Aadel Collection
Compliance of IRI w/Int’l Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
‘ I
. . -
. .
Notes on compliance by the Islamic Republic of Iran
with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
The comments in this paper are based upon a comparison of the
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran with the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and also upon events currently
taking place in Iran, with particular reference to the treatment of
the BaM'i religious minority, concerning which much information is
available. .
As a preamble to the comments concerning specific articles of
the Covenant, it should be emphasised: .
(a) that the entire legal and administrative system in Iran is
based upon Islamic law which, by definition, concerns itself
solely with the rights and duties of Muslims and of the
followers of religions which existed at the time of Muhammad's
revelation; .
(b) that personal and legal status in Iran is determined by religious
affiliation and that no provision is made in the Constitution for
citizens who do not belong to one of the religions specified in
the Constitution;
(c) that, as far as the BaM'is are concerned, they are a religious
minority living under a theocratic government whose fundamentalist
theology categorizes them as heretics and opponents of the very
religion upon which the state is founded.
It should be noted that, in very many instances, the provisions
of the Iranian Constitution incorporate qualifying phrases such as- “with
due observance of Islamic precepts” (article 20), “provided they are in
conformity with the laws of Islam” (article 44), “shall be specified by
law in accordance with Islamic tenets” (article 168) — and many others.
The phrases “in accordance with law”, “as provided by law”, “as shall be
determined by law”, and so on, naturally appear with great frequency.
- — - - --. .
BP00067 1
. : —2—
Often, however, what actually constitutes “the law” is uncertain.
Although the religion of Islam provides a comprehensive framework of
principles for the conduct of human affairs, and enjoins certain penalties
for specific offences, inevitably it does not contain detailed laws and
regulations for the day—to—day administration of a modern state. Conse-
quently, in a state (such as Iran) which bases its legal system upon
Islamic law, there must necessarily be a large degree of interpretation
of Islamic principles in order to compile a body of law sufficiently
comprehensive to meet every contingency. .
The Iranian Constitution (article 71) gives legislative power to the
Majils (parliament) bur requires (article 94) that all its enactments
shall be submitted for approval to a Council of Custodians (composed of
Muslim jurists and theologians), which must reject any legislation
which does not “reconcile itself with the tenets of Islani.” Article 167
of the Constitution gives to the judiciary responsibility for interpreting
the law. Judges are enjoined to “try to find the ruling applicable to
any litigation in the written laws and, failing this, they shall bring
in the right verdict on the strength of reliable Islamic sources or
authentic judgements.”
OEe question of what constitutes a “reliable Islamic source” is
itself uncertain. Althoughtfi ie laws and principles contained in the
Holy Qur'an are unequivocal, there has grown up, since the passing of
Muhammad, a vast body of man—made Islamic “traditions” which, in many
cases, depart from strictly Qur'anic law. One example will suffice.
In the Qur'an, Muhammad unequivocally states “there is no compulsion in
religion” and, in several passages, declares that those who do not em-
brace. Islam as their religion will be judged by God.in the world to
come, and that their punishment should be left to God. According to
the traditionalists, however, the punishment for an apostate (i.e. one
who leaves Islam and embraces another religion) is death in this world.
(The Iranian Bah 'is — the majority of whom have never been Muslims,
but whose families have been Bah 'fs for generations — are collectively
described as apostates.) In an interview published in the newspaper
Kayh n early in 1982, Ayatu'llah Mi savi Ardfbfif categorized Bah 'fs
. —3—
as”infideis” and emphasized that, according to the Qur'an , the punishment
for infidels Is death.
On less grave matters, too, the huge body of Islamic “traditions”
(some of which directly contradict one another) can be manipulated by
the legislature and the judiciary.
It is clear from the above that the Iranian Constitution Is defective
In that (because of the many riders which relate Its provisions to an
interpretation of Islamic principles) the citizens of Iran cannot, in a
great many cases, be certain as to what exactly constitutes the law of
their country. Furthermore, the wide discretion given to the courts in
applying “Islamic tenets” and “Islamic sources” Is clearly open to abuse,
particularly as regards minorities or groups which do not find favour
with the authorities.
g arding article 2(1) of the Covenant :
1 Jhile purporting (as a general principle In articles 19 and 20, and
on matters of detail in other articles) to grant equal rights and protec-
tion to all Iranian citizens, the Constitution specifically excludes from
its provisio:is a significant section of the population. Article 13
states that: “The Zoroastrian, Jewish and Christian Iranians shall be
the sole recognized religious 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.” As explained in the preambular
notes, this provision — whIch, on the face of it, relates only to the
practice of religion — has the effect of depriving the Bah 'I community
of some 300,000 (Iran's largest religious minority) of any status under
the law and any form of recognition or protection under the Constitution.
Article 14 of the Constitution appears to liberalise this provision
to some extent by stating that “... Muslims shall deal with non—Muslims
decently and with Islamic equity and justice and respect their human
rights”, but adds the rider: “This article shall be valid In the case
of those who do not age in any plotting whatsoever against Islam and
,.— — —. ——— — ———.——• ._ .
—4—
the Islamic Republic of Iran.” Since (as described above) the Bah '1s
are regarded as heretical opponents of Islam, this article merely puts
the seal upon their exclusion from the provisions and protection of the
Constitution.
