Aadel Collection
Promotion and Protection of all Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including the right to development
UNITED
NATIONS
General Assembly Distr.
GENERAL
A/HRC/1 0/8/Add. 1
16 February 2009
ENGLISH ONLY
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Tenth session
Agenda item 3
PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF ALL HUMAN RIGHTS,
CIVIL, POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL
RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT
Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of
religion or belief, Asma Jahangir
Addendum
SUMMARY OF CASES TRANSMITTED TO GOVERNMENTS
AND REPLIES RECEIVED*
* The present document is being circulated as received in the language of submission only as
it greatly exceeds the word limitations currently imposed by the relevant General Assembly
resolutions.
A
GE.09-10980 (E) 260209
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 2
CONTENTS
Paragraphs Page
INTRODUCTION 1 -3 3
II. SUMMARY OF CASES TRANSMITTED AND REPLIES
RECEIVED 4-221 5
Afghanistan 4 - 5 5
Australia 6 - 8 5
Bahrain 9-11 6
China 12-44 7
India 45-54 14
Indonesia 55 -69 16
Iraq 70-80 20
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 81 - 112 22
Jordan 113-116 30
Kazakhstan 117-121 31
Kyrgyzstan 122 - 128 32
Lao People's Democratic Republic 129 - 134 35
Malaysia 135 - 145 36
Maldives 146- 149 38
Myanmar 150-157 40
Pakistan 158- 170 42
Russian Federation 171 - 182 46
Saudi Arabia 183 - 188 48
Sudan 189- 192 50
Thailand 193- 195 51
Turkey 196-198 51
United States of America 199- 203 52
Uzbekistan 204 - 209 53
VietNam 210-215 55
Yemen 216- 221 57
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 3
I. INTRODUCTION
This report gives an account of communications transmitted by the Special Rapporteur on
freedom of religion or belief between 1 December 2007 and 30 November 2008. It also contains
the replies received from Governments to her communications by 30 January 2009, as well as
observations of the Special Rapporteur where considered appropriate. Many of these
observations refer to the framework for communications (see E/CN.4/2006/5, Annex and
AIHRC/6/5). The various categories are as follows:
I. Freedom of religion or belief
1. Freedom to adopt, change or renounce a religion or belief
2. Freedom from coercion.
3. The right to manifest one's religion or belief
(a) Freedom to worship;
(b) Places of worship;
(c) Religious symbols;
(d) Observance of holidays and days of rest;
(e) Appointing clergy;
(f) Teaching and disseminating materials (including missionary activity);
(g) The right of parents to ensure the religious and moral education of their
children;
(h) Registration;
(i) Communicate with individuals and communities on religious matters at
the national and international level;
(j) Establish and maintain charitable and humanitarian institutions/solicit
and receive funding;
(k) Conscientious objection.
II. Discrimination
1. Discrimination on the basis of religion or belief/inter-religious
discrimination/tolerance.
2. State religion.
AIHRC/1O/8/Add. 1
page 4
III. Vulnerable groups
1. Women.
2. Persons deprived of their liberty.
3. Refugees.
4. Children.
5. Minorities.
6. Migrant workers.
IV. Intersection of freedom of religion or belief with other human rights
1. Freedom of expression including questions related to religious conflicts,
religious intolerance and extremism.
2. Right to life, right to liberty.
3. Prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment.
V. Cross-cutting issues
1. Derogation.
2. Limitation.
3. Legislative issues.
4. Defenders of freedom of religion or belief and non-governmental
organizations.
2. The Special Rapporteur has developed this framework for communications into an online
digest, which illustrates the international standards with pertinent excerpts of the mandate
holders' findings since 1986 according to the categories of the framework for communications.
The online digest is available on the website of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/religion1standards.htm).
3. Owing to restrictions on the length of documents, the Special Rapporteur has been obliged
to summarize in this report the communications sent and received. As a result, replies from
Governments could not be published in their entirety. The names of alleged victims are reflected
in this report, although exceptions may be made in relation to children and other victims of
violence in relation to whom publication would be problematic.
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 5
II. SUMMARY OF CASES TRANSMITTED AND REPLIES RECE WED
Afghanistan
Urgent appeal sent on 28 January 2008 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Special
Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions
4. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had
received regarding Mr. Sayed Perwiz Kambaksh, a student and journalist at a local newspaper
in the city of Mazar-i-Sharif. According to the information received, Mr. Kambaksh was
sentenced to death on blasphemy charges by the city court of Mazar-i-Sharif on 22 January 2008
in a trial reportedly conducted in camera and without the presence of a defence lawyer. The
blasphemy charges are related to a report that Mr. Kambaksh printed off the Internet and
distributed to otherjournalism students at Balkh University, which was considered by the judges
as having “distorted Quran verses” and “humiliated Islam”. According to reports,
Mr. Kambaksh's condemnation may be related to articles written by his brother and published by
the Institute of War and Peace Reporting criticizing Balkh provincial authorities for corruption
and abuse of power.
Observations
5. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a reply from the Government of
Afghanistan concerning the above mentioned allegations. Reportedly, the Appeal Court of Kabul
overturned Mr. Kambaksh's death sentence on 21 October 2008, but sentenced him to 20 years'
imprisonment. The Special Rapporteur would like to take this opportunity to refer to her report
to the 62 ' ' session of the General Assembly (A162/280), which discusses issues of concern with
regard to blasphemy laws. In paragraph 75, she notices that there are worrying trends towards
applying blasphemy laws in a discriminatory manner and that they often disproportionately
punish members of religious minorities, dissenting believers and non-theists or atheists. In
paragraph 77, she reiterates that criminalizing “defamation of religions” can be
counterproductive, since it may create an atmosphere of intolerance and fear and may even
increase the chances of a backlash. Her predecessor, Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, already emphasized
th . .
in his report to the 56 session of the Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/2000/65,
para. 111) that “several communications from the Special Rapporteur illustrate the danger that
efforts to combat defamation (particularly blasphemy) may be manipulated for purposes contrary
to human rights”.
Australia
Communication sent on 1 November 2007 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people
6. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had
received concerning the possible imminent destruction of a sacred indigenous rock art
complex situated in the Burrup Peninsula, Dampier Archipelago. The summary of this
communication is already reproduced in AIHRC/7/10/Add. 1, paras. 4-8.
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 6
Response from the Government dated 23 June 2008
7. Having submitted a preliminary response on 30 January 2008 (see AIHRC/7/10/Add. 1,
para. 9), the Government of Australia sent another letter to the Special Rapporteurs on
23 June 2008. This response letter is summarized in the communications report of the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people (see
AIHRC/9/9/Add.1, paras. 21-3 1).
Observations
8. The Special Rapporteur would like to thank the Government of Australia for the detailed
response to the questions and concerns raised.
Bahrain
Urgent appeal sent on 18 January 2008 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and the Special Rapporteur on the
question of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
9. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had
received regarding Shaker Mohammed Abdul-Hussein Abdul-Aal, Majid Salman Ibrahim
Al-Haddad and Nader All Ahmad Al-Salatna, members of the Unemployment Committee and
human rights defenders who were released on 16 January 2008. Also in relation to the following
eight remaining detainees: Naji All Fateel, member of the Bahrain Youth Society for Human
Rights (BYSHR); Mohanuned Abdullah Al Sengais, head of the Committee to Combat High
Prices; Maytham Bader Jassim Al-Sheiljh, Alunad Jaffar Mohammed All, Hassan
Abdulnabi, Hassan Abdelnabi Hassan and Abdullah Mohsen Abdulah Saleh, all members of
the Unemployment Committee; and Ebrahim Mohamed Amin-Al-Arab, founding member of
the Martyrs and Victims of Torture. All of the remaining detainees are being held at the Criminal
Investigations Department in Adliya.
10. Reportedly, all of the aforementioned were detained after a series of arrests from 21
to 28 December 2007 following unrest and protests. They did not have access to their lawyers
until approximately ten days after they were detained. Some of the detainees were continually
handcuffed for one to two weeks, including while they ate and slept. They were refused access to
washing facilities and were forced to lie on a cold floor and beaten and kicked as soon as they
fell asleep. Some were forced to stand for three days. They were not permitted to speak to the
other detainees and remained blindfolded for most of the time. The detainees were also not
allowed to pray.
Observations
11. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a reply from the Government of
Babrain concerning the above mentioned allegations. She would like to refer to the general
comment No. 22 of the Human Rights Committee which states “persons already subject to
certain legitimate constraints, such as prisoners, continue to enjoy their rights to manifest their
religion or belief to the fullest extent compatible with the specific nature of the constraint”. In
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 7
this context, she has addressed the freedom of religion or belief of detainees in her 2005 report to
the General Assembly (see A160/399, paras. 69-9 1). She would like to emphasize that persons
deprived of their liberty are in a particularly vulnerable situation, also with regard to freedom of
religion or belief It is crucial to provide the personnel of detention facilities with adequate
training, raising awareness and enhancing their sensitivity about their duty to promote and
respect international human rights standards for the treatment of prisoners, in particular the right
to freedom of religion or belief
China
Urgent appeal sent on 4 October 2007 jointly with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the
Working group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and
protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
12. The Special Procedures mandate holders brought to the attention of the Government
information they had received regarding Kunkhen, an artist, and Mr. Lobsang Phuntsok, a
30-year-old monk of the Lithang Monastery. According to the information received,
Mr. Lobsang Phuntsok was arrested on 15 September 2007 following a raid carried out at his
residence in the monastery by officials from the Lithang County Public Bureau Security. He was
arrested on allegations of having established close ties with an artist named Kunkhen. Kunkhen
was arrested on 22 August 2007 by Lithang County Public Bureau Security officials for having
taken pictures of Mr. Runggye Adak on 1 August 2007 when he was addressing a large Tibetan
crowd gathered for the annual Lithang horse-race festival (see AIHRC/7/10/Add. 1, paras. 69-74).
The exact whereabouts of Kunkhen and Mr. Lobsang Phuntsok and the charges held against
them remain unknown. In view of their incommunicado detention concern was expressed as
regards their physical and psychological integrity.
Response from the Government dated 21 December 2007
13. The Government of China indicated that it had carefully examined the matters referred to
in the communication and wished to submit the following response. On 22 August 2007,
Kunkhen was taken into criminal custody, in accordance with the law, by the Garzê prefecture
public security bureau, on suspicion of espionage and unlawfully supplying intelligence to
bodies outside the country. On 12 September 2007, his arrest was approved by the Garzê
prefecture people's procuratorate. On the same day, Lobsang Phuntsok was taken into criminal
custody, in accordance with the law, by the Lithang county public security bureau, on suspicion
of conducting activities designed to foment division of the State. Because the circumstances of
his case involved only slight danger to State security they were not deemed sufficient to warrant
a criminal penalty. On 10 October 2007, the labour re-education management committee of the
Sichuan provincial people's government, acting pursuant to the relevant provisions of the State
Council resolution on labour re-education issues, ratified by the Standing Committee of the
National People's Council, ordered him to serve a term of one year and six months' labour
re-education.
14. The Government of China emphasized that it abided by the law in protecting the freedom
of religion or belief and the freedom of expression of citizens. Furthermore, it referred to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
and other international human rights instruments which contain provisions to the effect that
rights and freedoms must be subject to the restrictions prescribed by law.
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 8
Observations
15. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government's response. She would like to take
the opportunity to refer to General Assembly resolution 63/181 which emphasizes that
“restrictions on the freedom to manifest one's religion or belief are permitted only if limitations
are prescribed by law, are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the
fundamental rights and freedoms of others, are non-discriminatory and are applied in a manner
that does not vitiate the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”. In addition, she
would like to reiterate (see AIHRC/6/5, para. 45) that the burden ofjustifying a limitation upon
the freedom to manifest one's religion or belief lies with the State and that the chosen measures
should promote religious tolerance and avoid stigmatizing any particular religious community.
Furthermore, the principles of appropriateness and proportionality need to be thoroughly
respected both by the administration and during possible legal review.
Communication sent on 30 November 2007
16. The Special Rapporteur brought to the attention of the Government information she had
received regarding Ms. Jin Meihua, 48 years old, from Hangzhou who was sentenced, on
15 November 2007, to five years of prison for practicing Falun Dafa. She had been arrested
by 17 police officers from Hangzhou City Xiacheng District Police Sub-Bureau on 5 June 2007.
Subsequently, her family members were not allowed to visit her in detention. Furthermore, the
police refused to meet with her lawyer and did not file his complaint. On 18 June 2001,
Ms. Meihua had already been sentenced to 4 years in jail because of distributing Falun Dafa
literature.
Response from the Government dated 13 February 2008
17. The Government of China indicated that it had carefully examined the matters referred
to in the communication and wished to submit the following response. On 18 June 2001,
Jin Meihua was sentenced by the Xihu district people's court in Hangzhou to four years'
fixed-term imprisonment for the offence of organizing and using a heretical organization to
conduct unlawful activities. She was released on completion of her term on 9 December 2004.
18. On 5 June 2007, Jin was taken into criminal custody on suspicion of the offence of using a
heretical organization to conduct unlawful activities and, on 6 July 2007, her arrest was
authorized. The Xiacheng district people's procurator's office in the city of Hangzhou laid
charges against Jin for the offence of using a heretical organization to conduct unlawful activities
and criminal proceedings were instituted against her on 30 September 2007 with the Xiacheng
district people's court. Hearing the case in open proceedings, the Xiacheng district people's court
established the following: Jin had been responsible for producing various materials propagating
the heretical “Falun Gong” cult and, in September and October 2006, had distributed such
materials in Wushan Square and other places in Hangzhou. On 5 June 2007, Jin had been
apprehended by public security officers and, acting in accordance with the law, these officers
had searched her home and seized large quantities of materials propagating the heretical
“Falun Gong” cult.
19. The Xiacheng district people's court established the following: in contravention of the laws
and regulations, Jin had produced and distributed materials propagating a heretical cult, which
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 9
was a criminal offence, and then she had repeated the offence of producing and distributing
materials propagating a religious cult and had used the cult to conduct unlawful activities. The
court found that her conduct had constituted the act of using a heretical cult to break the law and,
on 12 November 2007, it sentenced her at first instance to five years' fixed-term imprisonment
for the offence of using a heretical organization to conduct unlawful activities.
20. Following her sentencing at first instance, Jin refused to accept the court's verdict and
lodged an appeal. Hearing the case at second instance, the Hangzhou intermediate people's
court determined that Jin had knowingly produced materials propagating a heretical cult and
had distributed these materials; that she had breached the country's laws and regulations; and
that her conduct had been in violation of the relevant provisions of criminal law; that her
actions had posed a danger to society; and that she should be held liable for the offence that
she had committed. It found that the original determination of the offence had been accurate,
the sentence commensurate with the offence and due process had been observed.
On 22 December 2007, her appeal was overturned and the original judgement upheld.
21. The Government of China emphasized that throughout the investigations in this case the
Chinese public security authorities at all times abided strictly by the law and enforced the law
with utmost fairness and that there was no question of her being deprived of her lawful rights.
During the conduct of these proceedings, Jin appointed two lawyers to act as her defence
counsel, the lawyers conducted face-to-face meetings with her and the courts at both instances
fully protected Jin's rights in litigation.
Observations
22. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government's response. With regard to the
question of “cults” or “sects”, she would like to refer to the chapter on “Religious minorities and
new religious movements” in her report to the fourth session of the Human Rights Council (see
AIHRC/4/21, paras. 43-47). The Special Rapporteur is very concerned by the continued
violations of freedom of religion or belief suffered by Falun Gong practitioners (see
E/CN.4/2005/61, paras. 37-38; E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.1, para. 109; AIHRC/4/21/Add.1, para. 88;
AIHRC/7/10/Add. 1, para. 32).
Urgent appeal sent on 20 March 2008 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and the Special Rapporteur on the
question of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
23. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had
received regarding reports of violence during demonstrations in the Tibet Autonomous Region
and surrounding areas in China, killings of an unconfirmed number of people and arrests of
hundreds of demonstrators. According to allegations received, demonstrations led by monks
were organised on 10 March 2008 demanding greater freedom of religion and the release of
monks detained since October 2007. It is reported that 300 monks from Drepung Monastery,
near Lhasa, proceeded with a peaceful march towards the Potala Palace when they were stopped
by the police. It is believed that around 60 monks suspected to be the leaders of the protest were
arrested by the Public Security Bureau (PSB).
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 10
24. Sixteen people, including 15 visiting students monks in Sera Monastery, identified as
Lobsang, aged 15, Lobsang Thukjey, aged 19, Tsultrim Palden, aged 20, Lobsher, aged 20,
Phurdan, aged 22, Thubdron, aged 24, Lodroe, aged 30, and Lobsang Ngodrub, aged 29,
from Onpo Monastery, Sichuan Province; Zoepa, aged 30, from Mangye Monastery; Trulku
Tenpa Rigsang, aged 26, Gelek Pel, aged 32, and Samten, aged 17 from Lungkar Monastery,
Qinghai Province; Pema Kanvang, aged 30 and Thubwang, aged 30, from Darthang
Monastery; and Tsegyam, aged 22, from Kashi Monastery led a march on Barkhor Street in
Lhasa, distributing pamphlets and raising Tibetan flags. It is reported that they were arrested by
the People's Armed Police. Additional contingents of armed forces were then stationed in the
area, and the police blocked roads and encircled Drepung and Sera monasteries around Lhasa to
prevent further protests from taking place.
25. On the same day, about 350 people, including 137 monks from Lhutsang Monastery in the
Tibetan area of Amdo in Mangra County, organised a protest in front of the Mangra County
Assembly Hall where a government-sponsored show was taking place. The protest was stopped
by the People's Armed Police. A number of arrests took place during the disruption of the
protest, but no information on the whereabouts of the arrested monks has been received.
26. Reports indicate that on 11 March 2008, 500 to 600 monks from the Sera Monastery called
for the release of the monks arrested the day before and began a march towards Lhasa, but were
met on the way by approximately 2,000 armed police. The crowd was reportedly dispersed with
tear-gas. A number of monks were detained and then released. On 11 March 2008, the police
surrounded and sealed off Ditsa Monastery in Hualong County in Qinghai Province after the
monks held a protest.
