Aadel Collection
Report on the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran by the Special Represenative of the Commission, Mr. Reynaldo Galindo Pohl, appointed pursuant to resolustion 1986/41
UNITED
NATIONS
Economic and Social GENERAL
Council
E/CN. 4/1987/23
28 January 1987
Original: ENGLISH/FRENCH
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Forty—third session
Item 12 of the provisional agenda
QUESTION OF THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS
IN ANY PART OF THE WORLD, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO COLONIAL AND
OTHER DEPENDENT COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES
Report on the human rights situation in the Islamic
Republic of Iran by the Special Representative of
the Commission, Mr. Reynaldo Galindo Pohi ., appointed
pursuant to resolution 1986/41
E
GE. 87—103 21/6860E
E/CN. 4/1987/23
page ii
CONTENTS
I • INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II • ACTION TAKEN BY THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE
III. INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE SPECIAL
REPRESENTATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. Writteninformation...........,.......
B. Oral information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IV. LEGAL FRAIIEWORK .......... .
A. Applicable international instruments ..
B. Charter of the United Nations ..
C. Universal Declaration of Human Rights .
D. International Covenants on Human Rights
E. IranianLegaiStructure .
F. Co—ordination of international law and
Islamic law ..... ..
V. CONSIDERATION OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF
HUMAN RIGHTS . ..... ....
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 .. ..
B. Right to freed of thought, conscience
and religion and to freedom of expression
F. Alleged violation of certain rights
affecting the medical profession
Paragraphs
1— 2
3— 6
Page
1
1
7—15 2
9—12 2
13—15 3
16—40 3
16—17 3
18—19 4
20—28 4
29—3]. 6
32—37 6
38—40 8
41—62 9
42—47 9
48—51 13
52—53 14
54—56 15
57—60 16
61—62 17
E/CN. 4/1987/23
page iii
CONTENTS ( continued)
Paragraphs Page
VI. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS OF THE SPECIAL
REPRES TATIVE ..... 63 — 86 18
VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 87 — 88 22
annex
List of documents and publications made
available to the Special Representative ... 24
E/CN. 4/1987/23
page 1
I. INTRODUCTION
1. 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. Andr4s 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.
2. 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/4l/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
3. 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 the 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.
4. The Iranian Government has so far provided 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.
5. 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.
E/CN.4/1987/23
page 2
6. 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
forty—second 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
7. 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
allegations of human rights violations in the Islamic Republic of Iran, in the
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.
8. 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
9. The Special Representative had before him 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).
10. 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 the present r4gime, and in particular the People's
Mojahedin Organization of Iran, Organization of Iranian People's Fedaian arid
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.)
11. Non—governmental organizations 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.
E/CN.4/1987/23
page 3
12. 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
13. 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 situation in the Islamic
Republic of Iran. Six of these persons described themselves as sympathizers
of the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran. They were: Robabeh Boudaghi,
Behzad Naziri, Azame (this person requested that her surname should not be
disclosed), Mina Vatani, Au Hossein—Zadeh and Hossein Hosseini. The other
10 persons were followers of the Baha'i faith (all of them requested that
their name should not be disclosed).
14. 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.
Iv. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Applicable international instruments
16. 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.
17. 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.
E/CN. 4/1987/2 3
page 4
B. Charter of the United Nations
18. 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
promotion and encouragement of respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
19. At IIe 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 of universal respect for, and
observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms (emphasis added)
(Art. 56).
C. Universal Declaration of Human Rights
20. 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 IIrough the joint action of
States Members of the United Nations (Charter, Art. 56). Thus the Universal
Declaration provides an authoritative understanding and an agreed
interpretation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and consequently of
the obligations acquired under the Charter on that subject.
21. 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.
22. 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 IIe more
liberal standards of contemporary doctrines on the constitutive elements of
international customary law.
E/CN.4/l987/23
page 5
23. 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 States
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.
24. There is no need to enter into this polemic, because general 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.
25. 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 tenets 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.
26. 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 provisions,
even with the consent of the States concerned. The provisions of jus cogens
constitute the structural legal element of the international community,
because it is universal and outside the individual expression of will of each
State.
27. 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 arid 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.
28. In recent decades it has been implicitly or explicitly accepted that
organized or semi—organized political groups, particularly those engaged 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 individuals thus the individual, whether “insurgents' or
E/CN.4/l987/23
page 6
“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
29. 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/l/Add.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/9l/Add.3l and CERD/C/l18/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.
31. 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.
B. Iranian legal structure
32. 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.
