Safeguarding public health is a fundamental duty of states, manifested in the implementation of mass vaccination programs, particularly during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. However, directly or indirectly requiring citizens to receive vaccines, in the face of rare but harmful side effects, has created a challenge within the paradigm of state civil liability. This research, employing a descriptive-analytical approach and utilizing comparative studies, analyzes the theoretical foundations and compensation models for damages caused by compulsory vaccination. The findings indicate that the traditional "fault-based liability" system is largely ineffective in adequately protecting victims. This ineffectiveness is due to the scientific complexities of establishing causation between vaccination and injury, as well as legal barriers stemming from sovereign immunity doctrines. Abandoning the injured citizen to navigate complex medical bureaucracy and placing the burden of proof on them fundamentally conflicts with human rights principles, distributive justice, and the Islamic jurisprudential rule of "La Darar" (no harm). Accordingly, this article argues that establishing a just system requires a transition to a "strict liability" model and the creation of alternative institutions such as "no-fault national compensation funds." Finally, it is recommended that the Iranian legislature and judicial practice adopt a presumption of causation and establish a legal schedule of vaccine injuries. This would facilitate the process of obtaining justice while striking a reasonable balance between state authority in ensuring public health security and the protection of the dignity and physical integrity of those harmed.