27. On 14 March 2008, violent incidents were reported in Lhasa as tension escalated between
hundreds of demonstrators and police forces. Gunfire was heard in the streets, and shops and cars
were set on fire. Allegations that a significant number of Tibetans and Han and Hui Chinese have
been killed during the demonstrations have been received. Monks from Ganden and Reting
monasteries joined the demonstrations and the two monasteries were later sealed off by police. A
number of monks from Sera Monastery started a hunger strike to protest against the sealing off
of monasteries and the detention of monks.
28. Reports indicate that, in particular since 14 March 2008, the wave of demonstrations by
monks and lay people has spread in the whole Tibet Autonomous Region and in neighbouring
provinces. These demonstrations have reportedly sometimes been violently repressed, in
many cases leading to arrests of demonstrators. Allegations were received that subsequent
to 14 March 2008, the People's Liberation Army had been patrolling the streets of Lhasa.
29. On 15 March 2008, shooting was reported inside the compound of Tashi Lhunpo
Monastery in Shigatse, and at least 40 lay people demonstrating around the monastery were
arrested. The next day, monks trying to escape the Kirti Monastery in Amdo in the Sichuan
Province, which had been sealed off by the military, have allegedly been shot at; tear-gas was
reportedly used on the demonstrators supporting the monks outside the monastery, and many
demonstrators were severely beaten by the police. The police is then alleged to have shot into
the crowd, killing and injuring a considerable but unconfirmed number of people.
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 11
30. On 17 March 2008, students of Marthang Nationality Middle School in Hongyuan Xian
County, Aba Prefecture, Sichuan Province, aged between 14 and 20, started a protest inside the
school. PSB officials blocked the entrance and beat the students while they were trying to come
out of the school. Approximately 40 students are said to have been arrested. Around 700 students
then staged a demonstration outside the Hongyuan Xian County PSB office to protest against the
detention of fellow students.
31. Subsequent to 10 March 2008, it is reported that raids in the homes of people formerly
imprisoned for their political opinions have taken place. Since 15 March 2008, house-to-house
searches were allegedly being carried out in Lhasa, with CDs and printed material being
confiscated, and people being taken in custody. It is reported that on 15 March 2008, at least
600 people had been arrested in Lhasa, either as a result of a house search or during
demonstrations. Three hundred additional people were reportedly arrested on 16 March 2008.
32. Reports indicate that on 13 March 2008, the Lhasa Foreign Bureau Office has issued a
warning to non-governmental organisations that any information given to foreigners regarding
the protests could result in strict legal action against the concerned individuals and organisations,
including the closing down of the latter. On 17 March 2008, the authorities deported
approximately 15 journalists from at least six Hong Kong television, radio and print
organisations, accusing them of “illegal reporting” and of illegally shooting films of People's
Liberation Army soldiers. The journalists were escorted to the airport and put on a plane to
Chengdu in Sichuan Province, and the police is alleged to have looked into the journalists
computers and video footages. The authorities allegedly refused to grant permits to allow foreign
journalists to travel to the Tibet Autonomous Region as from 12 March 2008, and are reported to
have ordered them out of the Tibetan parts of Gansu and Qinghai provinces on 16 March 2008,
the police reportedly saying that it was for their safety. Further reports indicate that within the
country, video-sharing websites as well as news websites are inaccessible and that international
news broadcasts are being cut when showing reports of the events in the Tibet Autonomous
Region and surrounding areas in China.
33. On 15 March 2008, the Tibet Autonomous Region High People's Court, Tibet
Autonomous Region High People's Procuratorate and Tibet Autonomous Region Public Security
Department issued a notice, asking that: “1. Those who on their own volition submit themselves
to police or judicial offices prior to midnight on 17 March 2008 shall be punished lightly or dealt
mitigated punishment; those who surrender themselves and report on other criminal elements
will be performing meritorious acts and may escape punishment. Criminal elements who do not
submit themselves in time shall be punished severely according to law. 2. Those who harbour or
hide criminal elements shall be punished severely according to law upon completion of
investigations. 3. Those citizens who actively report and expose the criminal behaviour of
criminal elements shall receive personal protection, and granted commendations and awards.”
Response from the Government dated 21 May 2008
34. At the time this report was finalized, the Special Rapporteur was not in a position to reflect
the content of the reply from the Government of China dated 21 May 2008 as she had not
received the translation of its content from the relevant services.
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 12
Observations
35. The Special Rapporteur is grateful that the Government of China replied to the joint urgent
appeal of 20 March 2008 and she hopes to be able to make observations on the response in the
next report summarizing the cases transmitted to Governments and replies received.
Urgent appeal sent on 9 April 2008 jointly with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the
Working Group on arbitrary detention, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and
protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights defenders, the Independent Expert on minority issues, the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special
Rapporteur on the question of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment
36. Subsequent to their urgent appeal of 20 March 2008, the Special Procedures mandate
holders brought to the attention of the Government information they had received in relation to
reports of killings, injuries and arrests of protestors in Gan Zi Xian, Sichuan Province, and the
arrests of over 570 Tibetan monks, including children, in Aba Xian and in Ruanggui/Zoige
Xian in the Tibet Autonomous Region.
37. According to information received, at least eight protestors were killed on 3 April 2008
and several injured when security forces opened fire during a peaceful protest in Zithang
Township in Gan Zi Xian, Sichuan Province, calling for the release of two monks previously
arrested. Several protestors were also arrested.
38. On 28 and 29 March 2008, over 570 Tibetan monks, including some children, were
arrested following raids by security forces of the Chinese People's Armed Police and the Public
Security Bureau on monasteries in Aba Xian and in Ruanggui/Zoige Xian in the Tibet
Autonomous Region. Arrests were made of those suspected of participating in protests and those
suspected of communicating with the exiled Tibetan communities.
39. Serious concerns were expressed over the aforementioned arrests and detention of, and the
excessive use of force against, the above mentioned persons, including reportedly peaceful
protestors. Further concerns were expressed that independent observers and foreign journalists
have been restricted from accessing regions in which protests have taken place and that
limitations have been imposed on the media, including Internet websites, to prohibit the
dissemination of information throughout China concerning the events in the Tibet Autonomous
Region and abroad.
Response from the Government dated 21 May 2008
40. At the time this report was finalized, the Special Rapporteur was not in a position to reflect
the content of the reply from the Government of China dated 21 May 2008 as she had not
received the translation of its content from the relevant services.
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 13
Observations
41. The Special Rapporteur is grateful that the Government of China replied to the joint urgent
appeal of 9 April 2008 and she hopes to be able to make observations on the response in the next
report summarizing the cases transmitted to Governments and replies received.
Urgent appeal sent on 22 May 2008 jointly with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
42. The Special Procedures mandate holders brought to the attention of the Government
information they had received in relation to Mr. Lou Yuanqi, a pastor and house church leader
in Qingshuihe Town, Huocheng County in Xinjiang province, detained on a charge relating to
separatism. Reportedly, Mr. Lou Yuanqi was summoned by the State Security Bureau to
Qingshuihe Township Police Station at 1.00 p.m. on Friday 16 May 2008, and interrogated for
an hour. At 11.30 p.m. he was transferred to Huocheng County Detention Centre on a charge
relating to separatism.
43. Mr. Lou Yuanqi had been previously arrested on several occasions. On 20 October 2006,
Mr. Lou Yuanqi and three other pastors were detained for organising a house church and
held for 32 days, during which time they were allegedly beaten by guards and inmates.
Mr. Lou Yuanqi's 16 year-old daughter was detained on 28 February 2008 for a day, together
with ten other minors, when they were attending a Bible study for children. This is the latest in a
series of ongoing targeted actions against the small Christian minority in Xinjiang. It was
reported in the previous month that Chinese Government officials had supposedly launched a
strategic campaign, allegedly called the “Anti-illegal Christian Activities Campaign”. Pastor
Lou's case seems to be the second time the Chinese Government is using separatist charges
against a house church leader, as the organization Uyghur Christian Alimujiang Yimiti faces trial
the following week on charges of endangering national security. Concern was expressed that the
detention of Mr. Lou Yuanqi may be directly related to his peaceful religious activities.
Observations
44. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a reply from the Government of
China concerning the above mentioned allegations. She would like to refer to General Assembly
resolution 63/18 1 which urges States to “step up their efforts to protect and promote freedom of
thought, conscience, religion and belief, and to this end to ensure that no one within their
jurisdiction is deprived of the right to life, liberty or security of person because of religion or
belief and that no one is subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment or arbitrary arrest or detention”. Similarly, the Human Rights Council
resolution 6/37 urges States to take all necessary and appropriate action, in conformity with
international standards of human rights, to combat hatred, intolerance and acts of violence,
intimidation and coercion motivated by intolerance based on religion or belief, as well as
incitement to hostility and violence, with particular regard to religious minorities.
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 14
India
Urgent appeal sent on 29 August 2008 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,
summary or arbitrary executions
45. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had
received concerning attacks on the Christian community in the Kandhamal district of the
state of Orissa since 24 August 2008. Reportedly, the context of violence has been triggered by
the murder of Swami Lakhmananda Saraswati, a local leader of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad
(VHP), as well as four other VHP members, who were shot dead on the night of the
23 August 2008. Before his death, Swami Lakhmananda Saraswati was reportedly active in
opposing conversions away from Hinduism and negatively portraying the Christian minority. On
24 August 2008, the State VHP General Secretary Gouri Prasad Radh told the Hindustan Times
that “this attack is the handiwork of Christians. There were four home guards at the ashram. Had
the attackers been Maoists, they would have first attacked these cops. Swami was fighting the
missionaries for four decades. We see a clear Christian conspiracy behind this attack”.
46. Although the Christian leadership condemned the killing of the VHP leader and his four
associates, attacks on Christians and their places of worship, as well as Christian-ran orphanages
and businesses, began on 24 August 2008. The incidents have been focused on Kandhamal
district, but other districts reported to have been affected include Angul, Bargarh, Baudh,
Debagarh, Gajapati, Jajapur, Koraput, Rayagada, Sambalpur and Sundargarh. Many mobs
reportedly carried out their attacks while chanting slogans in the Oriya language, translating as
“Kill the Christians”. At least ten people have been killed so far, and the violence is continuing,
putting many others in danger.
47. Among the victims, a nun was burnt to death on 25 August 2008, after a mob set fire to an
orphanage in Phutpali in Bargarh district. Twenty children, who were at the orphanage, managed
to escape but a priest suffered serious burn injuries in the attack. Pastors were also murdered on
25 August 2008. They include Mr. Nayak Samuel, a Seventh Day Adventist pastor from
Bakingia, and Mr. Nayak Akbar, a Pentecostal pastor from Mandakia.
48. Allegedly, the police delayed taking action and did not enough to protect the district
population. Further, though the State Government announced on 25 August 2008 that a special
team had been constituted to investigate the murder of the Hindu leader and his associates, this
appeared to have had little effect on the violence.
Observations
49. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a reply from the Government of
India concerning the above mentioned allegations. She would like to recall that the General
Assembly resolution 63/18 1 urged States to step up their efforts to eliminate intolerance and
discrimination based on religion or belief, notably by taking all necessary and appropriate action,
in conformity with international standards of human rights, to combat hatred, discrimination,
intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by intolerance based on
religion or belief, as well as incitement to hostility or violence, with particular regard to members
of religious minorities in all parts of the world. She also would like to refer to the press statement
released at the end of her country visit to India on 20 March 2008, which had already referred to
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 15
the widespread violence in December 2007 targeting primarily Christian communities in the
State of Orissa. In the press statement, she had expressed concern about organized groups based
on religious ideologies which had unleashed the fear of mob violence in many parts of the
country and noted that law enforcement was often reluctant to take any action against individuals
or groups that perpetuate violence in the name of religion or belief She emphasized that this
institutionalized impunity for those who exploit religion and impose their religious intolerance
on others had made peaceful citizens, particularly the minorities, vulnerable and fearful. In her
mission report, the Special Rapporteur also analyzes the vulnerable situation of members of
religious communities, including Christians (AIHRC/10/8/Add.3, paras. 17-19), as well as the
negative impact of laws on religious conversion in several states, including in Orissa
(A/HRC/ 10/8/Add. 3, paras. 47-52).
Urgent appeal sent on 5 November 2008 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on
contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance,
the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the
Independent Expert on minority issues
50. The Special Procedures mandate holders brought to the attention of the Government
information they had received concerning the eruption of violence between the Bodo tribal and
the Muslim communities in the Indian state of Assam. Reportedly, the violence between
members of the Muslim community and members of Bodo tribal groups in the Indian state of
Assam started on 3 October 2008. The incidents that sparked this wave of violence remain
unclear, yet there have been long running tensions between the two communities. Despite the
large number of paramilitary officers deployed by the Government and the imposition of a
curfew, mobs from both communities armed with machetes and knives fuelled violence between
the two communities in the districts of Udalguri, Darrang and Baksa.
51. As a result of the communal violence, reportedly more than 50 people were killed, more
than 500 houses were burnt and more than 80,000 people, both from the Bodo and the Muslim
communities, have been forced to flee from their village and to seek shelter in camps set up by
the Government. To counteract the communal violence, the government of the Indian state of
Assam has allegedly issued “shoot on sight” orders to the security forces. Indeed, 25 of the more
than 50 victims mentioned above were reportedly killed by police fire.
52. In addition to the above, coordinated bombings that killed 77 people and wounded more
than 320 took place in the Indian State of Assam on 30 October 2008. Prime Minister
Dr. Manmohan Singh strongly condemned the blasts and said that the Government would take
all possible steps to bring the perpetrators of terror attack to justice. While responsibility still
needs to be determined by the authorities, the Islamic Security Force-Indian Mujahideen
reportedly claimed to have committed the bombings.
53. As far as the inter-communal violence and the attacks of 30 October 2008 are concerned,
the Special Procedures mandate holders urged the Government of India to take all necessary
measures to ensure the accountability of persons responsible for the violence. They also
requested that the Government adopts effective measures to prevent the aggravation of
inter-communal tensions and to effectively protect individuals against further violence.
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 16
Observations
54. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a reply from the Government of
India concerning the above mentioned allegations. She would like to recall that Human Rights
Council resolution 6/37 urges States to take all necessary and appropriate action, in conformity
with international standards of human rights, to combat hatred, intolerance and acts of violence,
intimidation and coercion motivated by intolerance based on religion or belief, as well as
incitement to hostility and violence, with particular regard to religious minorities. The Special
Rapporteur would also like to refer to her recent country report on India, in which she analyzes
the vulnerable situation of members of religious communities and of victims or survivors of
communal violence (AIHRC/ 10/8/Add. 3, paras. 17-41).
Indonesia
Urgent appeal sent on 21 April 2008
55. The Special Rapporteur brought to the attention of the Government information she had
received regarding an impending ban of the Ahmadiyya community in Indonesia and the
potential risk of violence in this context. Reportedly, the Government advisory board Bakor
Pakem (Coordinating Body for the Monitoring of Mystical Beliefs) on 16 April 2008 asserted
that the Ahmadiyya faith was deviant to Islam and issued a recommendation that the
organization and its activities be banned by the President. In a press conference on
16 April 2008, the Assistant Attorney-General reportedly stated that “Bakor Pakem believes
Ahmadiyya has continued to follow activities and interpretations that deviate from Islamic
teachings” and that “all Abmadiyya followers must cease their religious activities with
immediate effect”.
56. The Special Rapporteur emphasized that an official ban of the Abmadiyya organization
would unduly restrict their believers' religious freedom. In addition, she stressed that a ban
might increase the risk of attacks on Abmadiyya followers by vigilante groups. There had been
several reports of attacks against the Abmadiyya community and of destruction of places of
worship or homes of its members, for example in the villages of Manis Lor and Sadasari in
West-Java. The violence had allegedly been spurred by a fatwa of December 2007 which the
Indonesian Ulema Council submitted to the Office of the Attorney-General, calling for a ban of
the Ahmadiyya community.
57. The Special Rapporteur stressed that restrictions on the freedom to manifest religion or
belief are only permitted if limitations are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public
safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. In instances
where one religious community might be subject to attacks, the appropriate state response must
be to ensure their physical safety and to protect their freedom to worship. Limitations have to be
strictly interpreted and must be directly related and proportionate to the specific need on which
they are predicated. In addition, she referred to the criteria with regard to registration as outlined
in her report to the Commission on Human Rights (see UN Doc. E/CN.4/2005/6 1, para. 58):
(a) Registration should not be compulsory, i.e. it should not be a precondition for
practising one's religion, but only for the acquisition of a legal personality and related benefits;
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 17
(b) In the latter case, registration procedures should be easy and quick and not depend on
extensive formal requirements in terms of the number of members or the time a particular
religious group has existed;
(c) Registration should not depend on reviews of the substantive content of the belief,
the structure, the clergy, etc.;
(d) No religious group should be empowered to decide about the registration of another
religious group.
58. Consequently, the Special Rapporteur urged the Government of Indonesia to refrain from
issuing the ban of the Ahmadiyya community and to ensure the safety of all its members in
Indonesia, not least since there have been credible allegations, including in the recent past, of
violence against them.
Response from the Government dated 27 June 2008
59. On 27 June 2008, the Government of Indonesia submitted ajoint response to the Special
Rapporteur's communications dated 21 April 2008 and 12 June 2008. The Government's
response is summarized below in paras. 62-66.
Urgent appeal sent on 12 June 2008 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion
and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
60. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had
received concerning a joint ministerial decree with regard to members of the Ahmadiyya
community in Indonesia. On 9 June 2008, a joint ministerial decree by the Religious Affairs
Minister, the Home Minister and the Attorney General reportedly warned and instructed
adherents, members and/or board members of the Indonesian Ahmadiyya Congregation
(Jemaat Abmadiyya Indonesia), as long as they claim to be Muslims, to stop the spreading of the
belief that there is another prophet with his own teachings after the Prophet Muhammad.
Members who disobey this instruction of the decree or who spread interpretations that deviate
from the principal teachings of the religions in Indonesia are warned that they and their
associated organizations will face legal action. Furthermore, the decree appeals to society to
refrain from violent acts against Abmadiyya followers.
61. On 1 June 2008, more than 500 people from the Islam Troop Command attacked
about 100 activists of the National Alliance for the Freedom of Faith and Religion who were
holding a peaceful rally for religious tolerance at Jakarta's National Monument. 75 people were
injured in the attack and several Ahmadiyya followers had to be hospitalised. Although police
were in the area they reportedly did little to stop the violence and some police officers allegedly
blamed the organizers of the rally that keeping the agenda of their peace parade had created the
tensions.