33. The fundamental Iranian legal instrument is the Constitution, adopted in
1979. The Constitution is divided 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.
34. The report submitted by the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Human Rights
Committee under article 40 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(CCPR/C/l/Add.58) outlined the most important and relevant laws promulgated in
order to develop the Constitution in respect of human rights and fundamental
freedoms.
E/CN. 4/1987/23
page 7
35. Among the relevant 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”p
(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 lodge a complaint with one 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.
36. 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) and (b)). The report did not refer to fair trial,
freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and right of religious minorities
to profess and practice their own religion (aide—memoire, letters (c), (d) and
(e)).
37. 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.
E/CN. 4/1987/23
page 8
F. Co—ordination of international law and Islamic law
38. 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 P mbassador 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 being 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 of non—religious inspiration were not
necessarily contrary to the Muslim faith. However, any law contrary to
the tenets of Islam would not be acceptable”.
39. 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.
40. 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.
E/CN. 4/1987/23
page 9
V. CONSIDERATION OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS
41. 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 IIe 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 .
42. Article 6,paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights provides that “every human being has the inherent right to
life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of his life.”
43. 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”.
44. According to 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, while 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.
45. 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/40/874,
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
E/CN. 4/1987/23
page 10
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 that, during
the month of March 1985, 48 “political prisoners” had been executed in Ahvaz,
in south—western Iran; one in Qazvin ; one in Qom, two in Seinnan and five in
Tabriz;
(c) On 17 April it was alleged that eight “political prisoners”, all
supporters of the People's Mojahediri 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 being severely tortured. It was further alleged that seven “political
prisoners” had been executed in Evin prison, Tehran, on lQ April 1985 and
scores of others 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 Nzstrat'u'llah Sobhani, a member
of the Baha'i faith, had been executed;
(f) On 16 July 1985 it was alleged that approximately 70 po1itical
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 P.rak,
central Iran, and Mohammed Bagherzadeh — 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.
46. 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 l986
(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:
E/CN.4/1987/23
page 11
(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 IIe following: Mehrdad Pakzad,
Jamshid Sepahvand, All Karimpour, Ahmad—Reza Shoaii, Razialdin Taban,
Anoushirvan (Bashir) Mada'en, Reza La'ali, Fatemeh Nofallah, Amir Pirhadi,
Alireza Aoeshasbandan, Touran Maso'udi, Ibrahim Zabihin,
Yosif Hosseini Zanjirabadi, Mahxnoud Karaini, Ahinad Khakbaz, Bahraoe 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 Qasseini—Nejad, aged 20, had been set ablaze in
Ardabil prison, north—western Iran, in the autumm 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 IIat 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 of the Organization, had
been executed 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, Abdoireza Bahrami, Massoud Mehrban,
Gholamreza Akbari—Monfared and Hassan Nikfard. Naghi Salehi was executed in
Evin prison in February 1986. Five prisoners were executed in February in
Tabriz prison, north—western Iran: Akbar Ainanollahi, Mehrdad Ardalan,
Mansour Karimi, Mahmoud Esmailzadeh and Ehsan Saidi. Bagher Nazarian was
executed in February in Zanjan prison, northern Iran. Hossein Ghazvanchahi
was allegedly killed under torture in Amol prison, northern Iran.
E/cN. 4/1987/23
page 12
(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 executioiv,
(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 Mohamed Eftekharian were
convicted of adultery and running a prostitution ring and were stoned to death
in Kara]. 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. Fidrus 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.
47. 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
the 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 i1l—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 Khayyauii, Agahullah Tizfahm, Jalaliyih Mashtail—Uskui (a woman),
Ali Naimiyan, Maqsud Alizadih and Jalal Payravi.
E/CN. 4/1987/23
page 13
B. Right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment
48. 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.
49. 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 confessions about the detainees' activities and the
names and addresses of other members of the organization or group to which the
detainee be longed.
50. 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 p-'d had witnessed many other
fellow inmates being tortured. Robabeh Boudaghi was allegedly tortured in
Evin prison from 1983 to 1985. Behzad Naziri. 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. Au 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 and 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 while serving a prison sentence.
51. 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:
E/CN. 4/1987/23
page 14
“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 retention.”
(c) Dr. H l ne Jaff4, President of the Association pour les victisies de
la r4pression en Exil (AVRE) in Paris, examined Au 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 note 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
52. 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.
E/CN. 4/1987/23
page 15
53. 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— —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
54. 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 defence 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.
55. 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 wiIIesses 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.
56. 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
E/CN.4/ 1987/23
page 16
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. There 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' imprisonment. Some religious judges allegedly ordered that
accused persons be tortured — that was allegedly the case of the Mojahedin
sympathizer Azame. Another Mojahedin sympathizer, All 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
57. 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.