Although the Bah 'is have been the most severely persecuted community
in Iran, members of the other religious minorities have also suffered
discrimination and oppression, and it is both implicit in the language
of the Constitution, and evident in the conduct of arrairs in Iran, that
the Muslim majority in the country enjoys a greater measure of freedom,
security and prestige than the members even of the officially—recognized
religious minorities.
g rding article 2(2) of the Covenant :
Since the Bah 'f community has never been granted recognition as a
religiotis minority under the Iranian Constitution, and has suffered
severe discrimination as a result, the present government of Iran is in
breach of this article of the Covenant in failing to rectify the
situation.
garding article 2(3) of IIe Covenant:
The Iranian COflStjtuti 0 fl contains no specific provisions or pro-
cedures for ensuring that persons whose rights and freedoms are violated
have effective remedies. In certain instances (e.g. prohibition against
torture, article 38) punishment Is prescribed for any party violating
this article, and article 178 provides for the setting up of judicial
tribunals to investigate public complaints and protests against govern-
ment officials — but, on the question specifically of remedies, the
Constitutjo is silent. The provision of remedies might possibly be
implied or inferred from various general provisions of the Constitution
relating to the enjoyment of human rights, or access to the law, or the
reciprocal duties of government and people (article 8), but the situation
is ill—defined and unsatisfactory.
In the light of the current situation In Iran, the question of the
-5-
extent to which the Constitution provides (or fails to provide) effective
remedies for the victims of human rights violations is purely academic,
since there is no indication whatsoever that Iranian citizens — who are
suffering massIve abuses of their human rights — are being granted
remedies for violations of those rights. The experience of Bah ' s who
have sought relief and redress from the authorities testifies to the
fact that all claims and appeals are dismissed out of hand, at whatever
level they are made.
article 3 of the Covenant : ,
While the Iranian Constitution (article 21) guarantees the rights
of women “in every respect”, it qualifies this by adding the rider
“with due observance of the Islamic precepts.” Since these Islamic
precepts incorporate various provisions which restrict the rights and
freedoms of women, the Constitution is not in line with the spirit of
the Covenant, which calls for the “equal right of men and women . ..“.
1 ard tjcie 4 of the Covenant :
Although a state of public emergency (war with Iraq, internal sedition)
undoubtedly exists In Iran, the government is In flagrant breach of
the powers of derogation contained in this article, namely:
4(1) The measures taken by the government are far in excess of those'
strictly required by the exigencies of the situation and, in
the case of the Bah 'is, involve discrimination solely on the
grounds of religion.
4(2) In the case of thousands of its citizens of all religious
persuations, the government is in breach.of many of those
articles from which no derogation is permitted under the
Covenant. ‘
4(3) As far as is known, the government of Iran has not complied with
the procedures specified In this section of the article.
——
Regarding article 6(1) of the Covenant :
Although article 22 of the Iranian Constitution states that: “The
prestige, lives , property ... of the people shall be immune against
encroachment unless otherwise provided by law”, the right to life has
not been safeguarded by the government. Since the creation of the Islamic
Republic of Iran, thousands of Iranian citizens have been summarily
executed by order of the revolutionary courts, arbitrarily assassinated
by revolutionary guards, or murdered with impunity by individuals or
mobs. (In the case of Bah 'fs killed by mobs, the authorities declined
to take any steps to identify or apprehend the murderers. Numerous
other BaM'j s have, of course, been summarily executed, and some have
been assassinated.)
Regarding article 6(2) of the Covenant :
The imposition of the death penalty is, of course, permitted under
Islamic law and covers a variety of offences, including some (e.g.
prostitution, adultery) which do not constitute capital of fences in the
non—Islamic world. The Constitution is silent on the subject of the
death penalty and does not specify those crimes for which it will be
invoked.
In practice, the sentence of death is being imposed virtually at
will and requires only that the judge (in his capacity as interpreter of
Islamic law and tradition) rules that the act with whi'ch the accused is
charged is “un—Islamic” or “opposed to Islam”. Bah ' s, for example,
have been sentenced to death for “warring against God”, “opposing Islam”
and being “corrupt on earth” simply because they have practised their
religion.
Regarding article 6(3) of the Covenant :
It is appropriate to mention here that the Iranian government's
campaign of persecution against the Bah 'i minority is viewed by many
observers as a campaign of genocide, since it seeks to eradicate the
entire Bah 'i community by terrorising BaM'OE into abandoning their
faith and presenting those who refuse to do so with the ultimatum
“recant or die”.
. —7—
Regarding article 6(4) of the Covenant :
In its provisions dealing with the administration of justice, the
Iranian Constitution makes no reference to the right to appeal against
sentence of death — although it deals with other matters of less crucial
import. En practice, in Iran today, execution normally follows immediately
upon verdict, with the accused being given no opportunity to appeal his
sentence. As reported by Amnesty International, thousands of Iranians
have died under such circumstances.
Regarding article 6(5) of the Covenant :
As also reported by Amnesty International, youths and girls below
the age of 18 years have frequently been executed in Iran. The Consti-
tution is silent upon the age of legal responsibility, but the imposition
of the death penalty on minors is justified by reference to Islam, which
sets the age of maturity at much lower than 18. In this case (as in
others), the Iranian interpretation of Islamic law is in conflict with
the provisions of the Covenant.
Regarding article 7 of the Covenant :
Article 38 of the Iranian Constitution states: “Any torture what-
soever to make people confess or to obtain information shall be for—
bidden.” Nevertheless, it is very widely reported that the application
of torture is commonplace in Iranian prisons — as is cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment. In the case of Bah 'fs, torture Is employed, not
to elicit confession or information, but to try to compel them to recant
their faith. The evidence of severe torture has been plainly visible on
the bodies of BahI'is who were later executed.
Regarding article 9 of the Covenant :
Article 32 of the Iranian Constitution contains provisions which
conform with the spirit of article 9(1), (2) and (3) of the Covenant.
In practice, however (as reported by Amnesty International), arbitrary
arrests, and detentions without charges or court hearings, are currently
taking place on a vast scale in Iran.