Response from the Government dated 27 June 2008
62. In its response, the Government first reiterated that in Indonesia, freedom of religion or
belief was constitutionally established and protected. Moreover, there existed further guarantees
concerning the respect of this fundamental freedom in various laws. In addressing the issue, the
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 18
Government of Indonesia had been mindful of the fact that incidents relating to the Ahmadiyya
have multiple facets. As regards the doctrinal aspect of this movement, the Government of
Indonesia noted that in recent years, the interaction of this movement with many communities in
the country had created major social tension. The Government of Indonesia had endeavoured to
solve the issue through dialogue with leaders of the Ahmadiyya. It had also promoted dialogue
between Ahmadiyya and various religious groups in order to enhance mutual respect and
understanding. The second aspect of this matter related to law enforcement. In particular, when
there have been incidents of intolerance against the Ahmadiyya, the authorities had stepped in to
ensure their protection in the same manner they were obliged to ensure the protection of ordinary
citizens against violence inflicted by any group or persons. Following such attacks in the past,
the perpetrators of the acts of violence had been detained for questioning and several had been
brought before the law.
63. In light of the need to resolve the issue in a sustainable manner and to prevent its
recurrence, the Government of Indonesia indicated that it had recently issued a specific decision
on this issue taking into account the principle of freedom of religion as well as the need to
respect the existing relevant laws and regulations in the country. The policy (joint
decree KEP-033/AIJAI6/2008 or SKB No. 3/2008) contained, among others, the following
elements: it does not outlaw the Ahmadiyya faith, but rather, orders its followers to halt their
proselytizing (Syl ‘ar) activities and to fully respect the existing laws and regulations; it appeals
to the Ahmadiyya followers to return to the Islamic mainstream religion and at the same time, it
appeals to the people in general to refrain from acts of violence against Ahmadiyya followers.
The issuance of such a decree was never meant to be an intervention by the State in people's
right to freedom of religion. It was merely an effort by the Government of Indonesia, as
mandated by the Constitution and national laws, to uphold law and public order and protect the
Ahmadiyya followers from any criminal attacks. The Government of Indonesia stated that the
issuance of this decree did not interfere with religious doctrines or limit religious freedom.
64. As regards the acts of violence on the day marking the 63”' anniversary of Indonesia
Pancasila (1 June 2008), it was reported that a group comprised of 500 individuals, called the
Islamic Defender's Front (FPI), attacked over 100 activists of the National Alliance for the
Freedom of Faith and Religion during an interfaith rally on religious tolerance in Jakarta. In
response to these acts of violence, there had been several measures taken by the Government,
including the arrest of two leaders of the FPI. There had also been police investigations which
have led to the arrest of several other individuals involved in the violence. In addition, the
Government of Indonesia called upon the local communities not to attempt any other acts of
violence or illegal actions against the Ahmadiyya community. Through the application of the
laws on hate crimes, legal prosecution of those who attack members of the Ahmadiyya would be
undertaken.
65. Therefore, as regards the Ahmadiyya, the Government of Indonesia was not of the view
that this was an issue which exceeded the precepts of national sovereignty, nor was it one that
infringed on the freedom to practice religions. Therefore, the Government of Indonesia was of
the view that the solution to the issues concerning the Ahmadiyya needs to take into account the
two-fold perspective, namely the preservation of public order and the protection of the
Ahmadiyya followers from any criminal attack by a mob. In other words, the Government limits
its role to the levels of maintaining public order and protecting its citizens.
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 19
66. Moreover, while it is acknowledged that human rights are universal in character, the
Government of Indonesia stated that it was generally understood that the domestic expression
and implementation of human rights should remain the responsibility of each individual
Government. This was consistent with the basic principles contained in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, in particular its article 29. The implementation of human rights
implied the existence of a balanced relationship between individual human rights and the
obligations of individuals towards their community. Without such a balance, the rights of the
community as a whole could be denied, which could lead to instability and anarchy, especially in
developing countries. The Government recalled that Indonesia was a multi-ethnic and
multi-cultural country which prides itself of its harmonious mosaic of diverse communities
living together and practicing several religious beliefs of their choice, as long as their religious
practices do not infringe on public order and the well-being of the society as a whole.
Additionally, the Government of Indonesia considered efforts in this respect, to form a vital part
of its ongoing commitment to the eradication of religious radicalism and all acts of violence
stemming from religious intolerance.
Observations
67. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the response of the Government of Indonesia. She
would like to emphasize that article 18 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights states that “ [ n b one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have
or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice”. Each State has the positive obligation of ensuring
that the persons on their territory and under their jurisdiction, including members of religious
minorities, can practice the religion or belief of their choice free of coercion and fear.
Furthermore, she would like to recall that the General Assembly resolution 63/181 urged States
to step up their efforts to eliminate intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief,
notably by taking all necessary and appropriate action, in conformity with international standards
of human rights, to combat hatred, discrimination, intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation
and coercion motivated by intolerance based on religion or belief, as well as incitement to
hostility or violence, with particular regard to members of religious minorities in all parts of the
world.
68. The Special Rapporteur notes that in its reply, the Government's indicated that the joint
decree KEP-033/AIJAI6/2008 or SKB No. 3/2008 “appeals to the Ahmadiyya followers to return
to the Islamic mainstream religion”. In this regard, she would like to refer to the chapter on
“Religious minorities and new religious movements” in her report to the fourth session of the
Human Rights Council (see AIHRC/4/21, paras. 43-47). The Special Rapporteur reiterates her
predecessor's assessment that, apart from the legal courses available against harmful activities,
“it is not the business of the State or any other group or community to act as the guardian of
people's consciences and encourage, impose or censure any religious belief or conviction”
(E/CN.4/1997/91, para. 99). Similarly, in its general comment No. 22, the Human Rights
Committee stated that “the terms ‘belief and ‘religion' are to be broadly construed. Article 18
[ of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is not limited in its application to
traditional religions or to religions and beliefs with institutional characteristics or practices
analogous to those of traditional religions. The Committee therefore views with concern any
tendency to discriminate against any religion or belief for any reason, including the fact that they
are newly established, or represent religious minorities that may be the subject of hostility on the
part of a predominant religious community.”
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 20
69. The Special Rapporteur would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate her wish to
visit Indonesia in the framework of her mandate (see E/CN.4/2006/5, para. 23; A160/399,
para. 27; AIHRC/4/21/Add.1, para. 176). On 15 April 2008 and on 21 July 2008 she sent
follow-up letters to the Government requesting an invitation to visit Indonesia. The Government
of Indonesia replied with letters dated 27 May 2008 and 29 September 2008, indicating that, in
view of the legislative and presidential elections due to be held in the course of 2009, the
Government felt it was unlikely that any visits by United Nations human rights mechanisms
would be possible before some time in 2010 at the earliest and that, consequently, a decision
regarding an invitation and the setting of dates for the Special Rapporteur's visit should best be
left to the future Government to make once it had been able to establish its own agenda.
Iraq
Communication sent on 17 November 2008 jointly with the Independent Expert on
minority issues and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary
executions
70. The Special Procedures mandate holders brought to the attention of the Government
information they had received regarding the recent increase of the number of targeted attacks
against members of the Christian minority in the city of Mosul. On 7 October 2008,
members of the Christian minority living in east Mosul, namely Mr. Amjad Hadi Putres and his
son Hussam, Mr. Zeyad Kamal, as well as a pharmacist's assistant in al-Tahrir neighborhood,
were killed. On 8 October 2008, Mr. Hazim Toma was killed when unknown gunmen shot at
him in Bab Ul Sarai market, in west Mosul. On 11 October 2008, two people were killed after
the perpetrator had requested to see the victims' identity cards, which state the religious
affiliation of the bearer. On 12 October 2008, three vacated Christian homes with furniture and
belongings still inside were firebombed in al-Sukr neighborhood of Mosul. Since late September,
the total number of Christians killed is estimated at twenty and more than 200 Christian families
have reportedly fled certain neighborhoods of Mosul to find shelter with host families. The main
destination of these internally displaced persons would be in the al-Hamdaniya and Tilkaif
districts (southeast and north of Mosul).
71. In addition to the above, in early October 2008, some members of the Christian community
were threatened in anonymous leaflets to either convert to Islam, pay a “tribute” or be killed. The
date of 11 October 2008 was specified as the deadline to comply.
72. While States' authorities might not be directly responsible for the alleged violations above,
the Special Procedures mandate holders stressed that according to article 4 of the Declaration on
the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion or Belief,
all States shall take effective measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination on the grounds of
religion or belief in the recognition, exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental
freedoms in all fields of civil, economic, political, social and cultural life. Similarly, they
recalled that Human Rights Council resolution 6/37 urges States to take all necessary and
appropriate action, in conformity with international standards of human rights, to combat hatred,
intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by intolerance based on
religion or belief, as well as incitement to hostility and violence, with particular regard to
religious minorities.
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 21
Observations
73. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a reply from the Government of
Iraq concerning the above mentioned allegations. She would like to refer to Human Rights
Committee general comment No. 22 (1993), in which the Committee underlined that no one can
be compelled to reveal his thoughts or adherence to a religion or belief As stated in her latest
report to the General Assembly (see A163/161, paragraph 77), indicating a person's religious
affiliation on official documents carries a serious risk of abuse or subsequent discrimination
based on religion or belief, which has to be weighed against the possible reasons for disclosing
the holder's religion. In addition, the General Assembly resolution 63/181 urged States to step up
their efforts to protect and promote freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, and to this
end, “to ensure that [ .1 everyone has the right to refrain from disclosing information concerning
one's religious affiliation on [ official documentsl against one's will.”
Communication sent on 28 November 2008 jointly with the Independent Expert on
minority issues
74. The Special Procedures mandate holders brought to the attention of the Government
information they had received regarding incidents involving members of the Sabian Mandaean
community in Iraq. These incidents include threats to convert to Islam, kidnappings and
killings. As a result, a significant number of Sabian Mandaeans have reportedly been compelled
to flee to the neighbouring States of Jordan and Syria.
75. On 23 February 2001, the daughter of Mr. and Ms. Al-Sabiri Rawdha was abducted from
her school by a 56 year-old man who subsequently forced her to marry him. Later, Mr. and
Ms. Al-Sabiri Rawdha received a call telling them not to attempt to call their daughter, since
they were infidels. To that day, the parents have received no further information about their
daughter. On 23 December 2006, the son of Mr. and Ms. Al-Sabiri Rawdha was kidnapped while
he was on his way home from work. As a hostage, he was assaulted, cursed and beaten. He was
later released, following the payment of a USD 50,000 ransom.
76. In October 2007, Mr. Al-Sabiri Abdulnabi was kidnapped. Ms. Al-Sabiri paid a
USD 40,000 ransom to release him, but he was later found dead, thrown on the roadside.
77. On 17 November 2007, Mr. Al-Nashi Khaldoon and Mr. Al-Nashi Lareen, both Sabian
Mandaeans, were on their way to deliver some goldsmith work to the market in Baghdad. Their
car was blocked on the way by unknown armed men who killed both of them and threw a paper
inside their car, saying it was the certain fate of those “Sabian Mandaeans infidels”.
78. On 26 March 2008, the house of the Al-Hilali family in Wasset has been destroyed by a
mortar or RPG-7 attack and ten members of this Sabian Mandaean family died. Only
one member of the family survived. The family had been previously threatened because of their
membership to the Sabian Mandaean community. They had therefore decided to move out of
their house and came back after a while. Six days after they returned, their house was destroyed.
79. On 9 September 2008, three male members of the Al-Sabiri family in Al-Sha'ab
neighbourhood in Baghdad, were killed in ajewellery shop by unknown armed men. Before that,
Mr. Al-Sabiri had been threatened and shot at near the same shop, for being an “infidel
Sabian Mandaean”. He had been told to leave the country.
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 22
Observations
80. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a reply from the Government of
Iraq concerning the above mentioned allegations. She would like to recall that each State has the
positive obligation of ensuring that the persons on their territory and under their jurisdiction,
including members of religious minorities, can practice the religion or belief of their choice free
of coercion and fear. Furthermore, the General Assembly resolution 63/18 1 urged States to step
up their efforts to eliminate intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief, notably by
taking all necessary and appropriate action, in conformity with international standards of human
rights, to combat hatred, discrimination, intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and
coercion motivated by intolerance based on religion or belief, as well as incitement to hostility or
violence, with particular regard to members of religious minorities in all parts of the world.
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Communication sent on 30 August 2007 jointly with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of
judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the Special Rapporteur on the right of
everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health
81. The Special Procedures mandate holders brought to the attention of the Government
information they had received concerning Shi'a cleric Ayatollah Seyed Hossein Kazemeini
Boroujerdi, Iranian citizen, aged 49, who had been the subject of ajoint urgent appeal dated
20 December 2006. According to the new information received, Mr. Boroujerdi's trial was held
on 10 June 2007 before the Special Court for the Clergy. He was denied legal counsel. It was
unclear whether he was sentenced to death or whether his case was still under consideration.
Allegedly the trial was related to Mr. Boroujerdi's religious views since he supports freedom of
religion and the separation between religion and politics. Mr. Boroujerdi was detained in Evin
prison, where, on top of the severe conditions of detention, he was beaten and had cold water
spilled on him while he was sleeping. Although he suffered from Parkinson's disease, diabetes,
high blood pressure and heart problems, Mr. Boroujerdi was reportedly denied permission to
seek treatment at the prison's medical facility until he started a hunger strike on 22 July 2007.
Response from the Government dated 14 February 2008
82. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran informed that Seyed Hossein Kazemeini
Boroujerdi had been Jmam of Hemmatabad Mosque in Tebran since 1980, but due to
misrepresentation of Islamic issues and unusual allegations on having metaphysical/heavenly
relations aiming at creating a new sect with extremist inclinations, he was summoned to the
Special Court for the Clergy in 1995. Pursuant to the Court investigations and testimony of his
teachers, his knowledge of Islamic teachings had been found as being too preliminary to allow
him to continue to preach in the mosque. Following the passing away of his father (who was
Imam of Nour mosque in Tehran), who he was not allowed to replace in the mosque,
Mr. Boroujerdi committed, according to the Government, the following new illegal and
anti-Islamic teaching acts:
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 23
(a) Unusual allegations on having metaphysical/heavenly relations and creating a new
sect with extremist inclinations: In religious societies, while freedom of expression of religion is
respected and observed, actions which are a demonstration of distortion, falsification and
attribution of incorrect issues to religious sanctities are rejected. With resort to incorrect and
misleading teachings and attribution of unreal issues to religious sanctities, Mr. Boroujerdi
succeeded in deceiving a number of people as followers and setting them as the center of the sect
through which they perpetrated offences such as damaging public property, arson of a few
motorcycles and buses, as well as holding two J-3 machine guns;
(b) Publication of lies and disturbing public opinion: Mr. Boroujerdi considered the
passing away of his father in 2002, due to old age, as being suspicious. Without seeking legal
assistance to prove his allegation, he labelled it as murder and on that basis, introduced himself
as the son of the oppressed and killed jurisprudent. As a result, he made false statements against
police authorities and attributed unreal allegations to them. He also claimed that he was in
danger of getting assassinated, with the intention of deceiving public opinion and inciting his
followers to resort to acts of violation. Since 30 July 2006, he had been recommended to
discontinue his inappropriate and illegal actions, and unfortunately, he not only ignored the
well-wishing recommendations, but incited public opinion against state officials by telling his
followers that “they have the verdict to kill me. They have announced their full preparedness for
attacking us and I make blood ablution from now. Go home for farewell with your family and
come back here to be killed together”. The audio of this statement was also put on websites;
(c) Incitement to violation: Following the incitement of his followers to gathering and
clashing with police forces at midnight of 3 November 2006 (three days before his arrest), they
gathered around his house carrying stabs, knives and swords. They shouted slogans creating fear
and terror in the neighbourhood until the following morning and set-up check points for the
passing cars and passer-bys. They even attacked passer-bys, including a clergyman and
destroyed a police vehicle. At this gathering, Mr. Boroujerdi delivered a speech and further
instigated the followers. The gathering continued on 4 and 5 November 2006. All those
gatherings met on the invitation of Mr. Boroujerdi, during which he openly stated that the
Government of Iran was an oppressor and judges were not competent to try him in court and
only the Promised Innocent Imam could put him on trial, repeating that the Government had
killed his father.
83. The Special Court for the Clergy investigated the case and on the basis of the existing
evidence and repetition of offences, sentenced him to ten years of imprisonment. Any allegation
on his sentence to death is a distortion of realities and is categorically denied. The Government
indicated that no one is put on trial in the Islamic Republic of Iran because of his/her belief and,
as described above, Mr. Boroujerdi's trial was in accordance with the rule of law and merely in
relation with his illegal and violent activities. The allegation of his activities in supporting
freedom of religion and separation between religion and politics was not but an instrument to
cover his mal-intended activities, and deceiving international human rights bodies. The
Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran also stated that Mr. Boroujerdi enjoyed all his legal
rights before the court of justice.
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 24
Observations
84. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the response of the Government of the Islamic
Republic of Iran. With regard to the question of “cults” or “sects”, she would like to refer to the
chapter on “Religious minorities and new religious movements” in her report to the
fourth session of the Human Rights Council (see AIHRC/4/21, paras. 43-47). The Special
Rapporteur reiterates her predecessor's assessment that, apart from the legal courses available
against harmful activities, “it is not the business of the State or any other group or community to
act as the guardian of people's consciences and encourage, impose or censure any religious
belief or conviction” (E/CN.4/1997/91, para. 99). Similarly, in its general comment No. 22, the
Human Rights Committee stated that “the terms ‘belief' and ‘religion' are to be broadly
construed. Article 18 [ of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is not limited
in its application to traditional religions or to religions and beliefs with institutional
characteristics or practices analogous to those of traditional religions. The Committee therefore
views with concern any tendency to discriminate against any religion or belief for any reason,
including the fact that they are newly established, or represent religious minorities that may be
the subject of hostility on the part of a predominant religious community.”
85. The Special Rapporteur also would like to emphasize that limitations to freedom of
expression and freedom of religion or belief are strictly defined in international law, for example
in articles 18 (3), 19 (3) and 20 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In
this regard, she would like to refer to the report on the expert seminar on “Freedom of expression
and advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or
violence”, convened by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and held in
Geneva on 2 and 3 October 2008 (see AIHRC/10/31/Add.3).
