Economic and Social Council
GENERAL
E/CN.4/1987/23
28
January 1987
Original: English/French
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Forty-third session
Item 12 of the provisional agenda
pursuant to
resolution 1986/41
CONTENTS :
PARAGRAPHS
I.INTRODUCTION 1-2
II. ACTION TAKEN BY THE SPECIAL
REPRESENTATIVE 3-6
III. INFORMATION AVALIBLE TO THE SPECIAL
REPRESENTATIVE 7-15
A. Written information 9-12
B. Oral information 13-15
IV.LEGAL FRAMEWORK 16-40
A. Applicable international instruments
16-17
B. Charter of the United Nations 18-19
C. Universal Declaration of Human Rights
20-28
D. International Covenants on Human Rights
29-31
E. Iranian Legal Structure 32-37
F. Co-ordination of international law and
Islamic law 38-40
V.CONSIDERATION OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF
HUMAN RIGHTS 41-62
A. Right to life 42-47
B. Right to freedom from torture or cuel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 48-51
C. Right to liberty and security of person
52-53
D. Right to a fair trial 54-56
E. Right to freedom of thought, conscience
and religion and to freedom of expression 57-60
F. Alleged violation of certain rights
affecting the medical profession 61-62
VI.GENERAL OBSERVATIONS OF THE SPECIAL
REPRESENTATIVE 63-86
VII.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 87-88
Annex
List of documents and publications made
available to the Special Representative.
INTRODUCTION
At its forty-second session, the Commission
on Human Rights decided, by its resolution 1986/41, to extend the mandate of
the Special Representative, as contained in its resolution 1984/54 for a year;
requested the Chairman of the Commission to appoint an individual of recognized
international standing to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Mr.
Andres Aguilar and requested the newly appointed Special Representative to
present an interim report to the General Assembly at its forty-first session on
the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the situation
of minority groups such as the Baha'is, and a final report to the Commission at
its forty-third session. On 9 July 1986,
the Chairman of the Commission designated Mr. Reynaldo Galindo Pohl as Special
Representative of the Commission.
In compliance with operative paragraph 7 of
resolution 1986/41, the newly appointed Special Representative submitted to the
General Assembly at its forty-first session, his interim report (A/41/787) and
submits to the Commission the present report on the human rights situation in
the Islamic Republic of Iran.
II.ACTION TAKEN BY THE SPECIAL
REPRESENTATIVE
In his interim report to the General Assembly
the Special Representative analysed
the mandate entrusted to him by the Commission, reviewed the contacts made by
the former Special Representative with the Iranian Government, including his
efforts to obtain the latter's agreement to a visit to the country and Iranian
Government's response thereto, described the action he had taken thus far with
a view to obtaining the Iranian Government's co-operation by quoting the
substance of the letters he addressed to that Government through its
representatives and concluded with a number of observations in which he
explained the reasons for limiting the report to the first part of the mandate
entrusted to him by the Commission, namely, the establishment of contacts with
the Iranian Government. The Special Representative urged the Iranian government
to reply to the requests for specific information regarding the allegations
both he and his predecessor had submitted to it, and expressed the hope that by
the time he presented his final report to the Commission, in accordance with
its resolution 1986/41, the Iranian Government would have communicated to him
its considered view on the issue of co-operation.
The Iranian Government has so far provide no
comment or information to the newly appointed Special Representative regarding
his appeals for co-operation or the numerous allegations of human rights
violations in that country submitted by the Special Representative and his
predecessor.
It is to be noted that, at an informal
meeting held on 17 November 1986
at United Nations Headquarters between the Special Representative and the
Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations, the latter manifested a positive
approach regarding several aspects of the mandate, including the question of a
visit to the country. He also informed the Special Representative of his
Government's continued objections to the politicization of the issue in the
various organs of the United Nations.
On 4
December 1986, The General Assembly, at its forty first session, adopted resolution 41/159 on the situation of human
rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. By that resolution, the Assembly
requested the Commission on Human Rights to study carefully the final report of
the Special Representative, as well as other information pertaining to the
situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and to consider
further steps for securing effective respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms for all in that country (para. 4). The
Assembly also decided to continue its examination of the situation of human
rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the situation of minority
groups such as the Baha'is, during its forty0second session in order to examine
that situation anew in the light of additional elements provided by the
Commission on Human Rights and the Economic and Social Council (para. 7).
III.INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE SPECIAL
REPRESENTATIVE
In the absence of any formal reply from the
Iranian Government regarding the allegations submitted to it, the Special
Representative proceeded to analyse
the information and material available to him, containing specific light of the
Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with special emphasis on
the latter instrument.
In examining and assessing the information
available to him, the Special Representative strove to adhere strictly to the
principles of fairness and objectivity, and therefore submitted all the
allegations appearing in the present report to the Iranian government in due
time.
A. Written Information
The Special Representative had before the
"Report on the performance of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1985,
submitted to the Special Representative by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
the Islamic Republic of Iran" (A/40/874, annex IV). It may be noted that
this document addressed itself to two out of five sets of questions submitted
to the Iranian Government by the former Special Representative in his
aide-memoire of 15 July 1986 (A/40/874, annex III).
The Special Representative also took note,
for the preparation of the present report, of various documents published by
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In addition,
information regarding the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic, was provided by various organizations opposing to
the present r egime, and in particular the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, Organization of Iranian
People's Fedaian and the Tudeh
Party of Iran.
(A detailed list of the publications taken into account in the preparation of
the present report appears in the annex.)
Non-governmental organization enjoying
consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, and in particular the
Baha'i International Community and Amnesty International, provided information
containing both legal and factual elements.
Furthermore, the Special Representative
received a large number of petitions and letters from various organizations and
individuals, concerning the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of
Iran in general, or particular cases of imprisoned groups or individuals.
B. Oral Information
The Special Representative noted that
numerous persons who alleged that they had been the victims of violations of
human rights wished to communicate their experience to him. In the
circumstances, and in an effort to obtain as complete a picture as possible of
these cases, the Special Representative received 16 persons who approached him
in the course of informal hearings conducted on 23-25 September 1986. They
claimed to have firsthand knowledge and experience of various aspects of the
human rights situations in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Six of these persons
described themselves as sympathizers of the People's Mojahedin
Organization or Iran.
They were: Robabeh Boudaghi,
Behzad Naziri, Azame (this person requested that her surname should not be
disclosed), Mina Vatani, Ali Hossein-Zadeh,
and Hossein Hosseini. The
other 10 persons were followers of the Bah' faith (all of them requested that
their name should not be disclosed.)
All the persons mentioned above spent periods
of various duration in Iranian prisons between the
years 1981 and 1985, and all of them subsequently fled the country.15. The
information collected from these persons is reproduced below in chapter V, and
a summary of that information was transmitted to the Iranian Government by a
letter dated 27 October 1986.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Applicable international instruments
The international legal framework for the
examination of allegations of violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms
and the human rights situation in a particular country, in the present case the
Islamic Republic of Iran, is basically constituted by the Charter of the United
Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the international
Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights. To this must be added international customary law and other relevant
treaties binding upon the Islamic Republic of Iran. The commission on Human
Rights has reiterated in its resolutions concerning this question that the
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights binds the Islamic Republic of Iran (see
resolutions 1982/27, para. 2; 1983/34, para. 2; 1984/54, para. 2;
1985/39, para. 4, and 1986/41, para.4).
The commission has thus pointed out the paramount importance of this binding
instrument whose provisions are relevant to most of the allegations of
violations of human rights presented so far to international organs.
The incidence of Islamic law on the
particular obligations of that country, to which Iranian representatives have
referred in general statements, should also be considered, if and when specific
and concrete allegations are presented. Besides positions of
principle, always valuable and enlightening, concrete questions concerning the
unification and coherence of municipal and international law may be examined.