—8—
The writ of habeas corpus does not appear to run in Iran, nor does
the Constitution make any provision for persons awaiting trial to be re-
leased from custody (as specified in article 9(3) of the Covenant) or to
initiate proceedings before a court (as specified in article 9(3) of
the Covenant). And, as has been mentioned above, no provision is made
for the victims of human rights violations (such as unlawful arrest or
detention — see article 9(5) of the Covenant) to seek and obtain
remedies.
To Illustrate the process of arbitrary arrest and detention, it is
useful to quote the experience of the Bah 'is, concerning whose cases
many details are known. Typically, Bah fs are abruptly seized by
revolutionary guards, whose “authority” for the arrests (on the occasions
when such authority is produced at all) is simply a piece of paper which
the prisoners are not allowed to inspect but which normally appears to
contain a list of names. Once in prison, the Bah 'is languish there
without charges and with no access to lawyers or to the courts. It is
conservatively estimated that at least 150 Bab 'is are currently in
detention — some having been incarcerated since late 1979 and early
1980, and at least one of them (a woman) critically ill and paralysed
following a massive heart attack.
garding article 10 of the Covenant :
The Iranian Constitution is silent upon the matters contained In
this article, but it is clear from the foregoing references to torture
(under article 7) and the neglect of the sick (under article 9) that
prisoners in Iran are not treated with “humanity and with respect for
the inherent dignity of the human person”, as required by the Covenant.
From the experience of imprisoned Bah 'fs, it is known that accused
(or arbitrarily detained) persons are not segregated from convicted
persons, and that there Is no separation of juveniles from other
prIsoners. .
It is clear from all the informed reports concerning and emanating
from Iran that the Iranian government is currently using the penitentiary
—9-
system primarily as a means of suppression and vengeance. As far as the
“reformation and social rehabilitation” of prisoners is concerned (see
article 10(3) of the Covenant), this appears to have no place in the
penitentiary system of Iran — except in the perverted sense in which
duress Is used to “reform” and “rehabilitate” Iranian citizens by
forcing them to conform In every particular with the opinions, beliefs
and prejudices of those in authority.
lTo CaMrtHL t
June 1982
-10-
Regarding article 12 of the Covenant
The Iranian Constitution does not deal specifically with the question
of freedom of movement within Iran. Article 33, however, states: “No
person shall be exiled from his residential place nor shall he be forbidden
to reside where he desires, or forced to reside in a certain place, unless
otherwise provided by law.”
In the case of the Baha'i minority, the law has been interpreted by
revolutionary courts in a number of areas to provide for the expulsion
from their towns and villages of Baha'is who refuse to recant their faith.
In hundreds of other cases in all parts of Iran, the authorities have
achieved the same end by confiscating the homes of Baha'is — thus forcing
them to move to other localities. (The arbitrary confiscation of Baha'i
homes is itself a violation of article 22 of the Constitution, which states
that: “The prestige, lives, property rights, dwelling places ... of the
people shall be immune against encroachment unless otherwise provided by
law.”)
The Constitution is silent on the question of freedom of entry to or
egress from Iran. As far as is known, these rights have not been offi-
cially limited by the government. In practice, however, the existence of
official lists of personae non grata (naming persons who are accused of
no crime but who, for example, served under the former government, or are
prominent Baha'is), coupled with the likelihood of arbitrary arrest if
such persons present themselves and their papers at airports or other
points of embarkation of debarkation, has severely curtailed the freedom
of large numbers of Iranian citizens to enter or leave their country..
Regarding article 14 of the Covenant — general comments
While the Iranian Constitution states (article 34) that every person
has the right “to litigate at competent courts” (a provision which seems
to imply the initiation rather than the defence of legal actions), it
is silent on the important question of the conduct of criminal trials and,
in particular, on the provision of safeguards for accused persons.
C
p
—11—
As reported by I mnesty International and other sources, most of the
provisions of article 14 of the Covenant are being violated daily in Iran.
For the reasons previously mentioned, xaxnples of specific violations of
this article will largely be drawn from cases concerning Baha'is.
Regarding article 14(1 )
The requirement of the Covenant that “All persons shall be equal be—
fore the courts and tribunals” is not precisely reflected in the Iranian
Constitution. Although article 20 of the Constitution states that “All
persons ... shall be equal under the protection of the law ...“, this
does not necessarily carry the same connotations.
As explained earlier in these notes, the exclusion of the Baha'i
minority from the Constitution has deprived the BaLha'is of any rights or
status under the law. In consequence, as far as courts and tribunals
are concerned, they are not “equal” with their fellow citizens of other
persuasions. They are thus at a disadvantage right from the outset of
any proceedings, in which they are involved.
As things stand in Iran today, not only the Baha'is but hundreds of
their fellow citizens of other faiths are being deprived of their right to
a fair trial, primarily (but not exclusively) in criminal proceedings
concerning alleged of fences against the state for which the punishment
is death. .
The Iranian Constitution (article 165) provides that “Trials shall
be held in open sessions with the public admitted to attend, except when
IIe court decides that open sessions would be contrary to public decency
or order or when in private litigation the parties thereto request that
trial sessions should not be held open.”
In many cases, however, trials in Iran are conducted in secret — not
simply in camera, with the press and public excluded for the various
reasons specified in article 14(1) of the Covenant (or in article 165 of
the Constitution), but actually held without any form of notice being
—12—
given, with rio indication that proceedings are under way, and with no
announcement of verdict or sentence.
Numerous Baha'is have been summarily executed following “trials”
whose proceedings (if any) have never been reported. In recent months,
17 Bah&js are known to have been the victims of secret executions in
Teheran. (It was only by chance that IIeir families learned of their
fate.) Following the secret executions on 27th December 1981 of eight of
the nine members of the national governing body of the Baha'i Faith in
Iran, the President of the Supreme Court of Iran, Ayatollah Musavi ArdIIili,
publicly denied that the executions had taken place — a denial which he
was later forced to retract in the light of evidence (including burial
certificates describing the deceased as “executed”) produced by the
Baha'is.
