Aadel Collection
Report of the Economic and Social Council: Situation of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran
UNITED NATIONS General Assembly For ty-second sees ion Aqenda item 12 Distr. GENERAL A/42/648 12 October 1987 ORIGINALs ENGLISI REPORT OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCITa Situation of human rights in the Islam ic Republic of Iran Note by the Seoretary—Ganera] . The Secretary-General has the honour to transmit to the members of the General Assembly the interim report prepared by Mr. Reynaldo Galindo Pohl (El Salvador) • 8pecial Representative of the Commission on Human Riqhta on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, in accordance with paragraph 6 of Commission on Human Riqhts resolution 1987/55 of 11 March 1987 and Economic and Social Council decision 1987/150 of 29 May 1987. 87—24695 685].? (E) A I. S
A/4 2/643 English Page 2 ANNEX Intørim report on tht situation o human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, prepared by the Special Representative of the ., rnmission on Human Rights in accordance with Commission resolution 1987/55 and Economic and Social Council decision 19871150 CONTENTS I • INTRODUCTION ....... else s.c. i.e i.e 5 i . .s.ss l•S S lee II. ACTION TAKEN BY THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE I I I • INFORMATION AVAI LABLE TO THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE ... . A. Allegations o human rights violations 1. .)ral information . . . . . . . . . . , . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . 2. Written information . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . B. Information and comments provided or made available by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran IV. CONSIDERATIONS ANDOBSERVATIONS ...••..... .....•.....•.... A • Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Information provided by the Government of t he Islamic Republic of Iran . 2. Recent events in the Islamic Republic of iran 3. Co—operation from the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran B. Observations . •. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . Paragraphs 1—6 3 7—11 4 12—51 6 12—41 6 12—26 6 27—41 10 42—51 14 52—76 19 52—66 19 52—54 19 55—57 19 58—66 20 67—76 21 ,
A/42/64 U English Page 3 I. INThODU ZION 1. At its forty—third session, the Commission on wnan Rights decided, by its resolution 1987/55 of 11 March 1987, to extend the mandate of the Special Representative, as contained in Cc imiaaion resolution 1984/54 of 14 March 1984, for a further year and requested the Special Representative to present an interim report to the General Msinbly at its forty-second session on the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and a final report to the Commission at its forty -fourth session. 2. In compliance with paragraph 6 of Commission on Human Rights resolution 1987/55, the Special Representative subuuita herewith to the General Assembly at its forty-second session his interim report on the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 3. The interim report concentrates on some i'ems and issues that may give the General Aaoemb y an overview of the evolution of the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Islamic Republic of Iran during the period from Septenter 1986 to October 1987. Three documents constitute the framework ot the contents of the interim report. The first one is the final report preeftnted by the Special Representative to the Commission on Human Rights at its forty-third se iion ( /CN.4/1987/21) the other t ace documents that were provided by the overr Lt of the Islamic Republic of Iran on 9 June 1987. They are entitled 0Th. viewpoints of the Government of the Zalamic Republic of Iran on Commission on Human Rights resolution 1987/55” and “The viewpoints of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran on the issues contained in document 2/CN.4/l987/23 of 23 January 1987, prepared by Mr. K. Galindo Pohi, Special Representative of the Commission on Human Rights” (referred to hereafter as “The viewpoints”). Both docunentu are contained in document WCN.4/1988/12-E/CN.4/Sub2/1987/35. 4. The interim report focuses on cectain developments in the Islamic Repubi.ic of Iran, the allegatic.ns received so far, the declarations of a nu er of peraons who appeared before the Special Representative and the Improvement of' oo-operation from the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 5. Some of! the issues discussed at length by the Government of the Islamic Republic of iran in the documents rt'ferred to above will be dealt with in some detail in the final report to the Ccinmisa ion on Human Rights. These will include the compatibility of international law with Islamic law, the use of certain terms, and the objections raised in respect to the lists of people alleging violations of their human rights and fundwnental freedoms. 6. The present: interim report contains three main sectionat a section describing the action taken by the Special R.presentative since the renewal of his mandate by the Commission on Human Rights) a section describing the information available to the Special Representative, consisting of the following aubsectionas (a) oral and written information received by the Special Representative regarding alleged violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and (b) information and comments provided or made available by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and a final necti n which contains the considerations and observations of the Special Representative.