B. Charter of the United Nations
The fundamental international legal
instrument from which all international promotion and monitoring of human
rights and fundamental freedoms derive is the Charter of the United Nations.
The Charter states in its Preamble that the peoples of the United Nations
"reaffirm faith in fundamental rights, in the dignity and worth of the
human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of all nations large and
small". In Article 1, paragraph 3, the Charter includes among its purposes
and principles the promotional and encouragement of respect for human rights
and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language,
or religion.
At the level of implementation of this
purpose and principle, the Economic and Social Council shall promote
"universal respect for, and observance of, human
rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex,
language, or religion" (Charter, Art. 55 C.). All Members of the United
Nations pledge themselves to take joint and separate action for the
achievement of the purpose of promotion universal respect for, and observance
of, human rights and fundamental freedoms (emphasis added) (Art. 56).
C. Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly in resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948, spells out the
meaning and scope of the concept of "human rights and fundamental
freedoms" contained in the Charter. Consequently, the Universal
Declaration is not an instrument separated from the Charter and does not create
new obligations, but determines, by consent of the States signatories of the
Charter, the obligations already acquired in this field. The Universal
Declaration explicitly describes the various elements contained in the generic
concept of "human rights and fundamental freedoms" as well as their
content and meaning, that is the specific rights which are protected through
the joint action of States Members of the United Nations (Charter, Art. 56).
Thus the Universal Declaration provides an authoritative understanding and an
agree interpretation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and consequently
of the obligations acquired under the Charter on that subject.
The Universal Declaration rules out
individual and often discrepant interpretations of the content, meaning and
scope of the obligations enshrined in the Charter. Instead it provides a
uniform understanding and interpretation of one of the obligations established
under the Charter, and facilitates and directs the discharge of the
responsibilities of the Economic and Social Council and the implementation of
the pledge of Member States to take joint and separate action to promote
universal respect for, and observance of, human rights.
The rights and freedoms set out in the
Universal Declaration have become international customary law through State
practice and opinio juris. Even if the strictest
approach is adopted to the determination of the elements which form
international customary law, that is, the classical doctrine of the convergence
of extensive, continuous and reiterated practice and of opinio juris, the provisions contained in the Universal Declaration
meet the stringent standards of that doctrine. Of course, they also meet the
more liberal standards of contemporary doctrines on the constitutive elements
of international customary law.
The Universal Declaration, as a projection of
the Charter of the United Nations, and particularly as international customary
law, binds all States. This assertion is not disputed in the ongoing
controversy on the binding character of international customary law in respect
to recently independent States. It is known that some academic, political and
diplomatic circles in countries of the third world, and particularly in newly
independent States, deny the binding character of international customary law
on Sates that were subjected to colonial rule at the time the custom was
created. Consequently, they advocate an extensive revision of important
segments of general international law.
There is no need to enter into this polemic,
because geral international law concerning human
rights and fundamental freedoms pertains to the provisions that have not been
questioned on these grounds. The legal literature in this field does not
question the validity of international customary law in respect to human rights
and fundamental freedoms, as defined and specified in the Universal Declaration
and later converted into specific contractual obligations in the International
Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights. The trend is rather the reverse: to increase the rights and freedoms
under international protection.
Some scholars and politicians of Islamic
countries, in explaining what were felt to be different philosophical and
juridical concepts, have tried to define in academic seminars the problems
arising from the divergence between some traditional Islamic tents and the
provisions of the Universal Declaration. They have not advocated the change or
the rejection of the provisions of the Universal Declaration, but simply
pointed out the problems that some countries confront in respect of certain international
instruments. On the other hand, other Muslim scholars and politicians have
managed to conciliate both sets of norms and their countries have ratified
those instruments.
Some human rights and fundamental freedoms
have reached the highest stage in the hierarchy of norms, the condition of jus
cogens, and therefore it is legally impossible to derogate from the
relevant international provision, even with the consent of the States
concerned. The provisions of jus congens
constitute the structural legal element of the international community, because
it is universal and outside the individual expression of will of each State.
The history of the formal recognition of
human rights and fundamental freedoms in the eighteenth century reveals that
these rights and freedoms were originally conceived to limit the power of the
State. Their evolution in the two succeeding centuries and particularly in the
second half of the twentieth century has proved that Governments are not the
only sources of potential violations of the dignity and eminent value of the
human person.
In recent decades it has been implicitly or
explicitly accepted that organized or semi-organized political groups,
particularly those engages in insurgency or insurrection, may be responsible
for violations of human rights and freedoms, mainly in respect of the right to
life and personal freedom. Thus, the wording of the Universal Declaration
implies that not only Governments but also individuals are obliged to observe
its provisions. The subject of the protection set out in international and
national human rights law is the individual; thus the individual, whether
"insurgent" or "government official"
or "ordinary private person", is a human being
deserving of protection at the international level. The same evolution has
taken place in respect to humanitarian law whose main formal expressions are
the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the additional protocols thereto.
D. International Covenants on Human Rights
The international covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights were adopted and opened for signature, ratification and
accession by General Assembly resolution 2200 A (XXI) of 16 December 1966. The
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights entered into force on 23 March 1976 and the Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights on 3 January
1976.
30.The Covenants
organized the joint promotion and monitoring of human rights and fundamental
freedoms. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a party to both Covenants and has
complied with the provisions of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by
presenting its report under article 40 (CCPR/C/1Add.58). It has also observed
the requirements of the International Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination by presenting reports under article 9
(CERD/C/66/Add.5, CERD/C/91/Add.31 and CERD/C/118/Add.12). The International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not authorize States parties to
derogate from certain provisions, even in time of public emergency which
threatens the life of the nation (Art. 4). Other provisions may be derogated
from in time of emergency which threatens the life of the nation. The Islamic
Republic of Iran has not derogated from those provisions, although it was
entitled to do so under article 4 of the Convention.
Both Covenants have been widely accepted and
applied and enjoy extensive support in all geographical regions. Eighty-two
States have ratified the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and 87 the
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The geographical distribution
of the parties shows the widespread support from countries of different
political and socio-economic systems and cultures.
E. Iranian legal structure
Regarding the legal structure of any country
bound by international instruments such as the two Covenants, there are two
specific points to be considered: first, the domestic legislation must be in
harmony with the international instruments, and second, the way in which
domestic legislation is applied.
The fundamental Iranian legal instrument is
the Constitution, adopted in 1979. The Constitution is dived into 12 chapters,
is composed of 175 articles, and covers the organization and function of
political power and the relations and rights of natural and juridical persons.
The report submitted by the Islamic Republic
of Iran to the Human Rights committee under article 40 of the Covenant on Civil
an d Political Rights (CCPR/C/1/Add.58) outlined the
most important and relevant laws promulgated in order to develop to
Constitution in respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Among the laws emanating from the
Constitution, the report mentions the following:
(a) State General Inspection Act which
empowers the Judiciary, on the basis of Principle 174 of the Constitution,
"to investigate, in its continuous and extraordinary inspections, any
discord or offence
committed by civil and military organs and all the Revolutionary Institutions,
and to pursue the matter through legal channels until the attainment of the
final results";
(b) The Administrative Court of Justice Act,
which enables that Court, on the basis of Principle 173 of the Constitution , "to investigate litigations, complaints
and protests of the public against government officials, units or
regulations". The approval of this Act "enables any individual of the
nation to doges a complaint with on of the benches of the Administrative Court
of Justice against any injustice or oppression committed by government
employees or units, through regulations or decrees, against people and cause
justice to be administered";
(c) The Judiciary Police Formation Act which
deals with "the formation of a judiciary police so as to ensure that investigations,
the preparation of judicial and penal records, and the consideration of
problems pertaining thereto, as well as the serving and execution of legal
writs are carried out by trained personnel";
(d) Laws and regulations regarding the press,
the criteria governing the functions and limits of responsibility of
revolutionary organs, and bills that determine the limits of duties and
competence of the Revolutionary Public Prosecutors and Courts. Bills aimed at
the just distribution of wealth and the nationalization of foreign trade are also referred to in that report.