Urgent appeal sent on 21 January 2008 jointly with the Chairperson of the Working Group
on arbitrary detention
86. The Special Procedures mandate holders brought to the attention of the Government
information they had received concerning the arrest and continued detention of
Ms. Haleh RooM, Ms. Raha Sabet and Mr. Sassan Taqva. These three members of the Baha'I
community in the city of Shiraz have already been the subject of two joint communications sent
on 9 June 2006 and 13 June 2006 (see AIHRC/4/21/Add.1, paras. 195-203 and the summary of
the Government's reply in paras. 204-205). According to new allegations, subsequent to the
arrest and temporary detention of Ms. Haleh Roohi, Ms. Raha Sabet and Mr. Sassan Taqva in
May 2006, a court in Shiraz sentenced each of them in August 2007 to a total of four years'
imprisonment. They were accused of having engaged in indirect teaching of the Baha'I faith, on
the grounds that their educational programme was based on a Baha' 1-inspired publication
characterized by the court as having been produced by the Baha'is “to teach the Baha'i children
how to teach their Faith”. The court argued that the permit for the educational programme had
been obtained by deceiving the city's cultural and executive organizations and that the intention
had in fact been to teach the faith indirectly. Their sentence consisted of three years for
organizing illegal groups and an additional year for teaching on behalf of groups that are against
the Islamic regime.
87. On 19 November 2007, the three members of the Baha'i community were told by
telephone to go to the Shiraz office of the Ministry of Information to retrieve items that had been
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 25
confiscated from them when they were arrested in May 2006. When they did not return within a
reasonable time, family members who had accompanied them were given conflicting
information by Information Ministry officials, including that the three Baha'Is had not entered
the building, whereas their relatives had seen them do so.
88. Ms. Haleh Roohi, Ms. Raha Sabet and Mr. Sassan Taqva are reportedly being held at the
detention centre of the Ministry of Information in Shiraz. The reason for their detainment at this
facility is not known. Since the Information Ministry does not have the right under Iranian law to
imprison citizens but only to detain individuals for the purpose of interrogation there are serious
concerns about their safety.
Observations
89. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a reply from the Government of
the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning the above mentioned allegations. She would like to refer
to her framework for communications, more specifically to the international human rights norms
and to the mandate practice concerning the right to manifest one's religion or belief and the
teaching and dissemination of materials, including missionary activity (see above, para. 1,
category 1.3.0.
Communication sent on 12 February 2008
90. As a follow-up to her communication sent on 24 April 2007 (AIHRC/7/10/Add. 1,
paras. 121-122) and the Government's reply of 20 June 2007 (AIHRC/7/10/Add. 1, para. 123),
the Special Rapporteur indicated that the dates of the passing away of Ms. Bihnam Saltanat
Akhdari, 16 February 2007, and of Ms. Shah Baygum Diqhaui, 7 March 2007, were already
indicated in the original communication. hi addition, she indicated that Ms. Akhdari was an
85-year-old resident of Abbas Abad, a dependency of Abadeh in Shiraz and that Ms. Diqhani
lived in Mohammadiyyeh in the province of Isfahan.
91. With regard to the alleged denial of access to education for Bahá'Is, the Special
Rapporteur provided a list of 104 Baha'I students who allegedly were expelled from Iranian
universities in 2007 as well as their fields of study. According to further information she had
received, Mr. Asghar Zarei, Director General of the Central Security Office in 2006 issued a
confidential communication M/2/3/9378 to 81 universities in the Islamic Republic of Iran. These
universities were instructed to expel any student who is discovered to be a Baha'I, whether at the
time of enrolment or in the course of his or her studies. The communication indicated that the
Ministry's instructions were being promulgated under the provision of decree number 1327/M/S,
referring to the memorandum on “the Bahá'I question” from the Iranian Supreme Revolutionary
Council, approved by the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei. One of its provisions was reported as follows: “when a student is known to be a
Baha'I, he shall be expelled from university, either during the admission process or in the course
of the academic year” (see the report of the former UN Special Representative on Iran,
Mr. Reynaldo Galindo Pohl, E/CN.4/1993/41, para. 310).
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 26
Observations
92. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a reply from the Government of
the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning the above mentioned allegations. She would like to refer
to the general comment No. 22 (1993) of the Human Rights Committee which states that
“Article 18.2 [ of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights bars coercion that
would impair the right to have or adopt a religion or belief, including the use of threat of physical
force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers to adhere to their religious beliefs
and congregations, to recant their religion or belief or to convert. Policies or practices having the
same intention or effect, such as, for example, those restricting access to education, medical care,
employment or the rights guaranteed by article 25 and other provisions of the Covenant, are
similarly inconsistent with article 18.2”. In addition, she also would like to make reference to her
most recent report to the Human Rights Council (see AIHRC/10/8, paras. 29-62) which raises the
issue of discrimination based on religion or belief and its impact on the enjoyment of economic,
social and cultural rights, including the right to education (see paras. 49-51).
Urgent appeal sent on 19 May 2008 jointly with the Chairperson of the Working Group on
arbitrary detention, the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the Independent Expert on
minority issues
93. The Special Procedures mandate holders brought to the attention of the Government
information they had received concerning the arrest and continued detention of Ms.
Fariba Kamalabadi, Mr. Jamaloddin Khanjani, Mr. AfifNaeimi, Mr. Saeid Rezaie,
Mr. Behrouz Tavakkoli, Mr. Vahid Tizfahm and Ms. Mahvash Sabet, who are residents of
Teheran. Reportedly, these seven members of a group that coordinates the Baha'I community's
religious and administrative affairs in Iran had been arrested and were detained in Evin prison in
Teheran. On 14 May 2008, officers of the Intelligence Ministry in Teheran entered the homes of
Ms. Fariba Kamalabadi, Mr. Jamaloddin Khanjani, Mr. AfifNaeimi, Mr. Saeid Rezaie,
Mr. Behrouz Tavakkoli and Mr. Vahid Tizfahm. These six Bahá'I members were subsequently
arrested and brought to Evin prison where theyjoined the acting Secretary for their informal
national-level coordinating group, Ms. Mahvash Sabet. Ms. Sabet had been held in custody since
5 March 2008 when she was summoned to Mashhad by the Intelligence Ministry to answer
questions related to the burial of an individual in the Baha'I cemetery in that city. The Special
Procedures mandate holders expressed the fear that these seven Baha'I members were arrested
because of their religious beliefs or their peaceful activities on behalf of the Baha'I community.
Observations
94. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a reply from the Government of
the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning the above mentioned allegations. She followed-up this
case and transmitted further allegations in her communication sent to the Government on
17 October 2008 (please see below in paras. 101-112). The Special Rapporteur is very much
concerned about the arrest and detention of the seven members of a group that coordinates the
Baha'I community's religious and administrative affairs in the Islamic Republic of Iran. She
would like to take this opportunity to refer to General Assembly resolution 63/181 which
“ [ r ecognizes with concern the situation of persons in vulnerable situations, including persons
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 27
deprived of their liberty, refugees, asylum-seekers and internally displaced persons, children,
persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and migrants, as
regards their ability to freely exercise their right to freedom of religion or belief'.
Urgent appeal sent on 17 September 2008
95. The Special Rapporteur brought to the attention of the Government information she had
received regarding the Iranian Parliament vote on 9 September 2008 in favour of a bifi
stipulating the death penalty for apostasy. Reportedly, the Iranian Parliament voted on
Tuesday 9 September 2008 in favour of a bill stipulating the death penalty for apostasy. The
approved bill will be sent back to the Legislative Commission to debate proposed amendments
before it is brought before the Iranian Parliament for a further vote. Reportedly, the bill would
add a number of crimes to the list of those resulting in execution, such as the establishment of
weblogs and sites promoting corruption, prostitution and apostasy.
96. If the proposed legislation on apostasy passes unchallenged through the final parliamentary
processes and is enacted into law, Mr. Mahmoud Mohammad Matin-Azad and Mr. Arash
Ahmad-Ali Basirat, two Christians from Muslim background, may as a result face capital
punishment. Both men were recently charged with apostasy at the Revolutionary Court in Shiraz
and have been in detention since 15 May 2008.
97. In addition, Mr. Ramtin Soodmand, who works for a church in Tehran, was arrested
on 20 August 2008, following a phone call from Ministry of Intelligence officials telling him to
report to the Ministry in Mashhad, north-east Iran. Although Mr. Soodmand told the officials he
saw no reason why the officials in Mashhad wanted to interview him as he lives in Tehran, he
eventually agreed to go. Since then, Mr. Soodmand has not been seen. His family has visited the
Ministry of Intelligence frequently but has been unable to obtain any information about
Mr. Soodmand's whereabouts or legal status. Although no charges have been laid against him
yet, it is feared that he is detained solely for his religious beliefs and that the approval of the
above mentioned bill may have adverse consequences on his situation.
98. The Special Rapporteur urged the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to take all
necessary measures to guarantee that the rights and freedoms of Mr. Mahmoud Mohammad
Matin-Azad, Mr. Arash Ahmad-Ali Basirat and Mr. Ramtin Soodmand are respected. She also
requested that the Government ensures the compatibility of any new legislation adopted by the
Iranian Parliament with international human rights law.
Observations
99. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a reply from the Government of
the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning the above mentioned allegations. She would like to refer
to General Assembly resolution 63/18 1 which urges States to “step up their efforts to protect and
promote freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, and to this end to ensure that no one
within their jurisdiction is deprived of the right to life, liberty or security of person because of
religion or belief and that no one is subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment or arbitrary arrest or detention”.
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 28
100. In addition, she would like to reiterate that the Human Rights Committee, in its general
comment No. 22 (1993), observed that “the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief
necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's
current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views, as well as the right to retain
one's religion or belief Article 18.2 [ of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
bars coercion that would impair the right to have or adopt a religion or belief, including the use
of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers to adhere to
their religious beliefs and congregations, to recant their religion or belief or to convert”.
Communication sent on 17 October 2008 jointly with the Independent Expert on minority
issues
101. The Special Procedures mandate holders brought to the attention of the Government
information they had received regarding recent cases involving members of the Bahá'I
community in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
102. Reportedly, several fires have been deliberately set to partially or totally destroy homes
and vehicles belonging to members of the Bahá'I community. On 8 July 2008, an attempt
was made by two men on motorbikes to set fire to the home of the Bahá'I family of
Mr. Ahinad Imani in Rafsanjan (Kerman province). A burning rubber tyre was wedged against
the front door of the house, effectively locking the family inside. Some Baha'I neighbours
quickly came to extinguish the burning tyre. No one was hurt and there was no serious damage.
The police were informed without delay, and a patrol unit arrived an hour later to investigate the
incident. No arrests have been reported.
103. On 25 July 2008, two motorbike riders set fire to the car owned by Mr. Sohail Naeimi, in
Rafsanjan (Kerman province). The vehicle was completely destroyed. The police came to
investigate the following day. Reportedly, Mr. Naeimi had received a threatening letter in early
June from a group identifying itself as the “Anti-Bahá'Ism Movement of the Youth of
Rafsanjan”. The letter contained threats against Baha'I lives and property. Following that
incident, during the night of 30-31 August 2008, an unknown motorbike rider repeatedly threw
stones at the house of Mr. Sohail Naeimi, breaking three windows. Mr. Soheil Naeimi lodged a
complaint at the local court against the “Anti-Bahá'Ism Movement of the Youth of Rafsanjan”.
But the judge ordered that no further action be taken because the membership of this group is not
known.
104. Reportedly, members of the Baha'I community have been arrested and detained.
On 9 March 2008, Mr. Tounij Amini, Mr. Iraj Amini and Mr. Payman Amoui, three Baha'Is
from Tehran, were arrested at their workplace. Two of them, Mr. Iraj Amini and Mr. Amoui,
were released on bail the next day, while Mr. Touraj Amini was released on bail nine days later.
On 19 August 2008, all three were summoned to an Islamic Revolutionary Court in Tehran,
where they were charged with “teaching Bahá'Ism, propaganda against the regime of the Islamic
Republic of Iran, and insulting the sacred institutions of Islam”. At present, all three are once
again out on bail, pending trial.
105. Ms. Fariba Kamalabadi, Mr. Jamaloddin Khanjani, Mr. AfifNaeimi,
Mr. Saeid Rezaie, Mr. Behrouz Tavakkoli, Mr. Vahid Tizfahm and Ms. Mahvash Sabet, who
have already been the subject of ajoint communication sent on 19 May 2008, are reportedly still
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 29
being detained and have still not been permitted any access to legal counsel. News media, citing
the deputy prosecutor general for security at the Islamic Revolutionary Court in Tehran, have
claimed that the Bahá'I detainees had “confessed” to operating an “illegal” organization with ties
to Israel and other countries. Some articles repeated that Bahá'Is were agents of Zionism. On
3 August 2008, the Baha'I International Community categorically denied this allegation and
repeated that the detainees were members of an ad hoc committee that attended to the needs of
the Bahá'Is in Iran. It is feared that the seven members of the Baha'I community are detained and
convicted solely because of their beliefs or peaceful activities on behalf of the Baha'I
community.
106. On 26 July 2008, four officials entered the home of Mr. Mehrdad Sabetrasekh in
Vilashahr (near Isfahan) with a search warrant from the Najafabad Court. They confiscated his
personal computer as well as a number of Baha'I and non-Baha'I CDs and books.
Mr. Sabetrasekh was arrested and taken to the Intelligence Ministry office in Najafabad. After
two months of detention, he was released on bail in September with the amount of
10,000,000 tumans having been submitted as collateral. The charges against him are still not
known.
107. On 29 July 2008, three officials from the Prosecutor's Office entered and searched the
home of a Baha'I family in Ahvaz (Khuzestan province). These officials claimed that neighbours
had lodged a complaint against the couple living there, Mr. and Mrs. Ghanavatian, regarding
their “activities against the regime” and “teaching Baha'Ism”. While the officials were searching
their home, Mr. and Mrs. Ohanavatian were asked to respond in writing to questions about their
Baha'I activities. All Baha'I materials found in their home were seized (books, CDs, photos and
a personal computer). The couple was taken to a military unit for interrogation. On the same day,
a friend was able to secure their bail by submitting his work permit as collateral. The charges
against them are still not known.
108. Members of the Baha'I community have been denied access to education. Since 2004, all
Iranian students have been able to take the national entrance exam without being required to
declare a religious affiliation. However in 2007, the application form for technical and vocational
institutes contained a required declaration of religion limited to the four recognized faiths, thus
excluding the Baha'Is. The few Baha'I students currently enrolled in universities continue to face
expulsion as soon as their religious affiliation becomes known. One Baha'I student was recently
expelled from a university in Isfahan after three terms of study. He was accused of lying on a
registration form, where he had entered two lines (==) instead of declaring a religion as required.
The university officials stated that, “according to the new guidelines”, Bahá'I students are not
allowed to pursue higher education.
109. There have been incidents relating to Bahá'I cemeteries. The Bahá'I cemetery in
Marvdasht was vandalized. A number of graves were damaged and over 100 trees were
uprooted. The incident was reported to a number of government agencies, but no official action
has been taken to date. Mr. Houshmand Talebi (Iskandari), Mr. Mehran Zeyni (Najafabadi)
and Mr. Farhad Ferdosian, three members of the Bahá'I community, were arrested in
connection with an allegedly illegal burial in the Bahá'I cemetery and subsequently released on
bail, pending trial. They were summoned to the Najafabad court on 6 July 2008 and spoke in
their own defence in front of the judge. However, the complainant - the Department of Natural
Resources - was not represented in court at the hearing, so the judge decided to issue the verdict
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 30
a few days later. The three Bahá'Is were eventually found guilty of “taking part in the illegal
occupation and use of government property”. They were fined and ordered to “cease their
occupation of the said property” (i.e. the cemetery) and to “return it to its prior condition”, which
would mean to exhume the deceased Baha'I recently interred there.
110. Another incident includes the display of a petition on 19 September 2008, at the entrance
of a large outdoor enclosed area in Tehran, in which the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, leads
the noon-day prayer. This petition, provided for worshippers to sign, asked for the dissolution of
“Bahá'Ist institutions”. Reportedly, officials from the Ministry of Information were present in
large numbers around the entrance to ensure that all worshippers signed the petition on their way
in.
Observations
111. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a reply from the Government of
the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning the above mentioned allegations. She would like to refer
to her framework for communications, more specifically to the international human rights
norms and to the mandate practice concerning discrimination on the basis of religion or
belief/inter-religious discrimination/tolerance (see above, para. 1, category 11.1) and concerning
the right to manifest one's religion or belief and the teaching and dissemination of materials,
including missionary activity (see above, para. 1, category 1.3.0.
112. Furthermore, she would like to recall that the General Assembly resolution 63/18 1 urges
States to step up their efforts to eliminate intolerance and discrimination based on religion or
belief, notably by taking all necessary and appropriate action, in conformity with international
standards of human rights, to combat hatred, discrimination, intolerance and acts of violence,
intimidation and coercion motivated by intolerance based on religion or belief, as well as
incitement to hostility or violence, with particular regard to members of religious minorities in
all parts of the world. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur is very concerned by the continued
violations of freedom of religion or belief suffered by members of the Bahá'I community. She
urges the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to ensure that the Baha'I members who are
currently detained receive a fair trial and she would like to recommend the presence of
independent observers during the trials.
Jordan
Communication sent on 13 May 2008
113. The Special Rapporteur brought to the attention of the Government information she had
received regarding Mr. Muhammad Abbad Abd al-Qader Abbad, a Jordanian citizen.
Reportedly, Mr. Abbad converted to Christianity fifteen years ago and is married to a Christian
woman. On 23 March 2008, Mr. Abbad, his wife and their 9-year-old son were assaulted by
relatives of another convert to Christianity who had sought sanctuary in Mr. Abbad's home.
After the incident, Mr. Abbad's father reported his son to the police and sought to obtain custody
of his two grandchildren. When Mr. Abbad attempted to file a complaint with the police on
24 March 2008, he was taken to the North Amman Shari'a court and charged with apostasy.
Because Mr. Abbad claimed before the court that he was an atheist and not a Muslim when he
converted to Christianity, Judge Faysal Khreisat sentenced him to one week of imprisonment for
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 31
contempt of court. On the way to Jweideh Prison in Amman, he collapsed due to his injuries
following the assault. He was hospitalized and released on bail the following day. At his court
hearing on 27 March 2008, Mr. Abbad refused to deny his faith and return to Islam. Lawyers
advised him that he would lose the court case, and therefore custody of his children, if he did not
deny his conversion. Mr. Abbad and his family fled from Jordan on 28 March 2008. His father
subsequently initiated the procedure to have Mr. Abbad's marriage dissolved.
