52 126. Similarly, in the Kenneth P. Yeager case, 143 the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (“Claims Tribunal”) held that wrongful acts of the Iranian “revolutionary guards” or “revolutionary Komitehs” vis-à-vis American nationals carried out between 13 and 17 February 1979 were attributable to Iran (the Claims Tribunal referred in particular to the fact that two members of the “Guards” had forced the Americans to leave their house in order to depart from Iran, that the Americans had then been kept inside the Hilton Hotel for three days while the “Guards” manned the exits, and had subsequently been searched at the airport by other “Guards” who had taken their money). Iran, the respondent State, had argued that the conduct of those “Guards” was not attributable to it. It had admitted that “revolutionary guards and Komiteh personnel were engaged in the maintenance of law and order from January 1979 to months after February 1979 as government police forces rapidly lost control over the situation.” It had asserted, however, that “these revolutionaries did not operate under the name ‘Revolutionary Komitehs’ or ‘Revolutionary Guards’, and that they were not affiliated with the Provisional Government”. 144 In other words, the “Guards” were “not authentic”;145 hence, their conduct was not attributable to Iran. The Claims Tribunal considered instead that the acts were attributable to Iran because the “Guards” or “Komitehs” had acted as de facto State organs of Iran. On this point the Claims Tribunal noted that: [m]any of Ayatollah Khomeini’s supporters were organised in local revolutionary committees, so-called Komitehs, which often emerged from the ‘neighbourhood committees’ formed before the victory of the revolution. These Komitehs served as local security forces in the immediate aftermath of the revolution. It is reported that they made arrests, confiscated property, and took people to prisons. […] 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 them146 127. With specific reference to the action of the “Guards” in the case at issue, the Claims Tribunal emphasised that the two guards who had forced the Americans to leave their house 143 See Kenneth P. Yeager v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 17 Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal Reports, 1987, vol. IV, p. 92). 144 Ibid., para. 23. 145 Ibid., para. 37. 146 Ibid., paras 39, 45. The Claims Tribunal went on to note that: “[w]hile there were complaints about a lack of discipline among the numerous Komitehs, Ayatollah Khomeini stood behind them, and the Komitehs, in general, were loyal to him and the clergy. Soon after the victory of the Revolution, the Komitehs, contrary to other groups, obtained a firm position within the State structure and were eventually conferred a permanent place in the State budget” (ibid., para. 39; emphasis added). Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999