Moreover, the "Report on the performance
of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1985" (A/40/874, annex IV) referred to
two of the five sets of questions submitted to the Iranian Government by the
former Special Representative in his aide-memoire of 15 July 1985, namely,
freedom from torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
and the right to liberty and security of person and freedom from arbitrary
arrest or detention (aide-memoire, letters (a), (b)). The report did not refer
to fair trial, freedom of through, conscience and religion, and right of
religious minorities to profess and practice their own religion (aide-memoire,
letters (c), (d) and (e)).
The attention of the Special Representative
has been called to several provisions of the Islamic Penal Code which may
contradict specific provisions of international instruments concerning human
rights and fundamental freedoms, particularly in respect to the widespread
application of capital punishment, inhuman treatment or punishment in excess of
generally accepted standards, and the right to a fair trial. The Special
Representative has requested the Iranian authorities to provide information on
these provisions of the Penal Code. He has also requested the full text of the
Iranian laws mentioned so far.
F. Co-ordination of international law and
Islamic law
The co-ordination between Islamic law and the
instruments establishing international obligations may not be easy. The most illustrative
statements to that effect were made by Ambassador Khosroshahi
before the Human Rights Committee at its sixteenth session, held in July 1982
(see CCPR/C/SR.368, paras. 13 and 15):
"Some members of the committee had
inquired whether it would be possible to incorporate international instruments
on human rights in Islamic law. His Government's position on that point was
that, if the intention was that such instruments should complement and add to
the Islamic laws with a view to their beings merged in a single legal system,
then it would have to respond negatively, since it considered that the Islamic
laws were universal and Shi'ite canon law would take
any new needs of society into account. If, however, it was intended that
international instruments on human rights and Islamic laws should be taken
together in an effort to achieve mutual understanding and to explore what they
had in common, then such an endeavour would be gladly accepted. It had been
asked whether laws of non-religious inspiration could be considered consistent
with Islamic laws. In that connection it should be borne in mind that the laws
on non0religious inspiration were not necessarily contrary to the Muslim faith.
However, any law contrary to the tenets of Islam would not be acceptable".
Scholars have carefully noted the points of
possible conflict between Islamic law and international instruments. As this is
not an academic exercise it would be inappropriate to take those opinions as
the point of departure for an examination of this question. Such a conflict
should be studied in the light of concrete situations and cases. From the point
of view of international law that potential conflict could be equated, mutatis
mutandis, with the question of the pre-eminence of the Constitution or international
law which has pervaded legal literature for some time. Considered in abstract
terms the question seems extremely theoretical.
The study of Islamic history and culture
shows that from its beginnings Islam established a tradition of respect for human
beings, notwithstanding differences of religion. At the time of its appearance
in the seventh century, Islam represented a step forward in the protection of
human beings. Its contribution to the development of mankind came at a time
when Europe was living in the so-called Dark Ages that
followed the collapse of the Roman Empire. Without
touching on the precepts contained in the Koran and the Sunna,
it may be stated that Islam has been able to adapt to the changing
circumstances of the countries that have adopted it and to new developments in
the world through the unanimous findings of jurists and the judicial precedents
in respect of particular cases. The history of the way Islam has operated
throughout the millennium and a half of its existence leads to the expectation
that the question of potential conflict could be solved in such a way that the
international instruments on human rights would remain untouched as one of the
most notable achievements of world-wide international co-operation.
V.CONSIDERATION OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF
HUMAN RIGHTS
As was explained in the interim report, the
Special Representative had requested the Iranian Government to reply to the
allegations contained in the three lists submitted to it by the former Special
Representative, and to the list he himself prepared and transmitted on 27 October 1986. The first two lists
submitted by the former Special Representative, containing 299 names of persons
who were allegedly summarily or arbitrarily executed or who had allegedly died
as a result of ill-treatment during their detention, were attached to the
interim report he had presented to the General Assembly (A/40/874), Annexes I
and II). The contents of the third list prepared by the former Special
Representative and that of the list prepared by the newly appointed Special
Representative are reproduced below, grouped in five principal sections, in
line with pertinent articles of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. These are: (a) right to life; (b) right to freedom from
torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; (c) right to
liberty and security of person; (d) right to a fair trial; and (e) right to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion and to freedom of expression. The
information collected in the course of informal hearings the Special
Representative conducted in September 1986, referred to in paragrah
17 above, is also grouped and reproduced under the same five sections.
A. Right to life
Article 6, paragraph 1, of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that "every human beings
has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one
shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."
Article 6, paragraph 2, provides that "in
countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be
imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at
the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to provisions of the
present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide".
According to the information available to the
Special Representative, some 7,000 executions had taken place in the Islamic
Republic of Iran between 1979 and the end of 1985 and according to some sources
the figure was much higher. It may however be noted that, which the number of
reported executions reached several thousands per annum in the period
1979-1981, their number in the past three or four years had been considerably lower.
Thus in 1984 there had been some 500 executions, and in 1985 some 470. This
trend appears to have continued during 1986.
The following are cases containing detailed
allegations of violations of the right to life that were submitted to the
Iranian Government by the former Special Representative, in a letter dated 29
October 1985 (see A/40/874m paras. 11-12):
(a) On 18 March 1985 it was alleged that,
since the beginning of June 1985, over 100 supporters of the People's Mojahedin Organization had been executed in Evin prison,
Tehran; 16 had been executed in Ghaem Shahr, northern Iran; 10 in Shiraz, southern Iran; 15 in Amol, northern Iran and an unspecified number of executions
had taken place in other towns, including Karaj, Bojnurd, and Mashhad. It was
further alleged that in some cases the victims had been hanged from cranes in
the central square of the town;
(b) On 1
April 1985 it was alleged that nine "political prisoners"
including Asghar Nazemi, a
supporter of the People's Mojahedin Organization, had
been executed in Evin prison, Tehran.
It was further alleged, during the moth of March 1985, 48 "political
prisoners" had been executed in Ahvaz,
in south-western Iran;
one in Qazvin;
one in Qom,
two in Semnan and vie in Tabriz;
(c) On 17 April it was alleged that eight
"political prisoners", all supporters of the People's Mojahedin Organization, had been executed on 23 March 1985 in Rud
Sar, northern Iran;
(d) On 20 may 1985 it was alleged that Bahman
Haghighatkhah, a supporter of the People's Mojahedin Organization, had been hanged in public in Tabriz, after beings severely
tortured. It was further alleged that seven "political prisoners" had
been executed in Evin prison, Tehran,
on 10 April 1985 and scores
of other on 29 April 1985,
on 30 April 1985, on 2 May 1985 and on 4 May 1985;
(e) On 7
June 1985 it was alleged that Nostrat'u'llah
Sobhani, a member of the Baha'i faith, had been
executed;
(f) On 16 July 1985 it was alleged that
approximately 70 "political prisoners" had been executed in Evin
prison, Tehran, during the last week of June 1985, and a supporter of the
People's Mojahedin Organization had been hanged in
public in Arak, central Iran, on 13 June 1985;
(g) On 26 September 1985 it was alleged that a group of
political prisoners, including Hassan Shahsavandi, aged 21, had been executed on 19 September 1985 in the Pasdaran Corps Prison in Shiraz;
another group of political prisoners, including Gholamreza
Veshagh, aged 24, had been executed on 14 September 1985 in Evin Prison, Tehran.