In all these cases it cannot, of course, be known wheIIer any trial
actually took place, or whether the proceedings were simply limited to
the issuance of a “guilty” verdict.
Regarding article 14(2) of the Covenant
Article 37 of the Iranian Constitution conforms with this provision
of the Covenant by stating: “Acquittal shall be the main and valid point
and no person shall be considered guilty by law unless his guilt is proved
by a competent court.”
However, in the light of all the evidence emanating from Iran, it is
apparent IIat the presumption of innocence has no place in the present—
day administration of justice and that it may, indeed, be said to have
been replaced by a presumption of guilt so far as particular groups or
minorities are concerned.
Regarding article 14(3) (a) of the Covenant
Article 32 of the Iranian Constitution (dealing with arrests) pro-
vides that any person who is arrested “shall be notified in writing of the
reasons for accusation' t — a provision rather less precise than the
—13—
requirement of the Covenant IIat an accused person shall be “informed
promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature
and cause of the charge against him.” .
It has been the experience of Baha'is arrested in Iran that;
(i) they are summarily arrested without charges, sin ply on the
grounds of their religious affiliation, and arbitrarily de-
tained until such time as charges have been formulated
against them;
(ii) the accused is not notified of the charges against him until
he actually appears before the court for trial;
(iii) charges are couched in vague terms (e.g. “charged with opposing
Islam and the Islamic Republic of Iran”); or
(iv) charges of a more specific nature, such as accusations of
“spying for foreign powers” are lodged with no indication
of any specific act of espionage upon which the allegation
is based.
Regarding article .14(3) (b) of the Covenant
The Iranian Constitution (article 35) states: “In all courts, the
parties to a case shall be entitled to appoint an attorney ...“, but
nowhere specifies (as does this article of the Covenant) that the defen-
dant is to be given “... adequate time and facilities for the preparation
of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing.”
It is not known to what extent non—Baha'i defendants are accorded
facilities for the preparation of their defence. It is known, however,
that in no case has a Bahai defendant been allowed to appoint an at-
torney, or been given any other facilities for preparing a defence.
—14--
-.
Regarding article 14(3)(c) of the Covenant
Article 32 of the Iranian Constitution (dealing with arrests) provides
that “.., within twenty—four hours the preliminary case shall be referred
to a competent court which shall inquire into the case at its earliest
convenience.” No provision of the Constitution refers to the timing of
any trial which might follow the preliminary hearing.
As already noted above under article 9, persons held in custody in
Iran are frequently detained for long periods without (or before) trial —
and without even the preliminary hearing provided for in article 32 of
the Constitution. Some Baha'i examples: Mr. Habibu'llah ‘Azizi,
arrested June 1980, executed August 1981; Mr. Husayn Asadu'llah—Zadih,
arrested July 1980, executed July 1981; Mr. Parviz Yazdani, arrested
March 1979, still in prison; Mr. Nusratu' llah Bahrami (and others),
arrested February 1980, still in prison.
It is evident from the foregoing that the provision of the Covenant
that accused persons should be tried “without undue delay” is not being
observed in Iran.
Regarding article 14(3) (d) of the Covenant
The Iranian Constitution is silent on the question of whether (as
required by the Covenant) an accused person has the right to be “tried
in his presence and to defend himself in person or through legal assis-
tance of his own choosing ...“. Because of the summary and often
secretive manner in which justice is currently being dispensed in Iran,
and the lack of published reports, information upon the actual conduct of
trials is scanty. In cases where Baha'is have been tried, the indica-
tions are that they have normally appeared in person, although there is
no evidence to suggest that they have been allowed to speak in their
own defence. (As mentioned above, no Baha'i has been allowed to appoint
an attorney to speak for him.)
Article 35 of the Constitution (which gives parties to a case the
right to apooint an attorney) goes on to state: “... and if they cannot
—15—
afford a retainer, they shall be provided with means to appoint and re-
tain an attorney.” The Constitution thus conforms with this article of
IIe Covenant — although, in the light of all the other evidence of abuses,
there must be grave doubts as to whether free legal assistance is ever
assigned to defendants.
Regarding article 14(3) (e) of the Covenant .
The Iranian Constitution makes no provision for the attendance at
trials of prosecution and defence witnesses, or for the examination of
the witnesses and their evidence (as required by this article of the
Covenant).
In the absence of published trial reports, it is difficult to
establish precisely what takes place in Iranian courts. It can be stated
with certainty, however, that no shred of evidence has ever been adduced
to support the charges against the many Baha 1 is who have been tried and
executed for alleged of fences against the state. (Had any such evidence
ever existed, it would undoubtedly have been widely publicised by the
auIIorities in order to justify their campaign against the Baha'i minority.)
In the light of this and other surrounding evidence, IIere is a
strong inference that, in very large numbers of trials in Iran today, the
charges made by the state prosecutor are sufficient to constitute, with— .
out examination, IIe “evidence” necessary to secure a conviction. In
such a situation, witnesses are, of course, redundant.
Regarding articles14(3) (f) and 14(3) (g) of the Covenant .
These requirements of the Covenant are not reflected in the Iranian
Constitution. It is not known whether defendants in Iranian courts have
the free assistance of an interpreter (if needed) or whether or not they
are placed under compulsion to testify against themselves or to plead
guilty.
,
—16—
ffl
Regarding article 14(4) of the Covenant
The Iranian Constitution lays down no procedures for handling the
cases of juveniles and thus does not reflect this article of the Covenant,
which requires that ‘... IIe procedure shall be such as will take account
of their age and the desirability of promoting their rehabilitation.”
As already noted under article 6(5), Iranian courts have, in several
cases, imposed the death penalty on juveniles.