114. Reportedly, in a previous case dated 16 September 2004, also involving a conversion to
Christianity, the West Amman Islamic Court found a man guilty of apostasy and subsequently
his marriage was annulled, he was stripped of his rights as a husband and father, and all
documents he had ever signed were annulled.
Observations
115. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a reply from the Government of
Jordan concerning the above mentioned allegations. She would like to recall that article 18 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that the right to freedom of thought, conscience
and religion “includes freedom to change his religion or belief' and article 18 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognizes the right “to have or to adopt a religion or
belief of his choice”. Furthermore, in its general comment No. 22 (1993), the Human Rights
Committee explains in more detail “that the freedom to ‘have or to adopt' a religion or belief
necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's
current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views, as well as the right to retain
one's religion or belief Article 18.2 [ of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
bars coercion that would impair the right to have or adopt a religion or belief, including the use
of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers to adhere to
their religious beliefs and congregations, to recant their religion or belief or to convert. Policies
or practices having the same intention or effect, such as, for example, those restricting access to
education, medical care, employment or the rights guaranteed by article 25 and other provisions
of the Covenant, are similarly inconsistent with article 18.2. The same protection is enjoyed by
holders of all beliefs of a non-religious nature.”
116. The Special Rapporteur also would like to refer to paragraph 9 (a) of Human Rights
Council resolution 6/37, which urges States to “ensure that their constitutional and legislative
systems provide adequate and effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience, religion
and belief to all without distinction, inter alia, by the provision of effective remedies in cases
where the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, or the right to practice
freely one's religion, including the right to change one's religion or belief, is violated.”
Kazakhstan
Communication sent on 21 November 2008
117. The Special Rapporteur brought to the attention of the Government information she had
received that the Upper Chamber of Parliament (Senate) had approved on 7 November 2008
amendments to the draft law on “Amendments and Additions to some Legislative Acts of the
Republic of Kazakhstan on Issues of Religious Freedom and Religious Organizations”. The
revised draft was sent back to the Lower Chamber of Parliament for its approval. Reportedly,
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 32
this draft law, including the new amendments adopted by the Senate, would impose undue
restrictions on freedom of religion or belief of individuals and religious or belief communities in
the Republic of Kazakhstan.
118. Allegedly, the draft law would maintain the prohibition of activities of unregistered
religious organizations, which existed in the previous law. Whereas the conduct of certain
religious activities in violation of the law would previously lead to fines to up to 50 times the
minimum monthly wage, the draft law suggests that they now be sanctioned with a fixed fine of
50 times the minimum monthly wage, thereby leaving no margin of appreciation to the judges. It
would also introduce new liabilities and quotas on proselytising activities and would impose a
ban on missionary activity by people who are not representatives of registered religious
organizations. In addition, it would strictly limit the dissemination of religious materials in fixed
premises designated by local executive bodies.
119. The proposed draft law also seems to offer the possibility to the authorities to undertake
substantial reviews of the registration applications submitted to them. Upon the result of this
“theological analysis”, the authorities may put the registration of a religious community on hold
for an unspecified delay or even deny registration to a religious or belief community.
Furthermore, the draft law would prohibit private religious education at all levels. Fears have
been expressed that the draft law contains vague provisions which could lead to the introduction
of collective sanctions for actions committed by individuals or which could result in abusive
interpretation and discrimination on the part of the law enforcement authorities. Finally, various
religious communities have voiced their concern at the lack of public and open debate on the
proposed draft law.
Response from the Government dated 6 December 2008
120. At the time this report was finalized, the Special Rapporteur was not in a position to reflect
the content of the reply from the Government of Kazakhstan dated 6 December 2008 as she had
not received the translation of its content from the relevant services.
Observations
121. The Special Rapporteur is grateful that the Government of Kazakhstan replied to the
communication of 21 November 2008 and she hopes to be able to make observations on the
response in the next report summarizing the cases transmitted to Governments and replies
received.
Kyrgyzstan
Communication sent on 29 July 2008
122. The Special Rapporteur brought to the attention of the Government information she had
received concerning the Christian-Baptist family Isakov in the village of Kulanak, in the Naryn
region. Reportedly, Mr. Alymbek Isakov's son, a fourteen-year-old boy, passed away on
18 May 2008. Mr. Isakov is a member of the Church of Evangelical Christian-Baptists in
Kulanak. The Isakov family wanted to bury the boy on a plot of land in the village officially
allocated to Baptists as a graveyard by the district authorities in April 2006. However, they were
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 33
prevented from doing so by a group of representatives from the local mosque, allegedly led by
the Jmam. Consequently, Mr. Isakov and Baptist leaders brought the issue to the Head of
Administration of the Naryn district and subsequently to the Governor of the Naryn district. The
Baptist group requested the Governor to provide police assistance in their village to protect the
Isakov family and to allow them to bury the deceased boy; however, the Governor did not yield
to this request. On 21 May 2008, the Head of Administration of the Naryn district reportedly
came to the village to persuade the Isakov family to convert to Islam or give the boy's body to
his grandfather, who is a Muslim, in order to hold a funeral according to Muslim tradition.
Mr. Isakov refused to do so and subsequently a crowd of people gathered at the Isakovs' house
and assaulted some of the Baptists present, including Mr. Isakov. A group of policemen arrived
at the house in the evening but did not intervene or break up the mob outside the house. Instead
the policemen went inside, took away the boy's body and buried him in Akiyya, 40 kilometres
from Kulanak.
123. On 22 May 2008, Mr. Isakov and other Baptists travelled to Akiyya where they found the
boy buried in a hole, unwashed and in his clothes. Mr. Isakov dug out the body, washed it,
wrapped it up in a white sheet and buried him in a new grave. Since the incident, the Isakov
family has reportedly been pressurised by the village community. The village council denied
them water to irrigate their crops. The children of the family have been assaulted by other
children at school, and the village leaders have taken no action to protect them.
124. Concerns have been expressed that the events in Kulanak may be used to introduce
amendments to the existing Religion Law in order to tighten control over religious organisations.
Other religious communities, including the Bahá'Is, Jehova's Witnesses and Hare Krisbnas, have
reportedly faced similar problems, where local authorities did not allow them to bury members
of the religious community in local so-called “Muslim” territories, unless the family accepted to
carry out the funeral according to Muslim rituals. Allegedly, a fatwa issued in 2002 by the
Muftiate, the national Muslim spiritual leadership, banned the burial of non-Muslims in
“Muslim” cemeteries. However, the press-secretary of the Muftiate stated that it is up to the
people from the community to decide on burial issues. A meeting on 2 July 2008 at the State
Agency for Religious Affairs to discuss the issue did not lead to a solution. Only representatives
of the Muslim community participated in the meeting while no leaders from other religious
groups were present.
Observations
125. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a reply from the Government of
Kyrgyzstan concerning the above mentioned allegations. She would to recall that, in its general
comment No. 22 (1993), the Human Rights Committee observed that “the freedom to manifest
religion or belief may be exercised ‘either individually or in community with others and in public
or private'. The freedom to manifest religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and
teaching encompasses a broad range of acts. The concept of worship extends to ritual and
ceremonial acts giving direct expression to belief, as well as various practices integral to such
acts, including the building of places of worship, the use of ritual formulae and objects, the
display of symbols, and the observance of holidays and days of rest”. Furthermore, “Article 18.3
[ of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights permits restrictions on the freedom
to manifest religion or belief only if limitations are prescribed by law and are necessary to
protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 34
[ .1 In interpreting the scope of permissible limitation clauses, States parties should proceed
from the need to protect the rights guaranteed under the Covenant, including the right to equality
and non-discrimination on all grounds specified in articles 2, 3 and 26. Limitations imposed must
be established by law and must not be applied in a manner that would vitiate the rights
guaranteed in article 18. The Committee observes that paragraph 3 of article 18 is to be strictly
interpreted: restrictions are not allowed on grounds not specified there, even if they would be
allowed as restrictions to other rights protected in the Covenant, such as national security.
Limitations may be applied only for those purposes for which they were prescribed and must be
directly related and proportionate to the specific need on which they are predicated. Restrictions
may not be imposed for discriminatory purposes or applied in a discriminatory manner”.
Communication sent on 7 November 2008
126. The Special Rapporteur brought to the attention of the Government information she had
received that the Parliament had approved the first reading of the draft law “On Freedom of
Conscience and Religious Organizations in the Kyrgyz Republic” on 9 October 2008.
Reportedly, this draft law would impose undue restrictions on freedom of religion or belief of
individuals and religious or belief communities. For instance, the draft law would allegedly
prohibit the activity or operation of all religious organisations which are not registered at the
State Body on Religious Affairs. The proposed registration procedures also seem to impose
minimum membership requirement (at least 200 adult citizens) to acquire legal entity status and
would offer the possibility for the authorities to undertake substantial reviews of the registration
applications submitted to them. Furthermore, the draft law would prohibit private religious
education at all levels and certain proselytising activities such as the distribution in public places
of religious literature and other materials of religious content and visits to private apartments and
schools.
127. Fears have been expressed that the draft law contains vague provisions which could lead to
the introduction of collective sanctions for actions committed by individuals or which could
result in abusive interpretation and discrimination on the part of the law enforcement authorities.
Finally, various religious communities have voiced their concern at the lack of public and open
debate on the proposed draft law.
Observations
128. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a reply from the Government of
Kyrgyzstan concerning the above mentioned allegations. The Special Rapporteur would like to
refer to her framework for communications, more specifically to the international human rights
norms and to the mandate practice concerning registration (see above, para. 1, category I.3.h) and
concerning the right to manifest one's religion or belief and the teaching and dissemination of
materials, including missionary activity (see above, para. 1, category 1.3.0. The Special
Rapporteur would like to emphasize that registration should not be a precondition for practicing
one's religion, but may only be appropriate for the acquisition of a legal personality and related
benefits. In the latter case, registration procedures should be easy and quick and not depend on
extensive formal requirements in terms of the number of members or the time a particular
religious group has existed. The Special Rapporteur would also like to reiterate that registration
should not depend on reviews of the substantive content of the belief or its structure and clergy.
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 35
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Urgent appeal sent on 8 September 2008 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the
question of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and
the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working group on Arbitrary Detention
129. The Special Procedures mandate holders brought to the attention of the Government
information regarding pastor Sompong Supatto, Mr. Boot Chanthaleuxay and
Mr. Khamvan Chanthaleuxay, the latter two secondary school students and church members.
These three individuals were reportedly arrested on 3 August 2008, between 10:00 a.m. and
11:00 a.m. in the village of Boukham, by members of the district police authorities of
Ad-Sapangthong district, Savannakhet province, and transferred to Ad-Sapangthong district
police station. While they were held there, district police officials tightened handcuffs as well as
leg restraints made of wooden stocks on all three detained individuals and allegedly stated: “This
is the consequence of not signing documents to renounce your faith. We have already given you
three opportunities to sign these documents but you have refused.” It is further alleged that the
concerned persons would be released if they signed the documents renouncing their Christian
faith.
130. On 2 September 2008, Mr. Boot Chanthaleuxay's legs reportedly became infected because
of the wooden stocks put around them, which led to severe pain and swollen legs, rendering him
unable to walk. He was in need of urgent medical treatment, otherwise it was feared that he
would not be able to use his leg again. Concern was expressed for the physical and mental
integrity of Mr. Sompong Supatto, Mr. Boot Chanthaleuxay and Mr. Khamvan Chanthaleuxay
while in detention. Further concerns were expressed as regards Mr. Khamvan Chanthaleuxay's
state of health. Concern was also expressed that their arrests and detention might have been
solely connected to their reportedly peaceful exercise of their right to freedom of religion or
belief
Response from the Government dated 22 September 2008
131. The Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic informed that it had carried out
a full check with the Local Authority, district police of Ad-Saphangthong district, Savanhakhet
province and had found out that information received by the Special Procedures mandate holders
was completely false and groundless. Furthermore, the Government drew the attention of the
Special Procedures mandate holders to the information below, according to the information by
the Local Authority.
132. The Local Authority concerned did not conduct the arrest, torture and other cruel treatment
of the three individuals. The three individuals were carrying out activities which were violating
the security order of the district and were therefore detained for a short-term period, from 20 to
22 July 2008 by the Local Authority. After having conducted the investigation, the
three individuals were released and immediately returned to their parents in their village.
133. The Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic confirmed that, within its
limited capacity, it had done everything possible to respect, promote and protect the fundamental
rights and freedom of its Lao people and had upheld the rule of law. The Government provided
concrete measures to assist the Lao people in all aspects, according to all fundamental human
rights, including the right to freedom of religion or belief
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 36
Observations
134. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government's response. She would like to refer
to her framework for communications, more specifically to the international human rights norms
and to the mandate practice concerning freedom from coercion (see above, para. 1, category 1.2).
Each State has the positive obligation of ensuring that the persons on their territory and under
theirjurisdiction, including members of religious minorities, can practise the religion or belief of
their choice free of coercion and fear (see AIHRC/6/5, para. 9). In letters sent to the Government
on 28 March 2008 and 28 January 2009, the Special Rapporteur reiterated her wish to visit the
Lao People's Democratic Republic in the framework of her mandate.
Malaysia
Communication sent on 12 October 2005
135. The Special Rapporteur had received information concerning a decision by Malaysia's
Court of Appeal according to which conversions from Islam to another religion have to be
authorized by sharia courts in the case of Lina Joy, formerly Azlina Jailani, aged 41.
136. Lina Joy, a former Muslim who converted to Christianity in the late 1980s, had approached
the National Registration Department (NRD) in February 1997 in order to request that her name
and religious status be changed on her identity card. The application was rejected in August 1997
on the grounds that the sharia court had not granted permission for her to renounce Islam. When
she appealed the decision, in 1998, the NRD allowed the name change, but refused to change the
religious status on her identity card. Following another appeal, High Court Judge Datuk Faiza
Tamby Chik ruled in April 2001 that she could not change her religious identity, because ethnic
Malays are defined as Muslims under the Constitution. He also said jurisdiction in such cases lay
solely in the hands of the sharia court. On 19 September 2005, the Court of Appeal announced
the final decision stating that Lina Joy must apply to a sharia court for permission to legally
renounce Islam.
137. Law requires all Malaysian citizens over the age of 12 to carry an identity card with them
at all times and all identity cards issued to Muslims must clearly display their religious identity.
A Muslim designation on an identity card has legal consequences, such as the prohibition of
marrying a Christian.
Response from the Government dated 28 July 2008
138. The Government of Malaysia informed that the Federal Court, which is the apex court in
Malaysia, had concluded the case and therefore provided the Special Rapporteur with the details
of the judgment. On the case of L Ena Joy vs. Wilayah Persekutuan Islamic Religious Council and
others, the Federal Court, in its majority decisions, held that the National Registration
Department (NRD) had no jurisdiction to amend the religion of a person. The fact that the NRD
insisted that Ms. Lina Joy obtain either a sharia court order or a Religious Department's
documentation to confirm the status of her conversion out of Islam before her application to
amend the statement relating to her religion on her identity card could therefore be allowed.
According to the Federal Court, the policy adopted by the NRD that a mere statutory declaration
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 37
was insufficient for it to remove the word “Islam” from the identity card of a Muslim, was
reasonable because renunciation of Islam was a matter that should be dealt with under Islamic
law and therefore required determination from the Islamic Religious Authority.
139. The Federal Court indicated that the mode of renouncing a person's religion necessarily
had to follow the procedures, law or practice of the said religion. Freedom of religion under
article 11 of the Federal Constitution required Ms. Lina Joy to obey the procedures, law or
practice of the said religion, specifically in respect of renouncing her religion. The sharia court
had an implied jurisdiction over matters relating to apostasy or conversion out of Islam. The
implied jurisdiction was based on the fact that the sharia court had complete jurisdiction on the
conversion into Islam, and by necessary implication, would have jurisdiction on apostasy and
conversion out of Islam. This had been enunciated by the Federal Court in the case of
Dalip Kaur and, as the apex court of Malaysia, is binding on all courts.
140. In conclusion, the Federal Court argued that Ms. Lina Joy was not prevented from
renouncing her religion, Islam. However, because a Muslim is subject to the Islamic laws in
Malaysia, Ms. Lina Joy had to go through the proper Islamic Religious Authority for the purpose
of renunciation of her Islamic faith. Once she would obtain an order or a letter of confirmation of
her renunciation, she would then be able to proceed to get the NRD to delete the word “Islam”
from her identity card. These processes did not impede the freedom of religion of Ms. Lina Joy.
In this instance, she had never approached the Islamic Religious Authorities for the purposes of
renunciation of her religion, Islam.
141. According to the Government of Malaysia, the Federal Court's decision had illustrated
that, in line with article 11 of the Federal Constitution, which provision is compatible with the
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination based on
Religion or Belief, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, the freedom of religion or Ms. Lina Joy had never been violated.
Observations
142. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government's response. Concerning the right to
change or to renounce to one's religion, she would like to refer to paragraph 5 of the general
comment No. 22 (1993) of the Human Rights Committee which states that “freedom to ‘have or
to adopt' a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief,
including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic
views, as well as the right to retain one's religion or belief'. Furthermore, provided that the
Federal Constitution of Malaysia recognizes that “Islam is the religion of the Federation, but
other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation”, she would
like to refer to her framework for communications, more specifically to the international human
rights norms and to the mandate practice concerning “State Religion” (see above, para. 1,
category 11.2).
143. In addition to the above, the Special Rapporteur would like to recall that in paragraph 3 of
general comment No. 22 (1993), the Human Rights Committee underlined that no one can be
compelled to reveal his thoughts or adherence to a religion or belief As stated by the Special
Rapporteur in her latest report to the General Assembly (see A163/161, paragraph 77), indicating
a person's religious affiliation on official documents carries a serious risk of abuse or subsequent
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 38
discrimination based on religion or belief, which has to be weighed against the possible reasons
for disclosing the holder's religion. On the same matter, in its resolution 63/18 1, the General
Assembly urged States to step up their efforts to protect and promote freedom of thought,
conscience, religion or belief, and to this end to ensure that “everyone has the right to refrain
from disclosing information concerning one's religious affiliation on [ official documentsl
against one's will.”