Hossein Meshkinfam, aged
32, had been executed in Shiraz
prison after 40 days of allegedly extremely severe torture and after blood had
been taken from his body. Other recently executed political prisoners,
according to that information, included Saifollah Kazemian - in Amol, northern
Iran; Manouchehr Ashtari -
in Arak, central Iran, and Mohammad Begherzadeh - in Mashhad.
(h) On 14 October 1985 it was alleged that approximately 60
"political prisoners", including Alireza Emchaspand, who was arrested in 1981 and had not been
brought to trial, had been executed in Evin prison, Tehran,
on 21 September 1985.
The following are cases containing detailed
allegations of violations of the right to life that were submitted to the
Iranian Government by the newly appointed Special Representative in a letter
dated 27 October 1986:
(a) On 28 October 1985 the People's Mojahedin
Organization alleged that several of its members had been recently executed in
secret. According to that information:
(i)
On 5 October 1985 the
bodies of Gholam Sarkheili
and Maghi Saidi, two
political prisoners from Evin prison, were buried in Behesht-Zahra
cemetery;
(ii) On 9 October 1985 Mahmoud
Bani-Najjarian, a lawyer, aged 35, was executed in
Evin prison;
(iii) On 11 October 1985 Ali-Asghar Salehzadeh was hanged in
public from a crane in Zanjan, northern Iran;
(iv)
On an unspecified date in early October 1985, several political
prisoners in Gohardasht prison in Karaj, west of Tehran,
were executed. They included Ahmad Khakbaz, Bahram Bayat and Khaleghi (first name not reported). During the same period
several members of the Organization were executed in Kermanshah
prison, in western Iran;
(b) In early December 1985 the Organization
of Iranian People's Fedaian alleged that a group of
political prisoners had been secretly executed during the previous two months.
They included the following: Mehrdad Pakzad, Jamshid Sepahvand, Ali Karimpour,
Ahmad-Reza Shoaii, Razialdin
Taban, Anoushirvan (Bashir) Mada'en, Reza La'ali, Fatemeh Nofallah, Amir Pirhadi, Alireza Amshasbandan, Touran Maso'udi, Ibrahim Zabihin, Yosif Hosseini Zanjirabadi, Mahmoud Karami, Ahmad Khakbaz, Bahram Bayat, Khaleghi, Siavosh Khorramrouz, Shayesteh, Nasser Rajabzadeh, Pirooz Nemati Moradlou,
Davoud Safavi, Seyed Valiolah Safari.
(c) On 31 December 1985 the People's Mojahedin
Organization alleged that one of its members, Morteza
Qassemi-Nejad, aged 20, had been set ablaze in Ardabil prison, north-western Iran,
in the autumn of 1985, by revolutionary guards. He died of his wounds.
According to the same source, on 13
December 1985 security agents executed two passengers on a bus in
the Sar Dasht region in
southern Kurdistan. This allegedly took place in front
of the other passengers. The two victims were reportedly residents of the
nearby village of Biuran;
(d) On 2
January 1986 it was alleged that two members of the Central
Committee of the Tudeh Party of Iran,
Reza Shaltouki and Taghi Keymanesh, had died under torture. Both had been imprisoned
since 1983 and were being detained without trial.
(e) On 3
March 1986 the People's Mojahedin
Organization alleged that several political prisoners, members or supporters or
the Organization, had been executed in secret in secret during the months of
January and February 1986. According to that information several prisoners were
executed in Evin prison, Tehran, in
late January 1986. They included Khosro Pazirai, Farshid Khadnan Rooshaki, Faramarz Vaziri, Abdolreza Bahrami, Massoud Mehrban, Gholamreza Akbari-Monfared, and Hassan Nikfard. Nagui Salehi was executed in Evin
prison in February 1986. Five prisoners were executed in February in Tabriz Prison, north-western Iran:
Ajbar Amanollahi, Merdad Ardalan, Mansour Karimi, Ahmoud Esmailzadeh and Ehsan Saidi. Bagher
Narazian was executed in February in Zanjan prison, northern Iran.
Hossein Ghazvanchahi was
allegedly killed under torture in Amol prison,
northern Iran.
(f) On 20 March 1986 the Organization of
Iranian Peoples' Fedaian alleged that several
political prisoners had been executed during the previous few weeks and that
others, whose execution orders had been approved by the High Judicial Council,
were facing imminent execution;
(g) In April 1986 official Iranian sources
reported that four persons, convicted of moral crimes, had been sentenced to
death by stoning. Tahereh Nagib,
a woman convicted of adultery and murder was stoned to death in Qom. Ebrahim
Shahbazi, Neyedali Bahrami and Mohammed Eftekharian
were convicted of adultery and running a prostitution ring and were stoned to
death in Karaj.
Several other sentences of death by stoning were reportedly confirmed by the
Supreme Judicial Council and were expected to be carried out;
(h) On 25 June 1986 the Baha'i International Community alleged
the summary execution of two of its members: Sirru'llah
Vahdat-Nizami was hanged on 4 May 1986 in Tehran,
after being imprisoned since 13
February 1981 and having been severely tortured. Ridrus Shabrukh, aged 38, was
hanged on 9 May 1986 in Zahedan. He had been imprisoned for a second time since 26 June 1983 and had allegedly been
severely tortured. Farid Bihmardi
was executed on 10 June 1986
in Tehran. He had allegedly been
severely tortured over a long period of time. It was also alleged that a
15-year-old boy, Payman Suhbani,
had been beaten and stoned to death by a group of fanatics, allegedly incited
by religious officials. The boy's father, Ruhul-Amin Subhani, was seriously injured in the same incident.
The following are excerpts
from a summary of information collected during the informal hearings held by
the Special Representative in September 1986 (see paras.
13 and 15 above). These excerpts concern the right to life:
(a) All the Mojahedin
sympathizers alleged they had witnessed executions in prison of fellow inmates,
had seen the bodies of fellow inmates who had been executed earlier, or had
members of their family or friends who had been executed. Thus, Robabeh Boudaghi allegedly saw
her husband's body hanged in he courtyard of Gilan
prison, and witnessed several other people being executed in that prison, in
the period August-November 1983. Mina Vatani alleged
having witnessed 70 persons being executed in Evin prison in the early months
of 1982. Among those she allegedly saw being executed there were pregnant
women, and other women who had been raped before being executed. According to
these persons the executions were carried out without a trial, and in most of
the cases the victims were either shot dead or hanged, but many of the victims
died under torture or as a result of torture or ill-treatment;
(b) Some of the followers of the Baha'i faith
alleged that they had seen in prison fellow Baha'is who were later said to have
been executed, including Shahpur Markazi,
Jahangir Hidayati, Ahmad Bashiri and Rahmatullah Vujdani. One of the followers of the Baha'i faith who
appeared before the Special Representative alleged that he had helped to bury
the bodies of six members of the local Baha'i Council of Urumiyih.
They were: Ihsanullah Khayyami,
Agahullah Tizfahm, Jalaliyah Mashtail-Uskui (a
woman), Ali Naimiyan, Maqsud Alizadih Jalal Payravi.
B. Right to freedom from torture or cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Article 7 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights provides that "no one shall be subjected to
torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". Under
article 38 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, any kind of
torture exercised to extort a confession from the prisoner is forbidden.
Articles 58 and 62 of the Islamic Penal Code further provide for severe
penalties to members of the prison staff or judicial or non-judicial officials
convicted of ill-treatment of prisoners.