Regarding article 14(5) of the Covenant
The Iranian Constitution does not give a convicted person the right
to have his conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal (as
required by IIis article of the Covenant).
In a statement to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on
26th February 1982, 1 mnesty International reported: “The Islamic revolu-
tionary tribunals in Iran ... which have jurisdiction over all offences
for which the death penalty may be imposed, lack the most elementary safe-
guards for a fair trial. There is no effective presumption of innocence
and no effective right of appeal against sentence or even apparently for
clemency; political prisoners have frequently been executed almost
immediately after imposition of the sentence. According to some reports,
political prisoners have sometLmes been executed without any form of
trial at all.”
No Baha'i has ever been allowed to appeal his conviction, and all
but two have been executed immediately after the imposition of the sentence
of death. (The execution of the two exceptions was deferred for two
months while they were put under intense pressure to recant IIeir faith.)
Regarding article 14(6) of the Covenant
The Iranian Constitution (article 171) envisages the possibility of
a conviction being overturned and a wrongly—convicted person being com-
pensated and rehabilitated. Unlike the Covenant, which envisages that
—17—
— . , .
this will occur when ... a new or newly discovered fact shows conclu-
sively that there has been a miscarriage of justice...”, the Constitution
links IIe miscarriage of justice to IIe performance of the trial judge,
stating:
“If a judge fails to consider rightly the merit of IIe case ,
or makes an error in his judgement or in reconciliation of
the verdict with a particular case and IIus causes someone
to sustain material and non—material losses, he shall be
responsible for such failure according to Islamic practice;
otherwise the government shall pay for the losses incurred
and in any case the accused shall be rehabilitated.”
In a situation such as that currently prevailing in Iran (viz, summary
justice, no adequate defence facilities, no effective right of appeal,),
IIe question which must inevitably arise in connection wiII this article
of the Constitution is: “Who is to judge the judge?”
‘ Regarding article 14(7) of IIe Covenant
There is no referenQe in IIe Iranian Constitution to the question
of double jeopardy, and no cases are known in which this kind of situa-
tion has arisen in Iran,
Regarding' article .15(1) of'the' Covenant .
The Iranian Constitution makes no mention of IIe requirement of
IIe Covenant IIat: “No one shall be held guilty of any criminal of—
fence on account cf any act or omission which did not constitute a
criminal offence ... at the time when it was committed.” It is clear,
however, IIat — in a typical post—revolutionary development — many
Iranian citizens have been tried and sentenced for IIe “crime” of
having held a position in or under the Pahlavi government.
Regarding article 16 of the Covenant
As discussed above, the refusal of the Iranian government to grant
constitutional recoguition to the Baha' i community has deprived its
—18—
members of any status under the law — in clear violation of this article
of the Covenant, which stipulates that: “Everyone shall have the right
to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.”
In large numbers of reported cases, Baha'is have been denied their
rights and remedies simply on the grounds that they are not members of
one of the officially recognized religious minorities in Iran. If the
government implements its already—announced plans to introduce a nation-
wide system of identity cards (which will be necessary for the purchase
of essential commodities such as food and fuel, and to gain access to
public and social services, and which will be issued only to Muslims and
to the followers of the officially recognized minority religions), then
the Baha'is will officially cease to exist and will become “non—persons”
not only before the law but also in every aspect of their practical
daily lives.
Regarding articles 17(1) and 17(2) of the Covenant .
The Covenant provides: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or
unlawful interference with his privacy [ see 1 below], family [ 2], home [ 1]
or correspondence [ 3], nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and
reputation [ 4].”
These requirements of th Covenant are reflected in two provisions
of the Iranian Constitution, namely article 25 (which states that the
“... prestige, lives, property rights, dwelling places and occupations
of people shall be immune against encroachment unless otherwise provided
by law ...“) and article 25 (which forbids the interception, inspection,
censorship or withholding of written communications, and the tapping of
telephones, “unless otherwise provided by law”).
Re [ 1] above (protection of privacy and home). OEe homes of count-
less Baha'is have been invaded — often at night — by armed bands of
revolutionary guardsmen, who have subjected family members to harassment
and interrogation and have carried off personal correspondence, books,
title deeds and other papers. As mentioned previously, the homes of
hundreds of Baha'is have been arbitrarily confiscated by order of the
revolutionary courts. .
—19--
Re [ 2) above (protection of family).. In two well—attested cases in 1981,
young Baha'i girls (aged 13 and 14 respectively) were abducted from school
by their Islamic religious instructors, Their parents were later in-
formed in writing that they had converted to Islam and wanted nothing more
to do with their fami,Lies. The parents have not been allowed to see or
communicate with their daughters and their appeals to the secular and
religious authorities have proved fruitless.
In a recent case concerning a Baha'i widow, a high—ranking official
ruled that, because of her religion, she was not entitled to custody of
her children.
Re [ 3) above (protection of privacy of correspondence). It is known
that mail addressed to Baha'is has been intercepted by the authorities,
and also that the telephone lines of many Baha'ls are tapped (the comments
of the illicit listeners are frequently audible).
Re [ 4) above (protection of reputation). The reputation of the
Baha'i community as a whole is under constant and vitriolic attack by
the government, the clergy and the media. at.large are accused
of being corrupt, immoral, traitors, fomentors of sedition and enemies
of Islam. The same false allegations are arbitrarily lodged against
individual Baha'is. . .
Somewhat curiously in a revolutionary Constitution, article 39 states:
ttAspersion of honour and reputation of a person arrested, imprisoned or
exiled according to law shall in no way be allowed and shall be liable
to punishnent,” In practice, of course, aspersion of the reputations
of such persons (and also of executed persons) Is commonplace.
