58 135. Similar views were propounded in 1987 by the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal in Short. 165 Iran was not held internationally responsible for the allegedly wrongful expulsion of the claimant. The Claims Tribunal found that the Iranian “revolutionaries” (armed but not comprising an organised group) who ordered the claimant’s departure from Iran were not State organs, nor did Ayatollah Khomeini’s declarations amount to specific incitement to the “revolutionaries” to expel foreigners. 166 136. It should be added that State practice also seems to clearly support the approach under discussion. 167 137. In sum, the Appeals Chamber holds the view that international rules do not always require the same degree of control over armed groups or private individuals for the purpose of determining whether an individual not having the status of a State official under internal legislation can be regarded as a de facto organ of the State. The extent of the requisite State control varies. Where the question at issue is whether a single private individual or a group that is not militarily organised has acted as a de facto State organ when performing a 165 Alfred W. Short v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No. 312-11135-3, 16 Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal Reports 1987, p. 76). 166 After finding that the acts of the revolutionaries could not be attributed to Iran, the Claims Tribunal noted the following: “The Claimant’s reliance on the declarations made by the leader of the Revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, and other spokesmen of the revolutionary movement, also lack the essential ingredient as being the cause for the Claimant’s departure in circumstances amounting to an expulsion. While these statements are of anti-foreign and in particular anti-American sentiment, the Tribunal notes that these pronouncements were of a general nature and did not specify that Americans should be expelled en masse.” (ibid., para. 35). 167 For examples of State practice apparently adopting this approach to the question of attribution, see for instance the relevant documents in the Cesare Rossi case (an Italian antifascist staying in Switzerland who was lured by two other Italians acting on behalf of the Italian authorities into crossing the border with Italy, where he was arrested: see 1 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 1929, pp. 280-294); the Jacob Salomon case (a German national was kidnapped by another German national in Switzerland and taken to Germany: see the relevant documents mentioned in 29 American Journal of International Law 1935, pp. 502-507, 36 American Journal of International Law 1936, pp.123-124). See further the Sabotage cases decided by the United States-Germany Mixed Claims Commission (Lehigh Valley Railroad Co., Agency of Canadian Can and Foundry Co., Ltd., and various underwriters (United States) v. Germany, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. VIII, pp. 84 ff. (especially pp. 84-87) and pp. 225 ff. (especially 457-460). In these cases, in July 1916 some individuals, at the request of the German authorities intent on bringing about sabotage in the United States, had set fire to a terminal in New York harbour and to a plant of a company in New Jersey. Mention can also be made of the Eichmann case (Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, 36 International Law Reports 1968, pp. 277-344): see for instance Security Council resolution 4349 of 23 June 1960 and the debates in the Security Council; see in particular the statements of Argentina (SCOR, 865th Meeting of 22 June 1960, paras. 25-27), of Israel (SCOR of the 866th Meeting on 22 June 1960, para. 41), of Italy (SCOR of the 867th Meeting of 23 June 1960, paras. 32-34), of Ecuador (ibid., paras. 47-49), of Tunisia (ibid., para. 73) and of Ceylon (SCOR of the 868th Meeting of 23 June 1960, paras. 12-13). Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999