Although the Constitution of the Islamic
Republic of Iran prohibits torture to obtain confessions, the information
received by the Special Representative contained numerous detailed allegations
of widespread torture and ill-treatment, principally affecting imprisoned
members or supporters of political opposition groups or members of religious or
ethnic minorities. According to one source, there were 64 different forms of
physical and psychological torture applied in prisons in the Islamic Republic
of Iran, but most of the cases brought to the attention of the Special
Representative concerned beating, flogging, burning with cigarettes, electric
shocks, sexual abuse as well as psychological torture such as mock executions.
Most of the alleged cases of torture appeared to have occurred during
interrogation and were intended to extract confession about the detainees' activities
and the names and addresses of other members of the organization or group to
which the detainee belonged.
The following are excerpts from the summary
mentioned in paragraph 15 above and relate to the right to freedom from torture
or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment: the six Mojahedin sympathizers alleged that they had been severely
tortured in prison and had witnessed many other fellow inmates being tortured. Robabeh Boudaghi was allegedly
tortured in Evin prison from 1983 to 1985. Behzad Nazari was allegedly tortured in Evin and Ghezelhessar prisons from 1982 to 1985. Azame
was allegedly tortured in Evin and Ghezelhessar
prisons from August 1982 to October 1985. Mina Vatani
was allegedly tortured in Evin, Ghezelhessar and Gohar-Dasht prisons from November 1981 to November 1984.
Ali Hossein-Zadeh was allegedly tortured in Khorramshahr and Amol prisons
from September 1981 to February 1983. Hossein Hosseini was allegedly tortured in Dadgahe
Enghelab and Ershadgah
prisons from September 1981 to September 1982. Some of them showed the Special
Representative marks and scars on their body which they claimed were the result
of torture. The persons appearing before the Special Representative alleged
that they had been subjected to various sorts of physical an psychological
torture, including sexual brutality and rape, beating and flogging with various
instruments, hanging, denial of sleep, torture in front of family members,
torture of family members' in front of the detainees and mock executions.
Torture allegedly occurred immediately following arrest, in interrogation
centres and in prisons. It allegedly occurred both during the pre-trial period
and wand while serving a prison sentence.
With regard to five of the persons appearing
before him, the Special Representative received medical certificates attesting
to the following:
(a)Dr. Claudine Jeannet
of Geneva examined Azame, Robabeh Boudaghi and Mina Vatani on 5 October 1986. With regard to Azame she certified as follows:
"She bears traces, in the form of scars
on her feet, of the ill-treatment to which she was subjected. In addition, as a
result of injuries to the abdomen and genital area and also rape, she had
serious infections which required the removal of the appendix and uterus and an
operation on the left ovary."
With regard to Robabeh
Boudaghi she certified as follows:
"The scars she bears are entirely
compatible with the injuries she said she received at the time of her arrest.
Her confused state is likewise entirely compatible with the ill-treatment to
which she was subjected."
With regard to Mina Vatani
she certified as follows:
"The scars she bears, particularly on
the feet, are certainly a secondary effect of ill-treatment. She also has
neurological symptoms which are a secondary effect of blows to the head."
(b) Dr. Inge Kemp Genefke, Medical Director of the Rehabilitation Centre for
Torture Victims in Copenhagen,
examined Hossein Hosseini
on 20 July 1985. She
certified that:
"This patient had been in perfect
health, was never hospitalized, and in his family there is no predisposition to
illness. On arrival in Denmark
the patient was in a very bad state both mentally and physically. This patient
suffered from anxiety and depression and complained about serious difficulties
in concentration and relation."
(c) Dr. Helene Jaff
e, President of the Association pour les victimes de
la r epression en Exil
(AVRE) in Paris, examined Ali Hossein-Zadeh on 7
October 1986 and certified as follows:
"Lastly, Mr, Hossein-Zadeh refers to ill-treatment inflicted over a
lengthy period 40 days in 1981. Upon examination, it was somewhat surprising to
not the unpronounced and relatively non-specific nature of the sequelae. It was not possible to establish an indisputable
cause-and-effect link between the ill-treatment and its present manifestation,
but there is a possible causal link."
C. Right to liberty and security of person
Article 9 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights provides for a number of safeguards against
arbitrary arrest or detention. These include the right to be promptly informed
of the reasons for one's arrest and of any charges against one; the right of
persons arrested or detained on a criminal charge to be brought promptly before
a judge and to be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release; the
right to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide
without delay on the lawfulness of one's detention and order one's release if
the detention is not lawful and the right of anyone who has been the victim of
unlawful arrest or detention to have an enforceable right to compensation.
Chapter II of the "Report on the
performance of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1985" (A/40/874, annex IV),
entitled "On the right of freedom and personal security
vis-a-vis wilful arrest or
detention" addresses itself, inter alia,
to the guarantees existing in Iranian law to safeguard the inviolable rights of
individuals in the face of wilful arrest or detention. A number of provisions
of the Constitutional Law and the Islamic Penal Code are quoted, indicating
that arbitrary arrest or detention is forbidden and that violators of these
provisions are punishable, and also providing that, in case of arrest, the
accused must be immediately informed of the reason for his detention, in
writing. Iranian legislation in that respect therefore appears to be compatible
with the provisions of article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. Nevertheless, according to the information received by the
Special Representative, and in particular the information collected during the
informal hearings conducted in September 1986, (see paras.
13 and 15 above), all the persons appearing before the Special Representative
alleged that they had been arrested without any warrant, mostly by groups of
revolutionary guards who had detained them in their homes or on the street. In
some cases, persons were arrested while accompanied by family members,
including babies or children. Most of the persons described the conditions of
their arrest as brutal, accompanied by beatings and other forms of
ill-treatment. In most of the cases, no explanation was given to the detainee
as to the reason for his detention. In other cases, explanations were vague.
Some of the persons spent months, or sometimes years, in prison without any
formal accusation being brought against them. Allegations were also made of
long periods of incommunicado detention and of denial
of family visits.
D. Right to a fair trial
Article 14 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights contains a number of principles and guarantees for a
fair administration of justice. These include the right to equality of all
persons before the courts and tribunals, to a fair and public hearing by a
competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law, to be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law, to be informed promptly
of the nature and cause of the charge against one, to have adequate time and
facilities for the preparation of one's defense and to communicate with counsel
of one's own choosing, to be tried without undue delay, to be tried in one's
presence, to defend oneself in person or through legal assistance of one's own
choosing, to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against one, not to be
compelled to testify against oneself or to confess guilt and to have the right
to one's conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according
to law.
It was alleged that accused persons had not
been informed of the charges against them, could not communicate with counsel
of their own choosing, had no legal assistance assigned to them, could not
examine witnesses of the prosecution, had sometimes not been informed of the
verdict and the sentence handed down to them, and had been denied the right to
their conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal.
The following are excerpts from the summary
of information obtained during the informal hearing (see paras.
13 and 15 above), and relate to the right to a fair trial: persons who were put
on trial alleged that in most cases trials were expeditious - some said they
lasted as little as 5 minutes. In some cases the accused had their eyes covered
and could not see the judge who, in most cases, was a single religious judge.
None of the persons appearing before the Special Representative had been given
access to a defence
lawyer. In most cases the accused were not given the opportunity to speak in
their defence, during their trial. Thee was no
possibility of appealing against sentences, not even in cases of death
sentences. One Mojahedin sympathizer learned, four
months after his trial, that he had been sentenced to eight years' of
imprisonment. Some religious judges allegedly ordered that accused persons be
tortured - that was allegedly the case of the Mojahedin
sympathizer Azame. Another Mojahedin
sympathizer, Ali Hossein-Zadeh, alleged that a
religious judge, called Jumei, whom he described as a
"mobile prosecutor", went from prison to prison and spent 2 to 3
minutes with each of the prisoners, sentencing some of them to be executed.