Regarding article .18(1) of the Covenant
The Covenant provides that “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion”. The Iranian Constitution (article 23)
States that “Inquisition into people's opinions shall be forbidden and
no one shall:be.offended or brought to'account merely forhaving a
certain opinion.”
—20—
It is extremely clear that the Iranian government Is acting in con-
tinuous and flagrant violation not only of article 18(1) of the Covenant
but also of article. 23 of its own Constitution. The outstanding case of
denial of freedom of conscience in Iran is, of course, the denial to the
Baha'i minority of freedom of religious belief. .
It is appropriate to mention at this point that the Bahatis are a
peaceful, law—abiding community who, in accordance with the most funda—
mental principles of their faith, eschew any form of violence, uphold the
divine origin of all the major world religions (including Islam), abstain
from partisan politics (including the holding of any political post), shun
involvement in any form of subversive activity, and demonstrate the utmost
loyalty and obedience to the government of their country, whatever its
form or policies. They thus pose no threat to any person or institution
in Iran, and the persecution they are suffering Is motivated solely by
religious prejudice.
The Iranian authorities have consistently denied any religious moti-
vation for the persecution and have brought a variety of false accusa-
tions against the Baha'is in order to convey the impression that they
are guilty of political or moral crimes. (The Baha'i International
Community's publicationThe Baha'is in Iran: AReport on thePersecution
•ofa Religious .Minotlty , pages 11 to 16, enumerates, explains and con-
vincingly refutes these false allegations).
In a recent case (reported in the Iranian newspaper Kayban on
3 May 1982), much of the pretence was dropped. As reported byKayhan:
!Azizu'llah Gulshani, son of Rahmatu'llah, has been charged with:
propagating and teaching the anti—Islamic ideology of
Bahaism within the country, and outside the country through
his son,
— spending money from the Muslim treasury* towards strengthening
the Interests of Bahaisin,
* As a teacher, Mr. Gulshani was a civil servant employed by the Ministry of
education: his salary was thus paid from what the government describes
as t2 Musliin treasury”.
—21—
— misleading Muslims,
— contributing regularly to Bahaism from the Muslim treasury,*
— aiding the aggressive Zionist government,**
— travelling to Israel,** .
— propagating Baha'i idology among his students, and
— writing anti—Islamic articles, such as the one entitled ‘Why
I have become a Baha'i'.
“Therefore, Mr. Guishani is a inurtad (a heretic who has abandoned
Islam), is an infamous example of the corrupt on earth, and is
sentenced to death.”
* s a teacher, Mr. Guishani was a civil servant employed by the
Ministry of Education: his salary was thus paid from what the
government describes as the “Muslim treasury”.
** The Baha'i World Centre is situated in Israel. It was established
there in the last century, long before the State of Israel came
into existence, and has nothing to do with Zionism. Mr. Gulshani
had obviously gone as a pilgrim to visit the Baha'i Shrines in
Israel and (in common with the majority of Iranian Baha'is) had
also sent contributions to the Baha'i World Centre for the upkeep
of those Shrines and the general administration of the Baha ‘i
Faith.
—22--
OEe Covenant provides that “This right (to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion) shall include freedom to have or to adopt a
religion or belief of his choice ...“. As far as the Iranian government
is concerned, the phrase “or to adopt” is an incitement to heresy;
consequently, no reference is made in the Constitution to the possibility
of any person changing his religion.
The Iranian Constitution conforms with Qur'anic law in that it
recognizes, protects and grants religious freedom to the followers of
religions which existed at the time of Muhammad's revelation (see
articles 13 and 26 of the Constitution). Fundamentalist Islamic
theology dictates, however, that — since Muhammad declared Himself to
be the last of the Prophets — no true religion can follow His religion
and that any religion purporting to do so is, by definition, heretical
and in direct opposition to Islam. (Note: Although the Baha'i Faith
is often misleadingly or mistakenly described as a sect of Islam, itis
in fact an independent world religion with its own Founder, Scriptures
and teachings.)
This traditionalist interpretation of the Qur'an, coupled with the
extremis n of the Iranian religious establishment, is responsible for
the severe persecutions currently being suffered by the Baha'is in
Iran, and for the intransigence of the government in denying any form
of constitutional recognition or protection to the Baha'i minority.
As already noted, Baha'is even of the fourth or fifth generation
are categnrized as apostates (i.e. persons who have abandoned Islam),
and the s e appellation is applied to the members of other, officially—
recognized religious minorities (e.g. Zoroastrians) who have embraced
the Baha'i Faith. (As previously noted, the punishment for apostacy is
death.)
AlIIziugh it appears unlikely that the Iranian authorities would
take any action in the case of, say, a Jewish Iranian who embraced the
Christian faith, it is clear not only that no Iranian may freely embrace
the Baha i Faith but also that the overwhelming majority of Iranian
‘ —23—
; v,,,
citizens — the Muslim Iranians — are denied the freedom to change their
religion for any other religion whatsoever. Both situations constitute
clear violations of article 18(1) of the Covenant.
—23—
citizens — the Muslim Iranians — are denied the freedom to change their
religion for any other religion whatsoever. Both situations constitute
clear violations of article 18(1) of the Covenant.
Whereas the Covenant provides that everyone shall have the right
and freedom S••• either individually or in community with others and in
public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, obser-
vance, practice and teaching”, the Iranian Constitution explicitly
restricts that right and freedom.
Article 13 of the Constitution states: “The Zoroastrian, Jewish
and Christian Iranians shall be the sole recognized religious 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.”
Bah ' s in Iran are forbidden to practise their faith in community.
Bahi'i meetings, both public and private, have been declared illegal.
Free expression of faith, places of worship and free circulation of
Bah 'i literature and other materials are all proscribed to the Bah 'i
community.