A/42/64 8 Y ngl ish P qe 4 II. ACTION TAKEN BY THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE 7. Followinq the adoption by the Commission on Human Riqhta of resolution 1987/55. the Special Representative, on 13 April 1987, addressed a latt'ir to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, transmitting to him the text of that resolution and reiteratjnq his atronq conviction of the importance of maintaining and further enhancing direct contacts with the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran in order to discharge fully his responsibilities as arecial Representative of the Commission. The letter read as tollowas ‘I have the honour to refer to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1987/55 concerninqthe human rights situation in the Islamic epub1io of Iran, of which the text is attached. As Your Excellency may note, the Commission on Human Rights decided to extend my mandate as its Special Representative for a further year end requested me to present an interim report to the General Assembly at its forty—second session and a final report to the Commission at its forty—fourth session. w 1 should like to assure Your Excellency, as I had already done following my appointment as Special Representative of the Commission, that I intend to carry out the mandate end the responsibilities with which the Commission has entrusted me in a spirit of total objectivity and impartiality. “1 should like to take this opportunity to reiterate my etronq conviction that in order to discharge fully my responsibilities, it is essential that direct contacts with Your Excellency's Government be maintained and further enhanced. 8. On 9 June 1987, the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic cf Iran to the United Nations Office at Geneva addressed a note verbale and tw documents to the Under—Secretary—Genera]. for Human Rights (contained in document E/CN.4/1988/12—E/CN.4/S b.2/l987/35). The nutS verbale contained a suqqeation that, after the Special Representative examined the documents and expressed hi.e opinion thereon, a meetinq could be arranqed between off iciali' of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Special Representative, with a view to explorinq further ways to remove the present difficulties for effective co-operation. 9. Having examined the note verbale and the enclosed documents, the Special Representative, on 22 July 1987, addressed a letter to the Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations Office at Geneva, by which he welcomed the suggestion that a meetinq be held between off icia.a of the Islamic Republic of Iran and himself. The letter read as followes I wish to refer to the note verbale and eno1osur a of 9 June 1981 from the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations Office at Ogneva addressed to the Under—Secretary -Genera1 for Human Rights. I note the suggestion made in the note verbale to the effect that a meeting be arranged between ot oia1s of the Islamic Republic of Iran and myself after I have had the opportunity to examine these documents.
A/ 42/648 Engi tab Page 5 Havinq done uo, I noto with appreciation that they contain a certain number of positive and encouraqinq elements, as exemplified by paraqraphs 12 And 13 of the eeoond document entitled ‘Viewpoints of the Government of the Islamic Ropubilo of Iran & n the iasuoe contained in the document E/CN 4/1987/23 of 23 January 1987, prepared by Mr. R. Galindo Pohl, Special Representative of the Commission on Human Rights', by which the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran expresses its oontjnuir%q adherence to the provisions of articles 6, 7, 9, 14 and 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Riqhta. Nevertheleca, differences of opinion still exist on some points. It is my opinion, however, that, instead of tormalizinq pO8itiOfle on papei, a more flexible approach could be tc nqaqo in a oonutruutive and fruitful dialogue, with a view to clarifying the respective views and, eventually, finaling a more comprehensive basis of mutual undorotandinq. 10. On 28 July 1987, a meeting wee hold at the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of It n to the United Nations Office at Geneva between the Special Representative and the Director of International Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mr. Sirous Naseeri. The latter explained that his Government cou. d not respond to the detailed allegations submitted to it previously by the 8pocial Representative and by his predecessor, since it considered the various resolutions adopted by the Commission on Human Riqhtl regarding the human rights situation tn his country as politically biased and, therefore, totally unacceptable. The Go ernmont of the Islamic Republic of Iran further rejected the form in which such allegations had bean submitted to it, and in particular the mention by name 01 certain unreaoqntzed groups which it considers as terrorist groups and the reference to the Baha'is as constituting a religious minority. The Special Representative conveyed to Mr. Nasseri his concern about the protection of individual human beings in Iran, of whichever religious or politiosi convictions and explained the motivations of the actions he had tdkefl. Furthermore, he requested an English or French translation of the Iranian Penal Code and other related leqal texts. Roth aides expressed satisfaction that a dialogue on concrete issues had been poned and hoped that it would continue and develop further. 11. On 30 September 1987 the Special Representative addressed a latter to the Ambassador of the Islamic Republic o Iran to the United Nations Office at Geneva. communicatinq to him two summaries of oral and written intormetior' containing allegations of human riqhta violations in Iran. The letter read as tol]owss TM Aa you may recall, durinq my visit to Geneva in July 1987, I conducted, iL. the framework of my mandate under Commission on Human Rights resolution 1987/55, a series of informal hearings with a number of persona who claimed to have first—hand knowladqe and experience of various aspects of the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran. A summary of the alloqations made in the course of those hearinqs in enclosed herewith for your information. I. .