Urgent appeal sent on 21 April 2008 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion
and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur
on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of
human rights defenders and the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and other
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
144. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information regarding
the situation of Mr. P. Uthayakumar, Legal Adviser of the Hindu Human Rights Action Force
(HINDRAF), Mr. M. Manoharan, Counsel of HINDRAF, Mr. R. Kenghadharan, Counsel of
HINDRAF, Mr. V. Ganabatirau and Mr. T. Vasanthakumar, members of HINDRAF. Since
their arrest on 13 December 2007 under Section 8(1) of the Internal Security Act for allegedly
carrying out activities that threatened national security, Mr. P. Uthayakumar, Mr. M. Manoharan,
Mr. R. Kenghadharan, Mr. V. Ganabatirau and Mr. T. Vasanthakumar have reportedly been kept
in solitary confinement for more than 16 hours a day, and have been exposed to light
continuously in order to prevent them from sleeping and to disorientate them. Furthermore, they
were denied their right to worship. They do not have access to temples and prayer rooms and no
time to worship has been allocated to them.
Observations
145. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a reply from the Government of
Malaysia concerning the above mentioned allegations. She would like to refer to her framework
for communications, more specifically to the international human rights norms and to the
mandate practice concerning persons deprived of their liberty (see above, para. 1, category 111.2).
She would like to stress that persons deprived of their liberty are in a particularly vulnerable
situation, also with regard to freedom of religion or belief It is therefore crucial to provide the
personnel of detention facilities with adequate training, raising awareness and enhancing their
sensitivity about their duty to promote and respect international human rights standards for the
treatment of prisoners, in particular the right to freedom of religion or belief
Maldives
Communication sent on 11 January 2008 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Special
Rapporteur
146. The Special Rapporteur brought to the attention of the Government information she had
regarding provisions in the draft Constitution about citizenship which might have an impact
on freedom of religion or belief The Peoples Special Majlis (Constitutional Assembly) had
reportedly approved on 19 November 2007 an amendment to the draft Constitution, requiring all
Maldivian citizens to be Muslims. The amendment includes a clause that “none except a
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 39
Muslim can become a citizen of Maldives”. It has been reported that if this draft Constitution is
passed and comes into effect a number of Maldivians may lose their right to be citizens of
Maldives or become stateless. The Peoples Special Majlis was expected to reconvene
on 13 January 2008.
147. In this regard the Special Rapporteur referred to the conclusions and recommendations of
her recent report on the visit to the Maldives (AIHRC/4/21/Add.3, paras. 60): “The Special
Rapporteur encourages the members of the Special Majlis to give serious consideration to
including the right to freedom of religion or belief in the new draft of the Constitution. This right
should not be limited to citizens of the Maldives, but should be extended to all persons in the
Maldives. She takes this opportunity to underline that the designation of Islam as the State
religion of the Maldives does not require all citizens to adhere to that religion alone. Indeed, she
notes that there are numerous countries, including in the South Asia region, which have adopted
a State religion, but do not require their citizens to adhere to that religion.” Furthermore, her visit
report included the following conclusions and recommendations (AIHRC/4/21/Add.3,
paras. 66-67): “The Special Rapporteur is concerned that constitutional provisions, restricting
eligibility to vote and hold certain public offices to Muslims, constitute de jure discrimination on
religious grounds. She is aware that almost all Maldivians are indeed Muslims and that as such,
the presence of these discriminatory provisions is unlikely to result in many actual instances of
discrimination. However, the very presence of these provisions in the Constitution contradicts
the treaty obligations of the Maldives, and particularly article 2, paragraph 1, in combination
with article 25 of the ICCPR, as well as article 26 of the ICCPR. She is also concerned by
legislation limiting eligibility for certain public posts to Muslims, including the Human Rights
Commission Act, and by the Citizenship Law, which stipulates that only Muslims can apply for
Maldivian citizenship. She encourages legislators to consider introducing amendments to these
pieces of legislation, to bring them into compliance with the treaty obligations, particularly under
article 26 of the ICCPR. She notes that according to article 4, paragraph 2, of the 1981
Declaration, all States must make all efforts to enact or rescind legislation where necessary to
prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief”
Observations
148. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a reply from the Government of
the Maldives concerning the above mentioned allegations. She has addressed citizenship issues
and religious discrimination in administrative procedures in her latest report to the General
Assembly (see A163/161, paras. 25-78). In particular, she concluded that “Governments
sometimes impose restrictions in such a way that the right to freedom of religion or belief of the
persons concerned is adversely affected. While the State may have a legitimate interest in
limiting some manifestations of the freedom of religion or belief, when applying limitations the
State must ensure that certain conditions are fulfilled. Any limitation must be based on the
grounds of public safety, order, health, morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others,
it must respond to a pressing public or social need, it must pursue a legitimate aim and it must be
proportionate to that aim” (A163/161, para. 67). Furthermore, she added that “ [ mleasures that
discriminate on the basis of religion or belief, or lead to de facto discrimination on such grounds,
violate human rights standards. Consequently, it would be contrary to the principle of
non-discrimination to restrict citizenship to people with certain religious beliefs or to deny
official documents based on the applicant's religious affiliation” (A163/161, para. 70).
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 40
149. She would also like to refer to the conclusions and recommendations of the report on her
mission to the Maldives in August 2006 (A/HRC/4/21/Add.3). However, the new Constitution of
the Maldives, which was ratified on 7 August 2008, includes in its article 9(d) a provision
according to which a non-Muslim may not become a citizen of the Maldives. The Special
Rapporteur is deeply concerned that the implementation of this article of the new Constitution
could have a significant negative impact on human rights in the country, including for those
individuals who have converted from Islam.
Myanmar
Urgent appeal sent on 28 February 2008 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and the Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights in Myamnar
150. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had
received regarding Mr. U Gambira, a Buddhist monk who was one of the leaders of protests in
August and September 2007; his brother, Mr. Aung Kyaw Kyaw, a member of the National
League for Democracy (NLD); their father Mr. Miii Lwin; and Ms. Su Su Nway, also a member
of NLD and a labour activist. All of the aforementioned individuals were the subject of ajoint
urgent appeal sent on 21 November 2007 (see AIHRC/7/10/Add.1, paras. 186-189). According
to new information received, Mr. U Gambira and Mr. Aung Kyaw Kyaw were charged at the
end of January 2008 under Section 17/1 of the Unlawful Associations Act, which carries a
maximum sentence of three years' imprisonment. A hearing scheduled for 4 February 2008 was
postponed and the authorities hade not given a new date. Similar charges were brought against
Ms. Su Su Nway, who was reportedly in poor health. All three were being held in Yangon's
Insein Prison, where they may have been subjected to torture or ill-treatment.
151. Mr. U Gambira had been stripped of his monk's robes and both he and Mr. Aung Kyaw
Kyaw were allegedly tortured in detention. Their mother and sister were able to visit them but
they were not known to have been given access to their lawyers. Their father, Mr. Mm Lwin was
released from Insein Prison on 3 December 2007. He and Aung Kyaw Kyaw were arrested on
4 November 2007 and 17 October 2007 respectively, reportedly in an attempt to force
U Gambira out of hiding.
152. Ms. Su Su Nway was reportedly charged under sections 124, 125 and 505 of the Penal
Code, which relate to sedition and incitement to offences that damage “public tranquility”. She
was reportedly due to stand trial on 6 February in Yangon's Bahan Township, but no information
was available regarding the judicial proceedings. Su Su Nway was not allowed to meet her
family or receive parcels from her family. Her health was said to be deteriorating as she suffered
from a heart condition and, on one occasion, had to be taken to a hospital outside the prison for
treatment.
153. Concern was expressed that the arrest, detention and charges brought against
Mr. U Gambira, Mr. Aung Kyaw Kyaw, and Ms. Su Su Nway may have been directly related to
their activities in defence of human rights. In view of reports of ill-treatment and allegations of
torture, as well as information received concerning the ill-health of Ms. Su Su Nway, serious
concern was expressed for their physical and psychological integrity while in detention.
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 41
Response from the Government dated 22 April 2008
154. The Government of Myanmar transmitted the following information received from the
authorities concerned in Myanmar relating to Mr. U Gambira, Mr. Aung Kyaw Kyaw and
Ms. Su Su Nway. In July 2006, U Gambira and his brother Aung Kyaw Kyaw illegally contacted
AAPP, an unlawful organization based in Mae Sot, Thailand, and attended the course on political
defiance conducted by FDB, an unlawful organisation based in Thailand. U Gambira also led the
All-Burma Junior Monks Alliance and sent 20 monks to attend the above mentioned trainings;
he illegally crossed the border between Myanmar and Thailand; he received financial support
from AAPP and FDB - unlawful exiled groups - and then instigated civil unrest in the country.
He was therefore arrested on 4 November 2007. After due process of law, he was charged under
section 13(1) of the Immigration (Emergency Provisions) Act, section 17(1) of the Unlawful
Association Act and section 124(A) of the Penal Code. He was detained in the Central Prison
and his family visited him once a week. He was fit and healthy in prison.
155. Mr. Aung Kyaw Kyaw had illegal contacts with Bo Kyi from AAPP and attended the
course on public defiance conducted by FDB. He received financial support from Bo Kyi and
instigated civil unrest in the country. On 17 October 2007, the authorities concerned arrested him
while he was receiving the cash transferred from Bo Kyi. After due process of law, he was
charged under section 13(1) of the Immigration (Emergency Provisions) Act, section 17(1) of the
Unlawful Association Act and section 124(A) of the Penal Code. He was detained in the Central
Prison and his family visited him one a week. He was fit and healthy in prison.
156. On 11 November 2007, Su Su Nway was arrested as she was attempting to incite civil
unrest by placing a poster with anti-government slogans at a public place. She was charged under
sections 124(A), 130 (B) and 505 (B) of the Penal Code for causing fear or alarm to the public
and thereby disturbing public tranquillity. The authorities concerned conducted the necessary
investigation and the court is still examining the witnesses. She was detained in the Insein
Central Prison and her family regularly visited her. She was fit and healthy in prison.
Observations
157. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government's response. She would like to refer
to the press release of 18 November 2008 issued jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights in Myanmar, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and
lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of
opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders:
“Following one year of arbitrary detention, dozens of individuals who had been arrested in
connection with peaceful demonstrations in Myanmar last year, are since August 2008 being
tried by courts. The closed-door hearings are being held inside prisons by courts which lack
independence and impartiality. Three of the defence lawyers have been sentenced to several
months of imprisonment for contempt of court, after they transmitted their clients' complaints of
unfair trials. Since early November several other defence lawyers have been barred from
representing their clients. Last week, a dozen detainees, including several women, were each
given 65-year prison sentences. More than twenty other detainees, including five monks, were
recently sentenced to up to 24 years imprisonment. Many other detainees still await sentencing.
The UN experts strongly urge the Myanmar authorities to cease harassing and arresting
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 42
individuals for peacefully exercising their internationally recognized human rights. They further
demand that all detainees be retried in open hearings respecting fair trial standards and the
immediate release of their defence counsels. The experts reiterate previous calls to initiate
reforms for a transition to a multiparty democratic and civil government, as envisaged by the
new Constitution. In this context, they strongly urge the authorities to immediately commence
work on ensuring those indispensable pre-conditions for free and fair general elections to be held
in 2010. These include a comprehensive review of national legislation to ensure its compliance
with international human rights standards, the release of political prisoners of conscience, and
reform of the armed forces and the judicial system.”
Pakistan
Communication sent on 7 July 2008 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the right to
education
158. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had
received concerning the suspension of the following 23 Ahmadi students at Punjab Medical
College in Faisalabad: Ms. Madam Mubarik, Ms. Suna Nisar, Ms. Nabila Qudsia,
Ms. Rabia Shafique, Ms. Hamaira Sadid', Ms. Mansoora Samar, Ms. Kanwal Rohman
Qaisrani, Ms. Bina Munawar Bajwa, Ms. Rabina Aslam, Ms. Shamamu Tul Amber,
Ms. Zabda Nasir, Ms. Nosheen Zufar, Ms. Hiba Tul Qadoor, Ms. Hiba Tul Hameed,
Ms. Mansoora Ismail, Mr. Anas, Mr. Haroon, Mr. Hisan, Mr. Hussan, Mr. Zaka Ulluh,
Mr. Dawood, Mr. Zeeshan and Mr. Kashil. These 23 Ahmadi students were reportedly expelled
(“rusticated”) on 6 June 2008 from Punjab Medical College in Faisalabad, for “religious dispute”
and “hate material distribution”. The expulsion followed a report from a disciplinary committee
of the college after rumors that Ahmadi students were preaching their religion in the college. On
the night of 4 June 2008, a local cleric allegedly gave a sermon in the college mosque instigating
students against Ahmadis, following which four Ahmadi students were brought from the hostel
and taken to a room where they were insulted and badly mistreated by fellow students.
Subsequently, 15 Abmadi students were told to evacuate the hostel in the middle of the night.
159. On 5 June 2008, a mob surrounded the Principal's office demanding that all Ahmadi
students be expelled from the college. The Principal convened a disciplinary committee, which
reportedly did not allow the Abmadi students to provide any clarifications. On 6 June 2008, the
Principal issued a notification for the rustication of the above mentioned 23 Ahmadi students
from the college, which was converted on 10 June 2008, by the college administration, into a
ten day suspension.
160. However, the above mentioned 23 Abmadi students have not been permitted to return to
the Punjab Medical College on 21 June 2008 and remain suspended. Furthermore, a college
committee asked them to provide written statements on their religion and warned them of being
legally responsible for what they write. Punjab Medical College, an institution of the
Government of Punjab, reportedly requires applicants to declare themselves either Muslim or
Non-Muslim in its admission form. Those Ahmadi students who in accordance with their
belief had indicated in the admission forms that they were Muslims may face legal
problems since section 298C of the Pakistan Penal Code prohibits Ahmadis to refer to their faith
as Islam.
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 43
Observations
161. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a reply from the Government of
Pakistan concerning the above mentioned concerns. She would like to refer to the Declaration on
the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief,
in particular its article 2, which stipulates that “ [ n b one shall be subject to discrimination by any
State, institution, group of persons, or person on grounds of religion or other beliefs”.
Furthermore, its article 4 states that “ [ aill States shall take effective measures to prevent and
eliminate discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in the recognition, exercise and
enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms in all fields of civil, economic, political,
social and cultural life.” Similarly, in its resolution 63/181, the General Assembly urged States
“to step up their efforts to eliminate intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief,
notably by taking all necessary and appropriate action, in conformity with international standards
of human rights, to combat hatred, discrimination, intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation
and coercion motivated by intolerance based on religion or belief, as well as incitement to
hostility or violence, with particular regard to members of religious minorities in all parts of the
world”. In addition, the Special Rapporteur would also like to make reference to her most recent
report to the Human Rights Council (see AIHRC/10/8, paras. 29-62) which raises the issue of
discrimination based on religion or belief and its impact on the enjoyment of economic, social
and cultural rights, including the right to education (see AIHRC/10/8, paras. 49-5 1).
Communication sent on 18 August 2008 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on violence
against women
162. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had
received concerning two girls from the Christian minority community in Chak Sarwar
Shaheed, district Muzaffargarh. Reportedly, the two girls S. Y., thirteen years old, and A. Y.,
ten years old, were kidnapped on 26 June 2008 while on their way to their uncle's house in
Chowk Munda. Reportedly, their kidnappers handed the girls over to another individual (his
name is on record with the Special Rapporteurs), who then organised a forced conversion to
Islam and the marriage of his own son with Ms. S. Y.
163. The police refused the father's request to file a case against the kidnappers. When the
two sisters appeared in the Muzaffargarh District and Sessions court, they were given
five minutes to testify that their conversion was genuine and Ms. S. Y. indicated that she was
17 years old. However, her parents were not allowed to submit birth certificates and school
records to prove the girls' true ages and provide evidence for a violation of the Child Marriage
Restraint Act 1929, which bans child marriage for boys under 18 and girls under 16. On
14 July 2008, the Judge in Muzaffargarh ruled that since the two sisters had converted in a
legitimate manner to Islam they could be “handed over to their Christian parents unless they
become Muslim, too”. On 6 August 2008, the Lahore High Court Multan Bench ordered a
medical examination of Ms. S. Y. to ascertain her age and ruled to keep her and her sister A. Y.
in a house for destitute women until the next hearing on 20 August 2008. It had further been
alleged that the abductors may have been recruiting young girls for the purpose of prostitution
and sexual exploitation, and that the marriages were pretences under which they gained control
over the girls.
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 44
Response from the Government dated 15 October 2008
164. The Government of Pakistan informed that on 7 July 2008 Mr. Y. M., father of Ms. S. Y.
and Ms. A. Y. had filed a petition before District and Sessions Judge concerning the abduction of
his daughters by three men. Prior to this petition, on 28 June 2008, his daughters had filed a
petition before the same court stating that they had embraced Islam, but their parents were
harassing them. Ms. S. Y had changed her name to Fatima, claimed her age was 17 years and
had happily contracted marriage with Mr. A. A. Ms. A. Y. also expressed preference to stay with
her sister. In view of the open statements and expressed desire of the two girls, the District and
Sessions Judge passed the order that these girls could not be compelled to join their parents.
After dismissal of their petition by the District and Sessions Judge, the mother of the two girls
filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench. The Lahore High Court had
directed the local police to get the two girls medically examined in order to determine their ages.
However, based on an agreement between the two parties, the High Court later decided that
custody of Ms. A. Y. may be given to her real mother/petitioner with the condition that the
petitioner shall not interfere in her religious beliefs and practices. Ms. S. Y. was allowed to go
with her husband Mr. A. A. Her parents, brothers and sisters were at liberty to visit her. The
dower amount payable to Ms. S. Y. was also enhanced.
Observations
165. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the response of the Government of Pakistan. She
would like to refer to the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of
Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, in particular its article 2 which stipulates that “ [ n b
one shall be subject to discrimination by any State, institution, group of persons, or person on
grounds of religion or other beliefs”. She also would like to reiterate that article 5 of this
Declaration states that “ [ flhe parents, or as the case may be, the legal guardians of the child have
the right to organize the life within the family in accordance with their religion or belief and
bearing in mind the moral education in which they believe the child should be brought up”. The
Convention of the Rights of the Child, which Pakistan has ratified, provides in its article 14 that
“States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal
guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner
consistent with the evolving capacities of the child”.