58. 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. No one is prosecuted in the Islamic Republic of Iran for his
political beliefs. According to Principle 23 of the Constitution:
‘inquisition into beliefs is prohibited and no one should be persecuted
and remonstrated merely for holding a belief'.
63. 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 and other similar
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.”
59. According to the information received by the Special Representative,
members and supporters of opposition groups who had reportedly not engaged 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 no 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
E/CN.4/1987/23
page 17
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.
60. 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 IIat they had been arrested, tortured and imprisoned
for their opinions in favour of the Mojahedin Organization, or for non—violent
acts on behalf of the Organization, such as selling books and distributing
leaflets. None of them had reportedly engaged 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 stated that the Baha'i faith was
not recognized as an official religion in the Islamic Republ-ic 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 gime 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 IIe duration of employment,
aribtrary 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 one 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
61. According to information received by the Special Representative during
the months of July and August 1986, 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. Hafizi, 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. .
E/CN.4/ 1987/23
page 18
62. Following the transmittal of the aforementioned allegation to the Iranian
Government, by a letter dated 27 October 1986, the Special Representative
received 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 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
63. 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.
64. 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.
65. 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. V, 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.
E/CN.4/1987/23
page 19
66. Finally, it may be observed that the number of alleged violations of the
right to life has diminished over the past two yearsp although allegations of
executions continue to be received by the Special Representative, there are
fewer than during the years 1979—1984.
67. 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.
68. 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 allegations, 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.
69. 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 or 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.
70. 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 IIat 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.
71. Other persons indicated that their imprisonment and trial were due to
their sympathy for the People's Mojahedin Organization. The-se persons flatly
denied any involvement in terrorist activity.
72. All resolutions adopted by the Commission on Human Rights and the
Sub—Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities as
well as I the General Assembly have reiterated concern for the situation of
the Baha'i religious 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.
73. The situation of the Baha'is was indeed IIe 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
E/CN. 4/1987/2 3
page 20
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).
74. 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.
75. 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.
76. 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.
77. 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.
78. The Baha'i International Community has complained that “as an
unrecognized religious minority IIe Baha'is have absolutely no status, rights
or protection under the law”.
79. 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”
in the Islamic Republic of Iran (CCPR/C/SR.368, para. 11; see also
E/CN.4/Sub.2/l984/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).
80. The Iranian Government has reiterated that “no one is prosecuted in
the Islamic Republic of Iran for his political beliefs”, and added IIat “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
E/CN.4/1987/23
page 21
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).
81. 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).
82. The Baha'i International Community has charged IIat 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 the
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 yhan on 29 August 1983.
83. The following are excerpts from that statement:
“Now, if a 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'isin, 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 considered to be
hostile and conspiratorial and such people are conspirators.”
84. The Baha'i International Community claims that the repression of the
Baha'i faith has been concentrated 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 without jobs,
pensions and livelihood. The objective of this policy may be to put enough
pressure on the Baha'is to recant their faith.
85. 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
fundamental principle of obedience to the Government. According to 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”.
86. 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 attitude would seem to be based on the conviction that
Baha'ism is a dissident and heterodox movement that separated it from Islam.
E/CN .4/1987/23
page 22
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.
VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
87. 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
throughout the world, and is intended to provide the Government with
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
of 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.
88. 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
travelling, 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.
E/CN .4/1987/23
page 23
(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.
E/CN. 4/1987/23
page 24
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. Andr4s Aguilar (E/CN.4/1985/20)
Interim report to the General Assembly by the former
Special Representative, Mr. Andr4s Aguilar (A/40/874)
Statement made by the former Special Representative, Mr. Andr s 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/l984/28)
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/l983/52)
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/l983/l6, E/CN.4/l984/29, E/CN.4/l985/l7,
and E/CN.4/1986/21)
Report of the Working Group on Enforced 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)
E/CN..4/ 1987/23
page 25
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. 226/5/18)
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 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 Rights
(CCPR/C/l/Add. 58)
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 following were made available:
E/cN. 4/1987/23
page 26
“Dimensions of the crime of terrorism”
“France the base of terrorism”
tt Biographies acknowledge genocide”
“Victims of terrorism”, May 1984
“Dimensions of a crime”, February 1986
“Dimensions of 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 MI O 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 availablet
“The tortured ones (1)”, 1986
“Image of Evin”
D. Publications made available by non—governmental organizations enjoying
consultative status wiII 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 torture in the Islamic Republic of Iran and a report on
the Iranian physicians' strike in July—August 1986.