A/4 2/648 English Page 6 “A summary of allegations covering the period October 1986— September 1987, which were included in documents provided to me by various organizations and bodies concerned, is also enclosed herewith. “Given the nature of the allegations contained in these enclosures, I deem it appropriate to draw Your Excellency's attention to their contents. In so doing, I would greatly appreciate receiving any information or comments that Your Excellency's Government may wish to provide. “I would like to seize this opportunity to express the hope that the dialogue begun on the occasion of the meeting held between Mr. Nasaeri and myself in the framework of my mandate as Special Representative will continue and further develop.” III. INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE A. Allegations of human rights violations 1. Oral. information 12. On 22, 23 and 29 July 1987, the Special Representative conducted a series of informal hearings in the course of which 14 persons who claimed to have first—hand knowledge and experience of various aspects of the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran described their experience and presented certain documents to corroborate their allegations. Nine of the persons received by the Special Representative were Baha'is, who requested that their identity should not be revealed. The others described themselves as sympathizers of the Mojahedin organization who did not take any active part in the organization's activities, 13. They were, in order of appearance before the Special Representativ 1 Mrs. Jaleb Fa1lah Mr. Javad Keshavaz, Miss Shahnaz Ebsanian, Mr. Au Akba beh and Mr. AU Amani. All the persons appearing before the Special Represe t ti stated that they bad spent periods of various duration in prisons in Ir n aM consequently, they described in detail the circumstances of their arrest, n 1r interrogation methods, their trial and the conditions prevailing in the p isont in which they were held. Most of these persons left the country in the late months of 1986 and in early 1987. Several of them affirmed that they had close relatives or acquaintances who were executed, or had themselves witnessed executions. The followers of the Baha'i faith also described their personal experience, and that of their co—religionists. 14. Following is a summary of the information collected by the Special Representotive, during the informal hearings held on 22, 23 and 29 July 1987, grouped, as in his previous reports to the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights, in five sections, in keeping with pertinent articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: (a) right to life; (b) right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; (c) right to liberty and security of person; Cd) right to a fair trial; and (a) right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and to freedom of expression. I. .
/ 42/648 Enq lieh Page 7 (a) Right to life 15. Mrs. Jaleh Fallah stated that her husband was exeouted in September 1986, in the Evin prison area. Her husband's brother had been executed in January 1984. Mr. Javad Keshavax stated that he had witnessed numerous executions in Vakilabad prison, near Mashad. Among those whose execution he witnessed were a 16—year-old youth, Akbar Adalatian, and a woman together with her young son. Mother youth from Mashed was executed in t e prison by 1! .anqinq from a crane. Mise *3hahnaz Ehaanian stated that her brother had been executed and that, for that reason she was not e*ecuted although a revolutionary prosecutor had requested that she be sentenced to death. Mr. Au. Askar T beh stated that, while he wee held at the Sepeleh prison, other inmates who had been sentenced to prison terms were all of a sudden exeouteG. One person who was with him in another prison, Au Zamanian, was executed after being severely beaton. Mr. Au Amani stated that a person whose name was not given was imprisoned with him and was executed in t'ia cell after crying sloqans hostile to the Government, Some of the followers of the Baha'i also stated that members of their family or other acquaintances, often active members of the Baha'i community, had been executed. No additional details sere communicated with reqard to the alleged executions referred to above. (b) Right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degradinq treatment or punishment V. All the persons who appeared before the Special Representative alleged havinq been subjected to ill—treatment and to physical and psycholoqical torture. Beatings often started upon arrest: it was, however, during their interrogation that these pers n alleqedly suffered thy moat severs. forms of torture, including floqqinq with cables on all parts of the body, denial of food and sleep, torture of one's spouse before one's eyes and mock—executions. 