The rule of the state immunity which originated from the principle of sovereign equality of states, has a long history in the international law as a customary rule. For a long time, national courts were not competent to hear claims against states under any circumstances and the immunity was absolute. As the contemporary international law was developing, the international community gradually accepted some exceptions to this rule, which were included in the 2004 UN Convention on the Immunity of States and Property. Meanwhile, some states including Canada, recognized new exceptions in their laws, considering their own interests and their citizens’interests. Amending the State Immunity Act 1985 in 2012 and passing the “ustice for Victims of Terrorism”law in the same year, Canada started to grant competence to the courts to file a lawsuit against Iran, claiming Iran’ support for terrorism and human rights violations, which subsequently led to the violation of Iran’ immunity in different cases. Using the library method and the descriptive-analytical approach, it will be evaluated whether the claims such as being a supporter of terrorism and human rights’violation, could be considered as a new exception to the immunity of states in the international law and permit the national courts to start hearings related to complaints against states and do judicial proceedings. In this regard, by examining the case of Iran v. Canada in the International Court of Justice on June 26th, 2023 and considering the unity of the criterion of the previous judgments of the Court, including the case of Germany v. Italy (2012), it is plausible that the Court will not accept the new exception.