E. Right to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion and to freedom of expression.
Articles 18 and 19 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provide for the right to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion, the right to hold opinions without
interference and the right to freedom of expression.
In the "Report on the performance of the
Islamic Republic of Iran in 1985" referred to above (A/40/874, annex IV, paras. 62-63 it is stated that:
"62. Therefore, no one is prosecuted for
his ideas about Marxism or Bahai'ism or atheism.
However, creating organizations and group activities for the purpose of
propagating corruption and overt campaign against Islam upon which the Islamic
Republic of Iran is based and for whose propagation it is founded may be
considered as detrimental to the national security and in opposition to the
system of the Islamic Republic,; activities of these organizations may be
considered as counter-revolutionary and membership of such organizations could
be considered as a crime. The
same is also true of the membership in and co-operation with organizations
based on destructive and terrorist activities which are seeking, through
murder, massacre and terror, to overthrow the system voted for by the majority
of the Iranian population."
According to the information received by the
Special Representative, members and supporters of opposition groups who had
reportedly not engages in violent activities, and members of religious and
ethnic minorities, and in particular followers of the Baha'i faith, continued
to be subjected to harassment, discrimination and persecution. In the case of
the Baha'is it was alleged that since the Baha'i faith was not officially
recognized, its followers had not status, rights or protection under the law.
Baha'is who attempted to seek redress through the courts had allegedly been
ruled ineligible for any form of compensation on the grounds that they were
"unprotected infidels". Persecution of Baha'is has allegedly taken
the form of summary executions (188 since 1978, including seven in the first 10
months of 1986), torture, arbitrary imprisonment, denial of education and
employment, arbitrary seizure of homes and possessions, confiscation of
community assets and seizure, desecration and destruction of holy places.
The following are excerpts from the summary
of information referred to in paragraphs 13 and 15 above and relate to the
right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and to freedom of
expression:
(a) The Mojahedin
sympathizers appearing before the Special Representative alleged that they had
been arrested, tortured and imprisoned for their opinions in favour of the Mojahedin
Organization, or for non0violent acts on behalf of the Organization, such as
selling books and distributing leaflets. None of them had reportedly engages in
any illicit activity. Some of them had family members who were active members
of the Organization and were allegedly persecuted for that reason;
(b) The followers of the Baha'i faith sated
that the Baha'i faith was not recognized as an official religion in the Islamic
Republic of Iran; this allegedly resulted in harassment and persecution of the
followers of that faith. The principal victims of the alleged persecution were
members of national or local Baha'i administrative institutions who were, in
many cases, arrested, imprisoned, tried on charges such as espionage, sympathy
for the former imperial r egime or for Israel,
and, in some cases, ill-treated, tortured to death or executed. The alleged
objective of that persecution was to exert pressure on the followers of the
Baha'i faith to recant their faith and convert to Islam. However other Baha'is
who did not hold any position in the Baha'i administrative institutions, were
also allegedly harassed. Allegations were made of dismissal from Government and
other posts and an obligation to repay salaries earned throughout the duration
of employment, arbitrary arrest or detention, frequent searches in Baha'i
homes, confiscation of Baha'i literature and of other property desecration of
Baha'i holy places and cemeteries, attacks on and demolition of Baha'i homes
and property and prevention of access to education, travel abroad and
specialized medical treatment;
(c) The Special Representative received
several documents allegedly proving the existence of discrimination against
followers of the Baha'i faith on grounds of their religion. In once case,
concerning a Baha'i who needed an eye operation following an accident, the
authorities in charge of the medical centre at which the operation had to be
carried out decreed, that since the patient had personally confessed his
connection with the Zionist Baha'i faction, the operation was "not
legitimate for religious reasons".
F. Alleged Violation of certain rights
affecting the medical profession
According to the information received by the
Special Representative during the months of July and August 198, the elected
Board of Directors of the Iranian Medical Association had been dissolved and
several of its officers had been detained and allegedly subjected to torture.
It was reported that Dr. Hafazi, President of the
Board of Directors of the Iranian Medical Association, had had to be
hospitalized in Mada-en hospital after being
ill-treated in prison. Four hundred and fifty physicians from the Torfeh and Khomeiny hospitals
were allegedly arrested after opposing new legislation increasing Government
control over the Iranian Medical Association.
Following the transmittal of the
aforementioned allegation to the Iranian Government, by a letter dated 27 October 1986, the Special
Representative received the additional information regarding the alleged
harassment of members of the medical profession in the Islamic Republic of
Iran. According to that information Iranian physicians employed at hospitals
and medical centres in Tehran had
gone on strike on 14 and 15 of July 1986 to protest the Government's intention
of adopting new laws enabling it to take over the Iranian Medical Association
and to introduce compulsory service for physicians at the war front. Following
the outbreak of the strike, the Iranian Medical Association was dissolved and
on 22 July 1986 the Iranian
Parliament adopted a bill setting up a new body in which Government-appointed
members would constitute a majority. Many physicians who protested against the
bill were allegedly intimidated, arrested and beaten by Government agents. In
addition to Dr. Hafizi, referred to above, two other
members of the Board of Directors, Dr. Maleki and Dr.
Nasr, were allegedly also among those arrested.
According to one report, Dr. Hafizi suffered a heart
attack due to ill-treatment following his arrest and was transferred to Mada'en hospital in Tehran.
According to one report, nearly 90 per cent of the 14,000 physicians of the
Islamic Republic of Iran, as well as 85 per cent of all nurses and 75 per cent
of chemists took part in the strike which, by early August 1986, three weeks
after it began was still continuing. The Special Representative received
numerous appeals and petitions from medical associations throughout the world
concerning the situation of the medical profession in the Islamic Republic of
Iran in general, and the case of Dr. Hafizi in
particular.
VI.GENERAL OBSERVATIONS OF THE SPECIAL
REPRESENTATIVE
The aforementioned detailed allegations were
transmitted to the Iranian Government in order to enable it to verify their
accuracy. It was hoped that, if it had sufficient elements the Government would
conduct its own investigation and reply to each of the allegations transmitted
to it.
It may be observed that the numerous and
detailed allegations of human rights violations in the Islamic Republic of
Iran, transmitted to the Government of that country, and reflected in chapter V
above, were made, to a large extent, by organizations and groups with a
particular political or religious interest.
It may further be noted that the allegations
received by the Special Representative largely resembled, in nature,
allegations of human rights violations in the Islamic Republic of Iran made in
previous years, the only notable exception being the alleged violations of
rights affecting the medical profession (paras.
61-62). The bulk of these allegations concern violations of the right to life
(chap. V, sect. A) and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the rights referred to in
chapter V, sections B, C, and D. Allegations of violations of the right to
freedom of thought, conscience, and religion and to freedom of expression
(chap. 5 sect. E) were less numerous and principally concerned a particular
religious minority. Nevertheless, it may be observed that, following
transmittal of those allegations to the Iranian Government, the Special
Representative received allegations of a rather general nature to the effect
that members of the Jewish religious minority had also been persecuted in the
Islamic Republic of Iran in recent months.
Finally, it may be observed that the number
of alleged violations of the right to life had diminished over the past two
years; although allegations of executions continue to be received by the
Special Representative, there are fewer than during the years 1979-1984.
With regard to alleged violations referred to
in chapter V, sections B, C and D, most of the detailed allegations received by
the Special Representative referred to the years 1980-1983. Allegations of a
less specific nature have nevertheless continued to be received by the Special
Representative.
