ECOSOC Decision 1986 – Approving the Decision to Extend the Mandate of its Special Representative in Iran

          
          UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL
          FIRST REGULAR SESSION OF 1986
          ECOSOC DECISION 1986/137
          APPROVING THE DECISION OF THE 42ND COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
          TO EXTEND THE MANDATE OF ITS SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE ON IRAN
          The Economic and Social Council, noting COmmission on Human Rights
          resolutIon 1986/41 of 12 March 1986, approves the Commission's decision to
          extend the mandate of the Special Representative on the human rights situation
          in the Islamic Republic of Iran, as contained in Commission resolution 1984/54
          of 14 March 1984, for a year, and to request its Chairman to appoint an
          individual of recognized International standing to fill the vacancy created by
          the resignation of Mr. Andr s Aguilar. The Council also approves the
          Commission's request to 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 Bah '1s, and a final report to the Commission at
          its forty—third session.
          The Council further approves the Commission's request to the Secretary—
          General to give all necessary assistance to the Special Representative of the
          Commission.
          RECORD OF VOTE
          IN FAVOUR (21) AGAINST (7) ABSTAINED (19)
          Australia Bangladesh Argentina
          Belgium Indonesia Brazil
          Canada Pakistan Egypt
          Costa Rica Poland Gabon
          Finland Romania Guyana
          France Syria Haiti
          Germany, Federal Republic of Turkey India
          Iceland Morocco
          Iraq Mozambique
          Italy Nigeria
          Jamaica DID NOT PARTICIPATE Papua New Guinea
          Japan IN VOTE (7) Rwanda
          Panama Senegal
          Peru Byelorussia Sierra Leone
          Philippines China Somalia
          Spain Colombia Sri Lanka
          Sweden Djibouti Yugoslavia
          Uganda German Democratic Zaire
          United Kingdom Republic Zimbabwe
          United States Guinea
          Venezuela U.S.S.R.
          BP000 138
          
        

          
          Sinmn iry of debate in the
          Econoniic and Social Council
          at its first regular session of 1986
          concerning the humin rights situation in Iran
          The Netherlands (speaking on behalf of the twelve Member States of
          the European Economic Community) recalled that the Twelve had been happy
          when, at the Commission on Human Rights, the Iranian delegation had said
          that Iran was willing to cooperate with the Special Representative.
          However, the conditions set by Iran for such cooperation were totally
          unacceptable and therefore no agreement was reached.
          Norway stated that it hoped that a new Special Representative on
          Iran would be appointed and urged Iran to cooperate with the Commission
          and its Representative.
          Sweden said that it welcomed the decision of the Commission to
          appoint a new Special Representative on the human rights situation in
          Iran.
          Canada said that the Commission's resolutions on Iran and
          Afghanistan confronted the Economic and Social Council with the “age—old
          problem” of how to deal with governments which refused to cooperate with
          the Commission and its designated Representatives. Canada suggested
          that the Commission should establish a new agenda item to deal
          specifically with the question of non—cooperating governments.
          The United States said that the resignation of the Special
          Representative on Iran had left the Commission without a new,
          substantive report on that country but that, even without such a report,
          the facts were clear: torture, persecution of minorities — particularly
          the Bahá'Is — and other human rights abuses continued. The Commission
          had pointed out that allegations of such abuses could not be dismissed
          and had urged the Iranian authorities to change their attitude and to
          cooperate with the new Special Representative. It was important that
          the Economic and Social Council should endorse this decision.
          Australia said that Iran's participation at the Commission on Human
          Rights in negotiations on the draft resolution dealing with the human
          rights situation in that country had been a positive sign, which it was
          hoped would lead to the full cooperation of the Government of Iran with
          the Commission. It was to be regretted that, despite vigorous efforts
          by Australia and other delegations, no satisfactory agreement had been
          reached to ensure that the Commission's Special Representative could
          visit Iran.
          Iran , in a long statement, said that it would not cooperate with a
          Special Representative appointed under a Commission on Human Rights
          resolution, because the resolution pre—judged the issue. It would,
          
        

          
          Summary of debate
          Page 2
          however, be willing to cooperate with a Special Representative appointed
          by the Secretary—General. Iran formally proposed that consideration of
          the draft decision be deferred in order to provide further time for
          negotiations to take place.
          Australia said that Iran apparently had difficulty with the
          procedure under which the Commission on Human Rights appoints Special
          Representatives without conditions. Traditionally, there had never, been
          any conditions — this was a broad principle. On that basis, the
          Commission's resolution was “proper and appropriate”. No exception
          should be made to a long—standing principle.
          [ On a point of procedure, Australia queried Iran's right, as an
          observer delegation, to make a formal proposal and commented that,
          even if it were permitted to do so, Australia would oppose it. The
          Chairman stated that, according to the Rules of Procedure, Iran's
          proposal could be put to the vote only if one of the members of
          ECOSOC so requested. No such request was made and the debate
          resumed.]
          Haiti asked whether there was any difference between a Special
          Representative of the Commission on Human Rights and a Special
          Representative of the Secretary—General.
          Australia explained that, generally, the Secretary—General appoints
          Special Representatives to deal with political issues, whereas the
          Commission on Human Rights has created the mechanism of the Special
          Representative to deal with human rights issues. It was important not
          to blur the distinction, because a matter of principle was involved.
          Iran intervened, basically repeating the arguments it had put
          forward earlier and emphasizing that a Special Representative of the
          Commission, whoever he might be, would not be welcome in Iran.
          Haiti commented that Iran appeared to be trying to impose a
          procedure on the United Nations and that, if it was accepted, then human
          rights would be threatened everywhere. It appeared that this whole
          argument was simply a delaying tactic by Iran.
          BIC
          New York
          May 1986
          I