All Bahi'i community properties and financial assets in Iran were
confiscated by the government in 1979. BaM' holy places and religious
sites were desecrated and, in alm6st every case, razed to the ground.
Bah 'i cemeteries were bulldozed and graves broken open and defiled.
Local Bahi'i administrative centres were looted and either taken over
or destroyed. OEe National Bah 'i Centre in Teheran was handed over by
the government to religious extremists and turned into a so—called “Free
Muslim traiversity”. Welfare institutions such as the Bah 'i hospital in
Teheran and the Bahi'i home for the poor and elderly (which served all
races and religions) were appropriated and all rights in them denied to
Bah 'is. The major Bah 'i banking company Nawnahalan, in which 15,000
Bahi'i s areho1ders and investors had their life savings, was confiscated
and its assets frozen.
Regarding article 18(2) of the Covenant
The Covenant provides: “No one shall be subject to coercion which
would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of
his choice.”
OEe Iranian Constitution alludes to this freedom from coercion but,
once again, restricts the entitlement to that freedom. Article 26
states: “Parties, associations, political groups and trade unions and
Islamic or recognized religious minorities shall be free .. No person
shall be forbidden nor forced to participate in any of them.”
Copious documentary evidence from Iran testifies to the fact that
extreme coercion is being applied by the government in an effort to
compel Bah 'is to recant their faith and embrace Islam. OEis coercion
takes a wide variety of forms and impinges upon virtually every aspect
of the lives of members of the Bah 'f coixnnunity.
— Physical coercion . In every case where a Bahg' has been condemned
to death by the revolutionary courts, he has been given the oppor-
tunity of saving himself by recanting his faith. In the extremely
small number of cases in which Bah 'is have availed themselves of
this opportunity, they have immediately been released and all the
charges against them dropped — while other Bah 'is, who refused to
recant, have been executed for precisely the same “crimes” (a fact
which compellingly demonstrates both the spurious nature of the
charges being brought against Bah 'is and the religious motivation
underlying their persecution.) As previously mentioned, torture
is also employed in an effort to compel Bah ' s to recant their
faith.
— Denial of education . In 1981, the Iranian Ministry of Education
embarked on a major campaign to deprive Bah 'is officially, sys—
tematically and permanently of access to any form of education.
Prinary and secondary schools and institutions of higher education
introduced new regulations requiring that applicants for admission
must belong to one of the officially recognized religions of the
- 6-
country. Hundreds of Bah 'i students at all educational levels —
including university students in their final year of professional
training — have been expelled from their places of learning for
refusing to recant their faith. Degrees and diplomas have been
denied to Bah 'i students who have completed their studies and
passed their final examinations. In many cases, Bah 'is have been
forced to repay to the government the money spent on their educa-
tion and training. By order of the Ministry of Education, permission
to send funds to Iranian students overseas is granted only to the
followers of the officially recognized religions. (1)
(Article 30 of the Iranian Constitution states: “OEe government
shall provide free education for all the people until completion of
secondary course of studies. With respect to higher studies, they
shall be provided gratis as far as self—sufficiency of the country
might allow”.)
— Deprivation of means of livelihood . Since 1979, countless Bah s
have been arbitrarily dismissed from their jobs and denied back pay
and pensions solely on the grounds of their religion. This campaign
is spearheaded by the Ministry of Labour which, in a directive
published last year, publicly confirmed that dismissal for life
from government service had been approved by the Islamic parliament
as “the punishment for anyone who is a member of the misguided
Bah 'i group.” Local “purging committees” ensure that Bah 'is are
also driven from their jobs in the private sector. (2)
Almost every termination notice served on a Bah 'i, whether in the
public of private sector, has contained a statement to the effect
that the individual's job (or pension) will be restored to him If
he will publicly recant his faith. (3)
(1) Fo' . do cwnan.twtion, ee. the. &IIa ‘-L 1 nteuuttLovLa2 ComrnanLty' 4 pLII&CD .-
on O LcJ ai Voaw ri- atLon t cj Ln .t o VL6c.'rJ ioeLno. tLon aga Lni.t
- the. &Lha' .L CommuimLty 4 Lnae. the. c 'Le.a Uon o ‘ the. 1 am .c R pub Uc. o
1 ) an
(2) lbid.
(3) Ib -&i.
Self—employed Bah 'fs fare no better. In many regions, local
revolutionary courts have issued orders forbidding business trans-
actions with Bah 'fs, have forcibly closed Bah 'i stores and work-
shops, and have withdrawn the business and trading licences of
Bah 'is. (4)
(Article 28 of the Iranian Constitution states that every person has
the right to choose an occupation that is not contrary to Islam,
public interests or the rights of others, and further provides
that: “The government shall provide all the people with means of
employment under equal conditions to get employed ...“.)
As far as pension rights are concerned, article 29 of the Constitution
states that “all people” shall “benefit from social security in
cases of retirement . ..“, with the funds being provided “from the
public revenue and the income derived from public participation.”
These public funds are described in Iran as the “Muslim treasu yI
and high—ranking Islamic religious leaders have ruled that no
Bah 'i may receive any form of payment from the Muslim treasury. (5)
(Such payments would include, of course, not only salaries and
pensions but also state medical, welfare and insurance payments,
which are also referred to in article 29 of the Constitution.)
. — Confiscation of personal property . As mentioned above, revolutionary
authorities in many areas have arbitrarily confiscated the homes of
Bah 'is or have expelled them from their towns and villages be-
cause they have refused to recant their faith. The contents of
Bahi'i homes are frequently auctioned by the authorities to the
public. A growing trend since mid—1981 has been the confiscation
by the authorities of the real and personal assets of executed
— leaving their dependants destitute and homeless.