Urgent appeal sent on 22 September 2008 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
166. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had
received concerning threats made against members of the Ahmadiyya conununity. Reportedly,
thirty-four years after the adoption of the law related to the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan,
GEO Television broadcasted a programme on 7 September 2008. The programme included a
panel discussion during which two Maulanas (whose names are on record with the Special
Rapporteurs) reportedly said that, in reference to the beliefs of the Ahmadiyya community,
people who held such beliefs were “Wajb-ul-Qatl” or “liable to death”. This phrase was
reportedly used repeatedly during the programme.
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 45
167. On 8 September 2008, Mr. Abdul Manan Siddiqi, President of the Ahmadiyya
community in Mirpurkhaas was murdered whilst working in the local hospital. On
9 September 2008, Mr. Seth Muhammad Yousuf, President of the Ahmadiyya community
in Nawab Shah was also murdered. It is feared that both Mr. Abdul Mannan Siddiqi and
Mr. Seth Muhammad Yousuf were killed solely because of their association with the
Ahmadiyya community.
168. In their urgent appeal, the two Special Rapporteurs referred to Human Rights Council
resolution 6/37 which urges States to take all necessary and appropriate action, in conformity
with international standards of human rights, to combat hatred, intolerance and acts of violence,
intimidation and coercion motivated by intolerance based on religion or belief, as well as
incitement to hostility and violence, with particular regard to religious minorities. They also
made reference to Human Rights Council resolution 7/36, which requested the Special
Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression,
within the framework of his mandate, to “report on instances in which the abuse of the right of
freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination, taking into account
articles 19 (3) and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and general
comment No. 15 of the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
which stipulates that the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial
superiority or hatred is compatible with the freedom of opinion and expression”. In addition,
they also referred to article 153 of the Penal Code of Pakistan which recognizes that “whoever
commits or incites any other person to commit, any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance
of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or
communities or any group of persons identifiable as such on any ground whatsoever and which
disturbs or is likely to disturb public tranquillity” is liable before the law.
Observations
169. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a reply from the Government of
Pakistan concerning the above mentioned allegations. She would like to recall that General
Assembly resolution 63/18 1 urged States to step up their efforts to eliminate intolerance and
discrimination based on religion or belief, notably by taking all necessary and appropriate action,
in conformity with international standards of human rights, to combat hatred, discrimination,
intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by intolerance based on
religion or belief, as well as incitement to hostility or violence, with particular regard to members
of religious minorities in all parts of the world.
170. The Special Rapporteur is very concerned by the continued violations of freedom of
religion or belief suffered by members of the Ahmadiyya community, including through
incitement to religious hatred. In this regard, she would like to refer to the report on the expert
seminar on “Freedom of expression and advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”, convened by the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights and held in Geneva on 2 and 3 October 2008 (see
AIHRC/10/3 1/Add.3).
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 46
Russian Federation
Urgent appeal sent on 17 December 2007 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the
question of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
171. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had
received regarding Mr. Mukhanunadsolikh Abutov, aged 38, born in Turtkul in
Karakalpakstan. On 12 July 1996, Mr. Abutov, a teacher of Islam in his community in
Uzbekistan, was reportedly sentenced to seven years in prison on charges of deliberate
destruction and damage to property, for burning down the home of the imam of the Turtkul
mosque. Whilst in detention he was subject to regular and cruel beatings, by the guards and some
of the prisoners working for them. He was put in solitary confinement for long periods of time.
In winter he was subject to cold, and he was not given enough to eat. It is alleged that the overall
conditions of imprisonment - notably the fact that his access to toilets was restricted; there were
three persons per sleeping place in the accommodation barracks; he had to perform hard labour,
which included carrying very heavy burdens; there was regular punishment for following
religious rituals including through sleep deprivation, mocking of his religious convictions - led to
two suicide attempts by Mr. Abutov. In 2000, his term of imprisonment was extended by
three years for “contemptuous violation of the prison regime”. In total he spent eight and a
half years in prison.
172. In May 2004, Mr. Abutov was released. After his release, he went to Kazakhstan several
times to earn some money for his family, including in January 2005, when eight persons in
civilian clothes arrived at his house, searched through the whole house and took away all
religious literature. The men asked Mr. Abutov's wife where he was; she said he was in
Kazakhstan. They also asked her to get him to come back and talk to them. Afterwards local
police visited the house several times, asking Mr. Abutov's family about his whereabouts and for
his Moscow address. Since Mr. Abutov was afraid that he might be sent back to prison, he
decided not to return home and, on 15 February 2007, fled to Russia, where he stayed in
Krasnogorsk in the Moscow region.
173. On 13 June 2007, he received a call from an unknown Uzbek who wanted to meet him.
When he left the house four men in civilian clothes were waiting for him on the street. They later
turned out to be officers of the National Security Service of Uzbekistan. They forcibly took him
to the Krasnogorsk Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, but Mr. Abutov was not
included in the list of persons searched internationally. However, soon after he was given an
Uzbek arrest warrant, dated 26 February 2007, on the grounds that in 1998 having served his
time in the offenders' colony in Uzbekistan, he had allegedly set up a religious extremist
organization with two other prisoners.
174. On 26 June 2007, the City Court of Krasnogorsk ruled that Mr. Abutov should be detained
for the purpose of his extradition to Uzbekistan. Mr. Abutov's lawyer appealed but the appeal
court dismissed his complaint. On 27 June 2007, Abutov was transferred to the
50/10 probationary ward in Mozjaisk, where he was placed in a cell where the number of
prisoners exceeded by two times the number of beds. Mr. Abutov has chronic liver disease but
has only been seen by a doctor once, in July 2007, following several requests. He has
subsequently asked for further medical attention but to no avail.
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 47
175. At the end of June 2007, Mr. Abutov sent an asylum application requesting to be
recognized as a refugee on the territory of the Russian Federation to the department of the
Moscow regional department of the Federal Migration Service. In September 2007, a
representative of the Migration service visited him for an interview. Currently, the Moscow
Regional department of the Migration Department is reportedly considering his asylum
application on its merits. At present, the extradition case is under consideration by the office of
the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation.
Response from the Government dated 28 February 2008
176. The Government of the Russian Federation indicated that Mr. Mukhammadsolikh
Matyakubovich Abutov, a national of the Republic of Uzbekistan, born in 1969, was detained by
law enforcement agents on 13 June 2007 on the basis of article 61 of the Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS) Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family,
and Criminal Matters, of 22 January 1993 (“the Minsk Convention”) and conveyed to the
headquarters of the Ministry for Internal Affairs for Krasnogorsk municipal district, Moscow
region.
177. The inquiry about Mr. Abutov's detention was based on the decision issued
on 26 February 2007 in relation to criminal case no. 197-07 by the Public Prosecutor of the
Surkhandarya region of the Republic of Uzbekistan, Senior State Counsellor of Justice
Mr. D. S. Abdurakhmanov, stating that he was under international investigation and should be
held in custody under a pre-trial restraining order. Mr. Abutov is accused of having committed
offences under article 159, paragraph 3 (b), of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan
(“Crime against the constitutional order of the Republic”), article 244, paragraph 3 (a), of the
Code (“Production or dissemination of material constituting a threat to public security and public
order”), and article 244, paragraph 1, of the Code (“Establishment, leadership or membership of
religious extremist, fundamentalist or other prohibited organizations”).
178. On 13 June 2007, Mr. Abutov was taken into police custody at the Krasnogorsk
headquarters of the Ministry for Internal Affairs on the basis of an investigation order under
case no. 1488 of 15 May 2007. Before being placed in custody, he was examined by a doctor
from Krasnogorsk City Hospital no. 1. No physical injuries of any kind were found and no
urgent medical attention was required. On 14 June 2007, Mr. Abutov complained of a pain in the
lumbar region and also informed the management of the detention unit that he would refuse
food, on the grounds that his detention was unlawful. The same day, Mr. Abutov was examined
by the police medical officer. As a result of the examination, symptomatic anti-inflammatory
treatment was carried out to deal with chronic pyelonephritis. X-rays conducted on 18 June 2007
revealed no pathological change. Medical staff concluded that Mr. Abutov's state of health was
currently satisfactory and he did not require medical assistance.
179. The management of the detention unit and a representative of the Krasnogorsk public
prosecutor's office held discussions with Mr. Abutov, in which it was established that there were
no grounds for his planned hunger strike. The detained man therefore abandoned his hunger
strike and, from 14 June 2007, received three meals a day. For the whole period of his detention,
Mr. Abutov was not held in solitary confinement, his cell measured 4 square metres and no
physical force was used against him. In the course of the daily checks of the detention unit
carried out by staff of the Krasnogorsk municipal public prosecutor's office, no complaints about
the conditions or the actions of police officers were received from Mr. Abutov.
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 48
180. On 14 June 2007, Mr. Abutov was questioned by the Krasnogorsk First Deputy Public
Prosecutor, Mr. E. 1. Puzanov, Junior Counsellor of Justice, who, on 15 June 2007, concluded
that, in accordance with the Minsk Convention and the legislation of the Russian Federation,
Mr. Abutov should be handed over to the law enforcement agencies of the Republic of
Uzbekistan. On 25 June 2007, the Krasnogorsk public prosecutor's office issued a decision, on
the basis of article 61 of the Minsk Convention, that an application should be made to the courts
that Mr. Abutov should be held in custody under a pre-trial restraining order. On 26 June 2007,
Judge E.V. Isaeva of the Krasnogorsk municipal court ordered Mr. Abutov to be held in custody
in pre-trial detention. On 2 July 2007, Mr. Abutov was transferred to Federal State Pre-trial
Detention Centre 50110 of the federal headquarters of the Russian Federal Corrections Service
for the Moscow region. On 29 June 2007, the Moscow region public prosecutor's office received
representations from Mr. Abutov's lawyer requesting an investigation into the lawfulness of the
actions of the staff of the headquarters of the Ministry for Internal Affairs for the Krasnogorsk
municipal district, Moscow region. An official investigation established that the activities of the
police officers were lawful; no breaches of the law were found. On 12 September 2007, the
Moscow regional department of the Russian Federal Migration Service received an application
from Mr. Abutov to be recognized as a refugee on the territory of the Russian Federation, on the
grounds that he feared political and religious persecution in the Republic of Uzbekistan.
181. On 31 January 2008, the Migration Service issued a decision to refuse Mr. Abutov
recognition as a refugee in the Russian Federation, on the grounds that he did not meet the
criteria established in the definition of a refugee contained in article 1, paragraph 1 (i), of the
Federal Refugees Act of 19 February 1993. Notification of the decision was sent to Mr. Abutov
on 31 January 2008, together with an explanation of the appeal procedure. Mr. Abutov has the
right to appeal against the decision of the Migration Service. Under article 10 of the Federal
Refugees Act, this currently precludes the possibility of his being returned against his will to the
territory of his State of nationality.
Observations
182. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the response of the Government of the
Russian Federation. She would like to take the opportunity to refer to her 2007 report to
the General Assembly, in which she dealt with the vulnerable situation of refugees,
asylum-seekers and internally displaced persons (see A162/280, paras. 3 8-63).
Saudi Anibia
Urgent appeal sent on 5 June 2008 jointly with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on the independence
ofjudges and lawyers
183. The Special Procedures mandate holders brought to the attention of the Government
information they had received concerning eight Babraini teachers, all of them Shi'a Muslims,
namely Mr. Majid Abdalrasol Salman Al-Ghasra, Mr. Abbas Ahmed Ibrahim, Mr. Sayed
Ahmed Alawi Abdullah, Mr. Issa A. Hasan Ahined, Mr. Mohammed Hassan Ali Marhoon,
Mr. Mohammad Abdullah Al-Moamen, Mr. Ebaraim Marzam and Mr. Mohamed Mahdi.
These eight individuals were reportedly visiting Riyadh in early April 2008 during their
holidays. It is believed that they had accidentally entered a restricted military area upon which
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 49
they were arrested and detained at Hayr Prison in Riyadh. Despite intense efforts undertaken by
their families in the Kingdoms of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, their detention was only disclosed
by Saudi authorities four days after the arrests. The detainees were allowed to meet their parents
only after 55 days of detention. Since their arrests they have been held in solitary confinement
without charge or trial or access to legal counsel. The individuals were subjected to severe
psychological pressure during interrogations on details of their lives, including their affiliations
and beliefs. The investigators also accessed their email accounts. Concern is expressed that the
arrest and detention of the eight above mentioned individuals might be connected to the religious
beliefs they hold as Shi'a Muslims.
Observations
184. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a reply from the Government of
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia concerning the above mentioned allegations. She would like to
recall that General Assembly resolution 63/181 which urges States to “step up their efforts to
protect and promote freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, and to this end to
ensure that no one within their jurisdiction is deprived of the right to life, liberty or security of
person because of religion or belief and that no one is subjected to torture or other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or arbitrary arrest or detention”. Furthermore, in
letters sent to the Government on 28 March 2008 and 28 January 2009, the Special Rapporteur
reiterated her wish to visit the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the framework of her mandate.
Communication sent on 15 August 2008 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
185. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had
received concerning the arrest of Sheilih Tawfiq al-Amer from the Shi'a community in Ahsa
district, Eastern province. On 22 June 2008, Sheikh Tawfiq al-Amer was arrested and detained
for a week without charge. The arrest of Sheikh al-Amer was reportedly linked to his criticism of
an anti-Shi'a declaration made by 22 Wahhabi clerics, who had stated that Shi'as were “infidels”
and “traitors” and a “great threat” to the Sunni majority in Saudi Arabia. In the mosque where he
is Imam, Sheikh al-Amer argued on 14 June 2008 that such statements were dangerous to the
community and asked the Government to prevent incitement to hatred and discrimination.
186. Furthermore, it has been reported that members of the Shi'a community in Ahsa district
face discrimination, for example that they do not get licenses to operate a private school or a
kindergarten. In addition, some categories ofjobs are allegedly forbidden for Shi'as, such as
becoming a minister, government adviser, president of a public company, municipality president,
diplomat or official in an Islamic organization financed by the Government.
Observations
187. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a reply from the Government of
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia concerning the above mentioned allegations. She would like to
recall that the General Assembly, in its resolution 63/18 1, urged States to step up their efforts to
eliminate intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief, notably by taking all
necessary and appropriate action, in conformity with international standards of human rights, to
combat hatred, discrimination, intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 50
motivated by intolerance based on religion or belief, as well as incitement to hostility or
violence, with particular regard to members of religious minorities in all parts of the world. In
addition, article 2 of General Assembly resolution 47/135 states that “persons belonging to
national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities (hereinafter referred to as persons belonging
to minorities) have the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion,
and to use their own language, in private and in public, freely and without interference or any
form of discrimination.”
188. The Special Rapporteur would also like to refer to article 4 of the Declaration on the
Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination, which stipulates that “all States
shall take effective measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination on the grounds of religion
or belief in the recognition, exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms
in all fields of civil, economic, political, social and cultural life”. The issue of discrimination
based on religion or belief and its impact on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural
rights has most recently been addressed by the Special Rapporteur in her report to the
tenth session of the Human Rights Council (see A/HRC/10/8, paras. 29-62).
Sudan
Communication sent on 5 December 2007 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
189. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had
regarding Ms. Gilian Gibbons, a 54 years old English teacher from Liverpool, living in Sudan.
On 25 November 2007, Ms. Gibbons was reportedly arrested at her home in Khartoum, where
she teaches at a British International School. A court in Khartoum on 29 November 2007 found
her guilty of “insulting the faith of Muslims” and sentenced her to 15 days in prison to be
followed by deportation. Prosecutors had called for her conviction on charges of inciting
religious hatred, which carries a punishment of up to 40 lashes, six months in prison and a fine.
Allegedly, in September 2007, Ms. Gibbons had asked her pupils to vote a name for a teddy bear
as part of the class's study of animals and they named it “Muhammad”. Subsequently an office
assistant complained to the Ministry of Education and Ms. Gibbons was accused of blasphemy
for allowing her pupils to name a teddy bear with the Prophet's name.
190. On 30 November 2007, thousands of protesters demonstrated in Khartoum, claiming that
the 15-day prison sentence was too lenient. Since protesters have reportedly called for the
execution of Ms. Gibbons, serious concern is expressed at her safety. Further reports indicate
that Ms. Gibbons has been given a presidential pardon on 3 December 2007.
Observations
191. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a reply from the Government of
Sudan concerning the above mentioned allegations. She would like to refer to her report to the
62 ' ”' session of the General Assembly (A162/280), which raises the issue of blasphemy laws. In
paragraph 75, the Special Rapporteur notices that there are worrying trends towards applying
blasphemy laws in a discriminatory manner and that they often disproportionately punish
members of religious minorities, dissenting believers and non-theists or atheists. She reiterates in
paragraph 77 that criminalizing “defamation of religions” can be counterproductive, since it may
create an atmosphere of intolerance and fear and may even increase the chances of a backlash.
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 51
192. The Special Rapporteur also would like to emphasize that limitations to freedom of
expression and freedom of religion or belief are strictly defined in international law, for example
in articles 18 (3), 19 (3) and 20 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In
this regard, she would like to refer to the report on the expert seminar on “Freedom of expression
and advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or
violence”, convened by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and held in
Geneva on 2 and 3 October 2008 (see AIHRC/10/31/Add.3).
Thailand
Communication sent on 2 June 2006 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of
human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people
193. The Special Rapporteurs raised concern on information they had received concerning the
desecration of Hmong graves in Wat Tham Krabok. Summaries of this communication as well
as observations of the Special Rapporteur are already reproduced in AIHRC/4/21/Add.1,
paras. 288-290.
Response from the Government dated 23 June 2008
194. The Government of Thailand submitted a response to the Special Rapporteurs
on 9 July 2008 which is summarized in the communications report of the Special Rapporteur on
the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people (see
AIHRC/9/9/Add. 1, paras. 475-478).
Observations
195. The Special Rapporteur would like to thank the Government of Thailand for its response to
the communication of 2 June 2006 and - jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of
human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people - she will continue to monitor the
situation.
Turkey
Communication sent on 7 October 2008
196. The Special Rapporteur brought to the attention of the Government information she had
received relating to the right of Muslim students to manifest their religion or belief in Turkish
universities. Reportedly, university regulations would prohibit students from taking examinations
if their heads are covered. As a consequence, Muslim students would be prevented from wearing
headscarves when taking their examinations.