One general observation that the Special
Representative wishes to make is that the information before him reflects a
certain evolution in the situation of human rights away from the state of
affairs in earlier years; it appears to confirm, however, the persistence of
serious allegation, that may perhaps necessitate deeper
analysis of the legal and judicial system. For this purpose, the Special
Representative hopes that the Government will make available to him the texts
of the relevant legislation.
At the informal hearings conducted by the
Special Representative, the persons appearing before him referred to facts that
had allegedly occurred several years earlier. When asked whether there were
persons who could bear witness to facts that had occurred in recent months,
they answered that it normally took a long time for a person who had been
released to who had escaped from prison to reach a neighbouring
country; it took even longer for such a person to find a country of refuge.
They added that it had become more difficult than ever before to reach neighbouring countries through mountain passes or deserts.
Some explained their detention and
ill-treatment as part of an inquiry into the whereabouts of relatives or
friends who were the real targets of the police investigation. Some supposed
that they had been released in order to permit the police to follow them and
discover their contacts and eventually the whereabouts of the persons wanted.
Other persons indicated that their
imprisonment and trial were due to their sympathy for the People's Mojahedin Organization. These persons flatly denied any
involvement in terrorist activity.
All resolutions adopted by the Commission on
Human Rights and the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and
Protection of Minorities as well as by the Geral
Assembly have reiterated concern for the situation of the Baha'I
relgious minority in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
This minority numbers 60,000 to 70,000 members according to official sources
and 300,000 according to other sources, including the Baha'i International
Community.
The situation of the Baha'is was indeed the
subject of the first resolution dealing with the situation of human rights in
the Islamic Republic of Iran adopted by the Sub-Commission on 10 September 1980
(Sub-Commission resolution 10 (XXXIII). The first resolution the Commission on
Human Rights adopted on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic
of Iran, resolution 1982/27, requested the Secretary-General of the United
Nations "to continue his efforts to endeavour to ensure that the Baha'is
are guaranteed full enjoyment of their human rights and fundamental
freedoms" (para. 2). Since then, all resolutions
adopted by the Commission on this subject have reiterated concern for the
situation of the Baha'i community in
the Islamic Republic
of Iran (see resolutions 1983/34, para. 1; 1984/54, para. 1; 1985/39, para. 5;
1986/41 para.7). The resolutions of the General Assembly on the situation of
human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, have similarly included "the situation of
minority groups such as the Baha'is" (see resolutions 40/141, para. 8; 41/159, para. 7).
These reiterated expressions of concern
indicate that the competent organs of the United Nations expect the Special
Representative to turn his attention to the situation of the Baha'i community
in the Islamic Republic of Iran in an effort to clarify the conditions under
which its members are living.
Information received from the Government and
information from other sources, in particular the Baha'i International
Community, disagree in substance. The Government considers the Baha'is merely
as a political group at the service of foreign interests and objectives; and
the other sources hold that the Baha'is do not intervene in politics on account
of the strict prohibition contained in the fundamental precepts of their faith.
The Iranian Constitution recognizes as
religious minorities Zoroastrians, Jews and Christians (art. 13). These groups
are represented in parliament. The Constitution states that they "shall be
the sole recognized minorities who shall be free within the jurisdiction of the
law in performing their religious services and shall act according to their
canon law as far as their personal status and religious teachings are
concerned". Apparently, personal and legal status is determined by religious
affiliation, and the absence of recognition of a religious group implies
hardships for those not specifically recognized.
As they are not recognized as a religious
minority, the Baha'is are not permitted to hold their
religious services or act according to their canon law in respect of their
personal status and religious teachings.
The Baha'i International Community has
complained that "as an unrecognized religious minority
the Baha'is have absolutely no status, rights or protections under the
law".
According to official Iranian sources,
imprisonment and punishment of some Baha'is had nothing to do with their
religious beliefs. "Those Baha'is had been condemned and
executed, as had many Muslims, but that had nothing to do with their religious
beliefs" (CCPR/C/SR.368, para. 11).
Members of the Iranian Baha'i community have been charged with collaboration
with the deposed monarchy and in particular with the secret police (SAVAK).
Apart from those who had committed crimes, "the rest of the Baha'is were
leading a normal life" E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/SR.27, para.15). The Iranian
Government has also provided the Commission with details of the political
activities attributed to the Baha'is (E/CN.4/1983/19, annex II, sect. 2).
The Iranian Government has reiterated that
"no one is prosecuted in the Islamic Republic of Iran for his political
beliefs", and added that "no one is prosecuted for his ideas about
Marxism, Baha'ism or atheism. However, creating organizations and group
activities for the purpose of propagating corruption and overt campaign against
Islam upon which the Islamic Republic of Iran is based and for whose
propagation it is founded may be considered as detrimental to the national
security and in opposition to the system of the Islamic Republic; activities of
these organizations and other similar organizations may be considered
counter-revolutionary and membership of such organizations could be considered
as a crime" (Report on the performance of the Islamic Republic of Iran in
1985 (A/40/874, annex IV), paras. 62-63).
The Baha'i leadership circulated a paper
denying the charges and asserting that the Baha'i faith is "an independent
world religion and its followers are forbidden, by the laws of their faith,
from becoming involved in partisan politics or in any form of subversive
activity" and that the activities of Baha'i communities were open to
scrutiny, and inviting the establishment of an impartial body of inquiry to
mount a thorough investigation of Baha'i activities (E/.CN.4/1983/19, annex
III).
The Baha'i International Community has
charged that the most recent legislative action taken by the Government of the
Islamic Republic of Iran against the Baha'i community was the imposition of a
ban on all administrative and community activities of Baha'i faith in the
country. This ban was announced in a statement by the Attorney-General
published in the newspaper Kayhan on 29 August 1983.
The following are excerpts from that
statement:
"Now, if Baha'i himself performs his
religious acts in accordance with his own beliefs, such a man will not be
bothered by us, provided he does not invite others to Baha'ism, does not teach,
does not form assemblies, does not give news to others, and has nothing to do
with the administration. Not only do we not execute such people, we do not even
imprison them, and they can work within society. If, however, they decide to
work within their administration, this is a criminal act and is forbidden, the
reason being that such administration is co nsidered
to be hostile and conspirational and such people are
conspirators."
The Baha'i International Community claims
that the repression of the Baha'i faith has been concentrated and selectively
on the leadership, that is, on the administration. The rest of the community is
thus left without direction, unable to perform their religion publicly, and sometimes whitout
jobs, pensions and livelihood. The objective of this policy may be to put
enough pressure on the Baha'is to recant their faith.
Immediately after the publication of the
statement by the Attorney-General, the Iranian governing body of the Baha'is
and about 400 local administrative bodies disbanded, in accordance with the
Baha'i International Community, all activities are carried out under the aegis
of the administrative bodies, and "consequently the banning of these
institutions means much more than the termination of some purely peripheral
administrative activities".
According to the information received and the
history of the Baha'i movement in Iran,
the precarious situation of the Baha'is has deep roots in Iranian history and
the Iranian way of life. Baha'ism, it would appear, has never been recognized
in Iran as a
religion. It would seem that Baha'ism has been the subject of expressions of
hostility over the years, indeed, including violence. This attitue
would seem to be based on the conviction that Baha'ism is a dissident and
heterodox movement that separated it from Islam.
Baha'is claim that
they are not dissidents from Islam but adherents to a completely new religion
that started in 1844. The fact is that Baha'is, in the
absence of recognition, depend on general good will and are thus exposed
to the unexpected reaction or mood prevailing at any given moment.