(4) Fon. docwlleiLtatLon, 6ee .the BaJui' lri na. tLona2 CommunLty'4
pubUc.aiLon O LeJiz& Voc wiieivt tLon .teUJ g Ln .to VJ in n&tLon
. IIe. &IIa' i CommwiLty &Lnee ..the. e a.tioffll o .the L L ainVLe.
. I'tan
(5) 1L Ld.
(Article 31 of the Iranian Constitution states: “Every Iranian
person and family shall be entitled to own a dwelling-place . . .H,
while article -22 provides, Ln te)L aUa, that the property rights
and dwelling places of Iranian citizens shall be immune against
encroachment”.)
— Non—recognition of Bah 'i marriages . OEere Is not (and never has
been) any provision for civil marriage in Iran. The Bah 'f marriage
ceremony is not recognized as legal and the marriages of Bah 'is
cannot be registered unless the parties concerned are willing to
recant their faith and marry according to the laws of one of the
officially recognized religions. The Iranian Bah 'is have always
remained true to their faith and have married according to Bah 'f
rites — a course of action which the present regime regards as
prostitution. Under Islamic law, the punishment for prostitution
is death, and the charge of “engaging in prostitution” is one which
(along with other charges) has frequently been brought against
Bah 'is who have been executed.
— Other abuses . As previously described, the revolutionary authorities
in Iran have consistently turned a blind eye to the anti—Bah 'i
activities of Islamic religious extremists, whether individuals or
mobs, whose depredations against Bahg'is have included murder,
torture, physical assault, looting and burning of property, abduction
and rape. No person has ever been investigated, charged, tried
or sentenced for any offence committed against a Bah 'i.
The clear intention of the Iranian government — an intention which
has been inadvertently confirmed by high—ranking officials in the course
of private conversations — is to bring such extreme pressure to bear upon
the Bahg'is that they are left with no alternative but to recant their
faith. OEe actions of the Iranian government in this respect are clearly
in flagrant violation of article 18(2) of the Covenant.
-
H.'..
. ‘1 .
Regarding article 18(3) of the Covenant
OEis article of the Covenant provides that “Freedom to manifest
one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as
are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order,
health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.”
The Iranian Constitution (article 40) states generally that “No
person shall be allowed to exercise his rights to the prejudice of
others nor to encroach upon public interests”, while article 28 elaborates
upon these “public interests” in so far as they relate to the practice
of religion. The article provides that “Islamic or recognized religious
minorities shall be free, provided they do not violate the principles
of independence, liberty, national unity and Islamic standards nd the
foundation of the Islamic Republic.”
OEe provisos attached to this article are obviously open to wide,
and possibly restrictive, interpretation.
As explained above under article 18(1), nothing in the Bah 'i Faith,
or in the disposition or activities of its followers, would require that
limitations be imposed upon its practice for any of the reasons mentioned
in the Covenant. OEe Iranian government cannot, therefore, justify its
suppression of the BaM'i Faith by invoking this article of the Covenant;
nor can it logically invoke its own Constitution in this regard, since
the relevant provisions of the Constitution r elate to officially recog-
nized religions, and the Bah ' Faith is not constitutionally recognized
as a religion in Iran.
Regarding article 18(4) of the Covenant
The Iranian Constitution contains no specific provision for the
religious and moral education of children in conformity with the con-
victions of their parents or guardians (as required by this article of
the Covenant).
Although BaM'is were the first to establish primary and secondary
schools in all parts of Iran, open to children of all religions, the
government closed Bah ' schools in 1934. The Bah 'is have not subse-
quently been allowed to operate their own schools and have been forced
to educate their children at the state—run Muslim schools and universities —
which are now closing their doors to them (see notes under article 18(2)
above).
garding article 19(1) of the Covenant
The provision of the Covenant that “Everyone shall have the right
to hold opinions without interferenc&' is incorporated in article 23 of
the Iranian Constitution, which states that “Inquisition into people's
opinions shall be forbidden and no one shall be offended or brought to
account merely for having a certain opinion.”
As reported by Amnesty International, journalists and intellectuals,
as well as members of religious minorities, are arbitrarily imprisoned
in Iran simply because of their opinions and beliefs — in clear violation
of this article of the Covenant.
Regarding article 19(2) of the Covenant
As already noted, freedom of expression is severely curtailed in
Iran. As far as printed materials are concerned, article 24 of the
Iranian Constitution states: “The press and publications shall be free
in their writings unless such writings are detrimental to the foundations
of Islam or the rights of the people. The law shall decide on the ap-
plication of this article. As in other cases, the ambiguities and un-
certainties surrounding the implementation of this provision of the
Constitution are such as to permit the authorities to negate, at will,
the freedom which the article purports to confer.
The Iranian government is in specific violation of this article of
the Covenant in banning the free circulation of Bah 'i literature and
other Bahi'i materials.
. . . . . , . . ,
—
q. ‘ .
garding article 19(3) of the Covenant
It is clear from the foregoing that limitations upon the right of
freedom of expression (see article 24 of the Iranian Constitution, quoted
above) are likely to go — and, indeed, do go — far beyond the necessary
restrictions specified in this article of the Covenant.
garding article 20(1) of the Covenant
The Iranian Constitution fails to conform with this article of the
Covenant in that it contains no legal prohibition against propaganda for
war.
Regarding article 20(2) of the Covenant .
Again, the Iranian Constitution fails to conform with the Covenant
and contains no legal prohibition against the advocacy of any national,
racial or religious hatred which, in the words of the Covenant,
“constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”
As described above, the government or Iran is conducting a cease-
less campaign of denunciation and vilification of Bah 'is, is thereby
advocating religious hatred against Bah 'is, and is not only inciting
but also engaging in discrimination, hostility and violence against
Bah ' is. :
OEe Iranian government is thus not only in violation of this
article of the Covenant but is also guilty of the very acts which the
article requires it to prohibit by law.
