,) studied this question.