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