V.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The preceding legal and factual considerations
lead to the following conclusions:
(a)The Islamic Republic of Iran, as a Member
of the United Nations and party to the two Covenants and other treaties, is
legally bound to observe the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations
concerning human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as other relevant
instruments such as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. In conformity
with its international obligations, the Islamic Republic has to co-operate with
the competent organs entrusted with the promotion and surveillance of human
rights and fundamental freedoms.
(b) The communication to the Iranian
Government of alleged violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms is
part of the mechanism of joint efforts to promote the observance of human
rights and fundamental freedoms information permitting investigation in order
to refute or redress the alleged wrongdoing. It is not a judicial procedure. At
the present stage, international organs dealing with the protection of human
rights at the world-wide level under the aegis of the United Nations are the
organized and workable expression of a general state of awareness of peoples
and Governments and constitute a co-operative structure through which
enlightened public opinion expresses moral and political convictions and
criticism as well as providing assistance of various kinds.
(c) The replies that the Iranian Government
may give to the requests presented for its consideration would be of paramount
importance in the assessment of both the general situation concerning human
rights and the particular cases of alleged violations of human rights. In the
absence of such replies it must be concluded that even if, in some cases, the
numerous and grave allegations of human rights violations in the Islamic
Republic or Iran may be considered exaggerated, most of them contain a nucleus
of truth. The Special Representative believes that acts continue to occur in
the Islamic Republic of Iran which are inconsistent
with the provisions of treaties and covenants by which the Government of that
country is bound.
In the light of the foregoing the Special
Representative makes the following recommendations for the consideration of the
Commission:
(a) The Iranian Government may consider
giving its consent to the establishment of an Iranian Commission on Human
Rights, composed of independent and representative personalities, with full
guarantees for traveling, communications inside and outside the country,
collection and verification of information, access to the authorities and
recognized exercise of independent functions. This Commission could greatly
contribute to the improvement of the general atmosphere surrounding human
rights.
(b) The Special Representative noted with
satisfaction that it had been agreed that visits by the International Committee
of the Red Cross (ICRC) to Iraqi prisoners of war held captive in the Islamic
Republic of Iran would be resumed as soon as the necessary arrangements were
settled (ICRC press release No. 1528, 30 November 1986). The Commission may
wish to recommend that the ICRC also be authorized to visit members of
opposition groups detained in the Islamic Republic of Iran and persons detained
on account of their opinions, beliefs or religion.
(c) The Commission may wish to endorse the
request for information submitted by its Special Representative to the Iranian
Government and to repeat its appeals to that Government to permit its Special
Representative to visit the country.
(d) The Commission may decide to keep the
situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Islamic Republic of
Iran on its agenda for its forty-fourth session.
(e) The Commission may decide to continue to
monitor the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Annex
LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND PUBLICATIONS MADE
AVAILABLE TO THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE
A. Documents prepared by former Special
Representative of the Commission
-Preliminary report to the Commission on
Human Rights by Mr. Andres Aguilar (E/CN.4/1985/20)
-Interim report to the General Assembly by
the former Special Representative, Mr. Andres Aguilar (A/40/874)
-Statement made by the former Special Representative,
Mr. Andres Aguilar, when introducing his interim report to the General Assembly
(E/CN.4/1986/25, annex II)
B. Documents published by organs or
agencies of the United Nations systems
1.Economic and
Social Council. Commission on Human Rights
-Report of the Secretary-General of the
United Nations prepared pursuant to paragraph 4 of Commission on Human Rights
resolution 1982/27 (E/CN.4/1983/9)
-Report of the Secretary-General prepared
pursuant to paragraph 4 of Commission on Human Rights resolution 1983/34
(E/CN.4/1984/28)
-Report of the Secretary-General on direct
contacts with the Iranian Government prepared pursuant to paragraph 3 of
Commission on Human Rights resolution 1982/27 (E/CN.4/1983/52)
-Report of the Secretary-General on direct
contacts with the Iranian Government prepared pursuant to paragraph 3 of
Commission on Human Rights resolution 1983/34 (E/CN.4/1984/32)
-Reports prepared by the Special Rapporteur
on summary or arbitrary executions, Mr. S. Amos Wako (E/CN.4/1983/16,
E/CN.4/1984/29, E/CN.4/1985/17, and E/CN.4/1986/21)
-Report of the Working Group on Enford or Involuntary Disappearances(E/CN.4/1986/18)
-Summary records of the relevant meetings of
the Commission on Human Rights from its thirty-eighth to its forty-second
sessions.
-Summary records of the relevant meetings of
the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities
from its thirty-fifth to its thirty-ninth sessions
2.International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Human Rights Committee)
-Summary records of the 364th to
366th and 368th meetings at the sixteenth session
(CCPR/C/SR.364 to SR.366 and CCPR/C/SR.368).
-Report of the Human Rights Committee, Official
Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-seventh
Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/37/40)
3.General
Assembly Third Committee
Summary records of the relevant meetings of
the Third Committee at the fortieth and forty-first sessions of the General
Assembly
4.International
Labour Office
-Reports of the Committee on Freedom of
Association (230th, 231st and 232nd Reports), Official
Bulletin, vol. LXVI, 1983, series B, No. 3
-Two hundred and thirty-fourth report of the
Committee on Freedom of Association (GB.266/5/18)
-Report of the Committee on the Application
of Conventions and Recommendations (International Labour Conference,
sixty-ninth session, Geneva, 1983, No. 31)
-Report of the Committee of Experts on the
Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report III (Part 4A)
(International Labour Conference, sixty-ninth session, 1983)
-Report of the Committee on the Application
of Conventions and Recommendations (International Labour Conference, seventieth
session, Geneva, 1984, No. 35)
-Report of the Committee of Experts on the
Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report III (Part 4A)
(International Labour Conference, seventieth session, 1984)
C. Documentation from official Iranian
sources
1.Documents
-Statements delivered by the Permanent
Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations,
Ambassador Said Rajaie-Khorossani, in the Third
Committee of the General Assembly on 7 December 1984 and on 4 December 1984 and
on 4 December 1985
-Statement delivered by the Observer for the
Islamic Republic of Iran to the Commission on Human Rights at its forty-second
session
-Report submitted by the Islamic Republic of
Iran to the Human Rights Committee under article 40 of the Covenant on Civil
and Political.
2.Publications
-In a series of booklets published by the
Public Relations Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic
Republic of Iran, under the title "Documentary proof of terrorism,"
the follwing were made available:
"Dimensions of the crime of
terrorism"
"France
the base of terrorism"
"Biographies acknowledge genocide"
"Victims of terrorism", May 1984
"Dimensions of a crime", February
1986
"Dimensions of a terrorist crime",
February 1986
"Terrorist training", February 1986
"Biographies of terrorists",
February 1986
"Commands of terrorist activity",
February 1986
"Unprecedented torture", February
1986
"The state of refugee seekers",
February 1986
"The nature of terrorists",
February 1986
The following booklets, published by the
Islamic Propagation Organization, were made available:
"The Constitution of the Islamic Republic
of Iran"
"Felonies of the MKO terrorists in Iran",
1983
"Confessions of some high-ranking MKO
terrorists as aired on IRI TV", 1985
"Confessions of the central cadre of the
Tudeh Party", 1985
The following booklets, published by the
Office of the Islamic Revolution Prosecutor of Tehran were made available:
"The tortured ones (1)", 1986
"Image of Evin"
D. Publications made available by
non-governmental organizations enjoying consultative status with the Economic
and Social Council
Amnesty International Reports 1981-1986
"The Baha'is in Iran",
published by the Baha'i International Community, July 1982.
E. A number of pamphlets and reports were
also made available to the Special Representative by the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran including a list of names
and particulars of 12,028 victims of executions, a report on 64 forms of tortue in the Islamic Republic of Iran and a report on the
Iranian physicians' strike in July-August 1986.
