53 were “dressed in everyday clothes, but ?woreg distinctive arm bands indicating association with the new Government, and ?wereg armed with rifles”. 147 With reference to those who had searched the Americans at the airport, the Claims Tribunal stressed that “they were performing the functions of customs, immigration and security officers”. 148 Clearly, those “Guards” made up organised armed groups performing de facto official functions. They were therefore different from the Iranian militants who had stormed the United States Embassy in Tehran on 4 November 1979, with regard to which the International Court of Justice noted that after the invasion of the Embassy they described themselves as “Muslim Student Followers of the Imam’s Policy”. 149 Be that as it may, what is notable is that the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal did not enquire as to whether specific instructions had been issued to the “Guards” with regard to the forced expulsion of Americans. 150 The Claims Tribunal took the same stance in other cases. 151 147 Ibid., paras. 12, 41. Ibid., para. 61. 149 United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, Judgment, ICJ Reports (1980), p. 13, para. 17. 150 The Claims Tribunal stated the following: “The Tribunal finds sufficient evidence in the record to establish a presumption that revolutionary ‘Komitehs’ or ‘Guards’ after 11 February 1979 were acting in fact on behalf of the new government, or at least exercised elements of governmental authority in the absence of official authorities, in operations of which the new Government must have had knowledge and to which it did not specifically object. Under those circumstances, and for the kind of measures involved here, the Respondent has the burden of coming forward with evidence showing that members of ‘Komitehs’ or ‘Guards’ were in fact not acting on its behalf, or were not exercising elements of government authority, or that it could not control them”. (Kenneth P. Yeager v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 17 Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal Reports, 1987, vol. IV. p. 92, at para. 43). The Claims Tribunal went on to say: “[...] Rather, the evidence suggests that the new government, despite occasional complaints about a lack of discipline, stood behind them [the Komitehs]. The Tribunal is persuaded, therefore, that the revolutionary ‘Komitehs’ or ‘Guards’ involved in this Case, were acting ‘for’ Iran.” (para. 44). The Tribunal then concluded that: “[n]or has the Respondent established that it could not control the revolutionary ‘Komitehs’ or ‘Guards’ in this operation [namely, forcing foreigners to leave the country]. Because the new government accepted their activity in principle and their role in the maintenance of public security, calls for more discipline, phrased in general rather than specific terms, do not meet the standard of control required in order to effectively prevent these groups from committing wrongful acts against United States nationals. Under international law Iran cannot, on the one hand, tolerate the exercise of governmental authority by revolutionary ‘Komitehs’ or ‘Guards’ and at the same time deny responsibility for wrongful acts committed by them” (para. 45). 151 See William L. Pereira Associates, Iran v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No. 116-1-3, 5 Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal 1984, p. 198 at p. 226. See also Arthur Young and Company v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Telecommunications Company of Iran, Social Security Organization of Iran, Award No. 338-484-1, 17 IranU.S. Claims Tribunal Reports, 1987, p. 245). Here the Claims Tribunal found that in the circumstances of the case Iran was not responsible because there was no causal link between the action of the revolutionary guards and the alleged breach of international law. However, the Claims Tribunal held that otherwise Iran might have incurred international responsibility for acts of “armed men wearing patches on their pockets identifying them as members of the revolutionary guards” (para. 53). A similar stand was taken in Schott v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No. 474-268-1, 24 Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal Reports, 1990, p. 203 at para. 59. 148 Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999