197. As the Special Rapporteur has been mandated to identify existing and emerging obstacles
to the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion and present recommendations on ways and
means to overcome such obstacles, she requested the Government to provide information on the
following issues:
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 52
(a) What are the rules, regulations, laws and policies applied by Turkish universities
with respect to religious clothing? Do Turkish universities prohibit Muslim students having their
heads covered? Is the portrayal of any religious symbol/object prohibited?;
(b) According to article 18, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, to which Turkey is a State party, freedom to manifest one's religion or belief
may be subject to limitations only if they are prescribed by law, are necessary to protect public
safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. Please do
clarify the limitations used for the policy on religious clothing enforced by Turkish universities;
(c) Have complaints been lodged by university students wearing a headscarf in relation
to them being prevented from taking their university examinations or having their examinations
cancelled?
Observations
198. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a reply from the Government of
Turkey concerning the above mentioned concerns. Regarding the issue of religious symbols, she
would like to refer to her report to the 62 tx1 session of the Commission on Human Rights (see
E/CN.4/2006/5, paras. 36-60), which addresses the issue of religious symbols in greater detail.
The Special Rapporteur has formulated a set of general criteria on religious symbols, including
“neutral indicators” and “aggravating indicators”, in order to provide some guidance on the
applicable human rights standards and their scope (see E/CN.4/2006/5, paras. 51-60).
United States of America
Communication sent on 12 August 2008
199. The Special Rapporteur brought to the attention of the Government information she had
received regarding Mr. Lyle Moody, who was detained in Western New Mexico Correctional
Facility (WNMCF), Grants. Since Mr. Lyle Moody, a practicing Muslim, was reportedly
transferred from Lea County Correctional Facility (LCCF) in Hobbs to WNMCF, he had been
denied several religious practices by prison staff members. At WNMCF, he was prohibited from
wearing the traditional Islamic white knit (kufi) cap, while other inmates were allowed to wear
different kinds of caps in prison. The Islamic Jumah prayer services were not announced over
WNMCF's loudspeakers on Fridays, whereas other religious services were. Mr. Moody
reportedly did not face such restrictions on the right to practice his religion when he was in
LCCF Facility.
Response from the Government dated 24 October 2008
200. The Government informed that the U.S. Department of State had contacted the New
Mexico Corrections Department (NMCD) public affairs office regarding these allegations. They
cited the Western New Mexico Inmate Rules and Regulations for Level II, which states that
“Inmates will be allowed to wear authorized hats, and prescription sunglasses in the housing
units, work areas and recreation yards only”. Head gear is not allowed in the library, education,
medical, dining halls, or other areas of the facility. They noted that Mr. Lyle Moody had been
allowed to wear the kufi during religious services or while praying in a designated area.
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 53
However, Mr. Moody had expressed a desire to wear the kufi everywhere at all time, which is
not allowed under the Rules. The WNMCF did not find any misconduct reports for him wearing
his kufi; however, one deputy warden stated he had repeatedly asked Mr. Moody to remove it
when he was not allowed to and he did. For this reason, in the view of the WNMCF, it had not
been an issue.
201. With regard to the announcement of the Jumah prayer services over facility loudspeakers,
the WNMCF responded that the deputy warden had kept the weekly sign-in logs for the Islamic
services dating back to 25 July 2008. These showed that the services had taken place and that
Mr. Moody had attended all of them. The deputy warden also noted that while the services may
not always have been announced over the intercom system, the prison officers went into the unit
to announce them.
202. Mr. Moody filed complaints with the NMCD, which were denied. According to the
NMCD, Mr. Moody continues to challenge Rules and Regulations and NMCD policies.
Observations
203. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government's response, which also included a
copy of the NMCD policies on religious programs. In particular, she would like to refer to the
policy CD-101300 (C) which stipulates that “an inmate's religious requests, including those
considered being fundamental and essential, may be denied for reasons of security or for other
substantiated reasons. If a request is denied, alternatives to accommodate the religious practice
must be explored which might allow the inmate to practice by the means appropriate to their
custody level”. In addition, she would like to refer to general comment No. 22 of the Human
Rights Committee, which states “persons already subject to certain legitimate constraints, such
as prisoners, continue to enjoy their rights to manifest their religion or belief to the fullest extent
compatible with the specific nature of the constraint”. The Special Rapporteur would like to
emphasize that persons deprived of their liberty are in a particularly vulnerable situation, also
with regard to freedom of religion or belief It is crucial to provide the personnel of detention
facilities with adequate training, raising awareness and enhancing their sensitivity about their
duty to promote and respect international human rights standards for the treatment of prisoners,
in particular the right to freedom of religion or belief
Uzbekistan
Urgent appeal sent on 12 February 2008 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the
question of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
204. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they
had received regarding Mr. Abdugani Tursinov Kamaliev, aged 50, Uzbek national of
Muslim faith, currently detained in the investigative prison (SIZO) of Namangansk.
Mr. Tursinov Kamaliev, during his detention by Uzbek authorities, had reportedly been
suspended by his feet, beaten with steel rods/steel fittings and had his teeth filed to obtain a
confession. Mr. Tursinov Kamaliev had been deported from Tumen in Russia to Tashkent on
5 December 2007. Mr. Tursinov Kamaliev was charged with several crimes in Uzbekistan
(articles 156, 159, 242-2 of the Uzbek Criminal Code), which he was alleged to have
“committed ... together with the adherents of religious extremist organisation ‘Wahhabi',
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 54
A. Yuldashev amongst others”. Mr. Tursinov Kamaliev is accused of propagating ideas of this
organisation in Andijan, calling for the unconstitutional change of state regime by sacral war.
Mr. Tursinov Kamaliev denies these allegations and any connections with members of the
“Wahhabi” organisation.
Response from the Government dated 22 April 2008
205. In its response, the Government of Uzbekistan noted that Mr. Tursinov Kamaliev was a
member of a “Wahhabi” religious extremist organization, whose purpose was unconstitutional
change of the Republic of Uzbekistan's system of government. He took an active part in its
unlawful activities through the dissemination of ideas that fanned religious hatred and the
recruitment of citizens into its ranks. According to the information available, on 11 March 1999
proceedings were instituted against Mr. Tursinov by the Namangan provincial procurator's
office on evidence that he had committed the offence referred to in article 159, part 1, of the
Uzbek Criminal Code. As a result of Mr. Tursinov's flight from investigators, on 17 March 1999
he was indicted in absentia under article 159, part 1, of the Uzbek Criminal Code and a search
warrant was issued for him by the police.
206. Mr. Tursinov was subsequently detained, investigation of the case was reinstituted and he
was charged under articles 156 (3) (e), 159 (3) (b) and 244 (2) of the Uzbek Criminal Code and
handed over to the courts. By decision of the Namangan provincial criminal court dated 27
February 2008, Mr. Tursinov was convicted of multiple offences under articles 156 (3) (e) and
159 (3) (b) of the Uzbek Criminal Code and sentenced to serve 11 years under an ordinary penal
regime; he was acquitted of offences under article 244 (2) of the Uzbek Criminal Code. During
the hearings, Mr. Tursinov partially admitted his guilt and testified that in 1993 he did indeed
become a member of the religious extremist organization “Tablikh”, part of the “Wahhabi” sect,
and that in it he was involved in recruitment of citizens from among his acquaintances to join the
organization. After the arrest of a number of other adherents of the organization, he emigrated to
the Russian Federation, where he married Ms. Kamalieva and took up residence with her. He
views his involvement in the activities of the religious extremist organization as an error and has
accordingly requested the court's clemency. In addition to the above, Mr. Tursinov's guilt has
been demonstrated by the testimony of witnesses Z. Kadyrov, A. Israilov, 0. Vakhabov,
S. Kakhkharov and K. Boimirzaev, records of the confrontation of witnesses and other criminal
case records.
207. The arguments advanced in the joint letter by the Special Rapporteurs about
Mr. Tursinov's having been subjected to torture and other unlawful methods of investigation for
the purpose of obtaining a confession from him have not been corroborated by the Government
of Uzbekistan. From the time of his arrest and throughout the subsequent period of his pre-trial
detention and the judicial examination of the case, Mr. Tursinov voluntarily and with exceptional
consistency gave self-incriminatory evidence that was objectively confirmed by other proof
collected. All legal proceedings with regard to Mr. Tursinov were carried out with the
participation of his counsel, Ms. B. Nurmukhammedova, who made no complaints of unlawful
techniques of investigation during the conduct of the trial or afterwards.
208. The court's verdict entered into force on 11 March 2008 but no appeal or application for
cassation or judicial review was submitted by Mr. Tursinov or his counsel. The court correctly
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 55
characterized Mr. Tursinov's criminal activity, and the punishment imposed in the light of
circumstances that aggravated or mitigated his guilt was suited to the acts. No grounds have been
found for objecting to the court's decision.
Observations
209. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the response of the Government of Uzbekistan.
Viet Nam
Communication sent on 16 October 2008 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions
210. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had
received concerning the alleged arbitrary killing of two indigenous Degar men, Y-Ben Hdok and
Mup, by members of the security forces. On 28 April 2008, Y-Ben Hdok, a Degar man from
Buon Dung village, commune of Cu Ebur, town of Buonmethuot in the province of Daklak, was
reportedly invited to drink coffee by a friend, a police officer (his name is on record with the
Special Rapporteurs). When Y-Ben Hdok arrived at the restaurant, eight security police (the
Special Rapporteurs were provided a list with their names) apprehended him, handcuffed him
and took him to a secluded location. There they struck him repeatedly with their police batons
and kicked, punched and stomped on him until he fell down unconscious. The police officers
then placed a rope around his neck, tied it to a police jeep and dragged him around until he was
dead. Finally, the police took his corpse to the hospital and called his family, informing them that
Y-Ben Hdok had committed suicide. When the corpse was brought to Y-Ben Hdok's home, the
police prevented the family from taking pictures. They also prevented relatives and friends from
entering the house and viewing the body, which bore clearly visible marks of ill-treatment,
including broken bones in both legs and arms. On 4 May 2008, the day of the burial,
around 200 security police escorted the family to the burial grounds where numerous other
security police were also stationed to prevent foreigners from interviewing the family and to
prevent villagers from demonstrating. The security forces also warned the family and community
not to report Y-Ben Hdok's death to the Degar community in the United States of America.
211. Mup, a preacher in Ploi Rong Khong village, district of Dak Doa, Gia Lai province, had
been summoned three times by the security police to come to their headquarters to be heard on
his religious activities. Because he feared the police, Mup had failed to follow these summonses.
On 25 August 2008, Mup left his village to attend the funeral of a relative in Ploi Bla village.
When he returned to his village that evening, Mup was approached by officials and spoke to
them. This was the last time his fellow villagers saw him alive. In the morning of
26 August 2008, his lifeless body was found about 100 meters from the village gate, bearing the
traces of beating.
Response from the Government dated 31 December 2008
212. The Government of Viet Nam informed that allegations mentioned in the joint
communication were untrue and distorted. Due to his activities violating the law, Y-Ben H'Dok
was summoned on 28 April 2008 by the Agency for Investigation of Buon Ma Thuot at the
police headquarters of Tan An Wart. On 30 April 2008, according to a decision of the People's
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 56
Procuracy, the Agency for Investigation of Buon Ma Thuot provisionally detained him from
investigation. He confessed that he had conducted activities violating the law. The Government
indicated that, on 1 May 2008, he was found dead - having committed suicide by hanging with
his shirt - in the detention house of Tan An Wart. The police of Dak Lak province in
collaboration with other concerned agencies carried out investigation of the scene, decided to
send his dead body to the general hospital of Dak Lak province for a post-mortem examination
to find out reasons of his death, but his family did not agree with a post-mortem examination on
his dead body. His family voluntarily wrote a paper of guarantee, pledging to take his dead body
to his village for burial. Therefore, the reasons of his death could not be identified. According to
the Government, the professional agencies of Viet Nam are facing difficulties in sending dead
bodies for post-mortem examinations. The local people believe that a post-mortem examination
breaks their traditional custom and do not want a dead body to be examined.
213. With regard to Mup, the Government informed that on 26 August 2008, the People's
Committee of Kdang commune had invited him to its office to identify his activities contrary
to law provisions. When he finished his declaration, he was allowed to go home. On
27 August 2008, he committed suicide by hanging in a garden behind his house. When his
family members saw him, he was already dead. Local people said that he had symptoms of
mental disease. In the past, he attempted to commit suicide several times, but he was timely
taken care of His family certified that he was dead, because he had committed suicide by
hanging himself His family asked for permission to bury his dead body, refused a post-mortem
examination and did not submit a complaint about his death.
214. The Government further informed that in Viet Nam, there is a strong legal framework to
protect complainants and denunciators. Article 74 of the 1992 Constitution stipulates that
citizens have the right to lodge with any competent State authority a complaint or denunciation
regarding transgressions of the law by any State agencies, economic or social organizations,
people's armed force units or any individual; retaliation against complainants or denunciators is
strictly prohibited. Stipulations for dealing with wrong doings of individuals who take
responsibility to settle complaints, denunciations and dealing with heads of competent agencies,
organizations that do not apply necessary measures to prevent wrong doings of his/her
employees are provided in several provisions of the Penal Code, the Criminal Procedures Code,
the Civil Procedures Code, the Complaints and Denunciations law and of relevant Government
decrees. In addition, the following measures are applied by professional agencies - such as the
People's Court, the People's Procuracy, etc. - to protect complainants and denunciators: 1) to
receive complainants and denunciators in a friendly manner and to engage in a dialogue with
them in order to find out prompt solutions; 2) to guide the professional agencies at the lower
levels to strengthen their cooperation in dealing with complaints and denunciations; 3) to
guarantee the safety of complainants and denunciators.
Observations
215. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the response of the Government of the Socialist
Republic of Viet Nam. She would like to refer to General Assembly resolution 63/181 which
urges States “to step up their efforts to protect and promote freedom of thought, conscience,
religion and belief, and to this end to ensure that no one within their jurisdiction is deprived of
the right to life, liberty or security of person because of religion or belief and that no one is
subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or arbitrary
A/HRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 57
arrest or detention”. Similarly, the Human Rights Council resolution 6/37 urges States to “take
all necessary and appropriate action, in conformity with international standards of human rights,
to combat hatred, intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by
intolerance based on religion or belief, as well as incitement to hostility and violence, with
particular regard to religious minorities”. Furthermore, in letters sent to the Government on
28 March 2008 and 28 January 2009, the Special Rapporteur reiterated her wish to visit the
Socialist Republic of Viet Nam in the framework of her mandate.
Yemen
Urgent appeal sent on 28 August 2008 jointly with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the
Working group on Arbitrary Detention
216. The Special Procedures mandate holders brought to the attention of the Government
information they had received concerning the arrest and detention of Mr. Zia'u'llah
Pourahmari, Mr. Keyvan Qadari, Mr. Behrooz Rohani and Mr. Sayfi Ibrahim Sayfi, who are
members of the Baha'I community in Sana'a. On the night of 20-21 June 2008, national security
officials reportedly arrested six Bahá'I members in Sana'a, including the above mentioned
individuals as well as Mr. Walid Ayyash and Mr. Mohammad Al-Qulathi, who are both Yemeni
citizens, during raids in two private homes. Two days later, on 23 June 2008, eight individuals
(five of whom were armed) came with search warrants to the home of Dr. Moein Pourahmari
(the son of one of the detainees) which is used as a meeting place for the national and local
Baha'I Assemblies. The officials conducted a thorough search, photographed the rooms, and
confiscated files related to the Baha'I National Assembly as well as the Assembly's computer.
They specifically requested a list of all Baha'Is living in Yemen.
217. On 12 July 2008, national security officers came to get Mr. Sinan Sayfi, the son of another
one of the detainees, and interrogated him for two hours before releasing him later the same day.
They repeatedly asked him to write down the names of all the Baha'Is in Yemen and accused
him of spying for Israel. Reportedly, the six Baha'Is members, two of which are Yemeni,
three are of Iranian background and one is Iraqi, were detained without charge for six weeks and
held in solitary cells. On 2 August 2008, all six detainees were transferred to the “criminal
investigation jail”, where they remained in custody while their cases were being investigated
further.
218. Family members were eventually able to visit some of the detainees and at least one of
them had access to legal counsel. The lawyer was told that all six of them were being charged
with apostasy. The two Yemeni citizens, Mr. Walid Ayyash and Mr. Mohammad Al-Qulathi,
have reportedly been released in the meantime but it remains unclear whether all charges have
been dropped against them.
219. It is reported that a decision on the charges regarding Mr. Zia'u'llah Pourahmari,
Mr. Keyvan Qadari, Mr. Behrooz Rohani and Mr. Sayfi Ibrahim Sayfi is imminent and concerns
have been raised that they may be deported subsequently to the Islamic Republic of Iran or the
Republic of Iraq, respectively. Concerns were expressed that the arrest and detention of
Mr. Zia'u'llah Pourahmari, Mr. Keyvan Qadari, Mr. Behrooz Rohani and Mr. Sayfi Ibrahim
Sayfi might be solely connected to the exercise of their right to freedom of religion or belief
Further concern was expressed that in the event of their reportedly imminent deportation to Iran
or Iraq they might be subjected to arbitrary arrests and detention.
AIHRC/10/8/Add. 1
page 58
Observations
220. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a reply from the Government of
Yemen concerning the above mentioned concerns. According to information recently received,
Mr. Zia'u'llah Pourahmari (and his wife) of Iranian origin, as well as Mr. Sayfi Ibrahim Sayfi
(with his wife and children) of Iraqi origin, have been deported in January 2009, with the
assistance of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, to a destination other than
their countries of origin. However, Mr. Keyvan Qadari and Mr. Bebrooz Rohani are still in
Yemen.
221. The Special Rapporteur would like to refer to General Assembly resolution 63/18 1 which
urges States to “step up their efforts to protect and promote freedom of thought, conscience,
religion and belief, and to this end to ensure that no one within their jurisdiction is deprived of
the right to life, liberty or security of person because of religion or belief and that no one is
subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or arbitrary
arrest or detention”. Similarly, the Human Rights Council resolution 6/37 urges States to take all
necessary and appropriate action, in conformity with international standards of human rights, to
combat hatred, intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by
intolerance based on religion or belief, as well as incitement to hostility and violence, with
particular regard to religious minorities”.