17. Some of the persons stated that they were still suffering from various ailments and physical or psychological disorders as a result of the torture inflicted on them in prison. Thus, Mrs. Jaleh Valleh was still uffering from epileptic attacks, because of ..epeated blows on her head. Mr. Amani had his arm and several teeth broken, allegedly as a result of harsh beating. AL ]. the persons appear ing before the 3pecial Representative stated that ill—treatment was not confined to the interrogation staqe, when i was allegedly inflicted in order to extract information and con c 'E tons, but that it continued even after sentences were pron'unced. 18. The 8pe' ia1 Representativu received medical certificates established by Dr. Ebrahim JeddL, M.D., of Baghdad, Iraq. with regard to four of the persona who appeared before him: Au Askar Tabeh, Javad Keahavaz, Jaleh Fal].a and Shahnaz Ehsanian The certificates were dated 19 July 1987 and attested that, considering the past history of these Dereons and their existing phyaJ' al and psychological conditions, the description of their experience was compatible with their alleqed torture. The Special Representative, aware of the continuirtq war between Iran and Iraq, deems that the medical certificates issued by an Iraqi physician, living in Iraq, should be considered with reservations. I. .
A/42/648 Enqi ish Paqe 8 19. With reqard to Mr. A].i Amani, the Special Representative received a medical certificate established at Ankara in April 1987 by a French physician, Dr. H4].ène Jaffé, President of the “Association pour lea victimea de la repression en exit” (AURE), Paris. which attested the followings “The examination was done superficially because of the limited time available and the lack of medical equipment. It confirms the followinqs scars suqqeatinq cigarette or ciqar burns; traumatism of the elbow, which has a ‘flattened' look and makes a crackinq sound when it is moved (dislocation/fracture probably datinq back to 1983 ; nasal obstruction and curved nose—bridge (fracture of the septum?); testicle not in left part of scrotum. Fully developed testicle can be felt in fingertip—sized inquinal canal, which is swollen and painful. Normal—lookinq riqht testicle is in place — inguinal canal is permeable and sensitive; athlete's foot; oedematous, ‘pulpy' sole; uneven gait) several broken or misoing teeth.” 20. According to all the persons who appeared before the Special Representative, conditions in the prisons in which they were held wire extremely poor. The most frequent complaints concerned overurowdinq, very bad hygiene, poor quality and guant ,ty of food, lack of access to doctors and to medicine and denial of family visits. Prisons where conditions were allegedly particularly bad included Ohe2.el—Heear in Karaj, Gohar—Dasht, Vakilabad, Iranahahr and Evin, in Tehran. (C) Right to liberty and security of person 21. All persons appearing before the Special Representative invariably described the circumstances of their arrest as excessively harsh. In all the cases no warrant of arrest was shown. In many cases, .persons were apprehended in the street and led, blindfolded, to an interroqation centre, where ill—treatment was applied immediately upon arrival. In most of the cases, no explanation or reason were given to the detainees reqardinq their arrest. Some of the por.gons stated that revolutionary guards had arrested other members of their family, including very elderly persons, as hostages, in cases when the persons wanted by them could not be found. Others stated they had been arrested in the place of other family memb ra who were wanted by the guards. (d) Right to a fair trial 22. Followinq are statements made by some of the persons a .pearinq before the Special Representative regarding the circumstances under which their trial was held. (1) Mrs. Ja].eh Fallah stated that, during her imprisonment, she was convened on three o c sions, in 1981, 1985 and 1986, by a reliqious judge who was sitting alone. This took place in the Evin prison. Each time she was asked whether she would renounce her political sympathies. On the first occasion, when she refused, the judge sentenced her to be executed. She was never qiv n any access to a leqal defence. Each time the whole procedure took two or three minutes. (2) Mr. Javad lceshavaz affirmed that his trial was held inside the Mashad prinon. The Iate of the trial was not communicated. He w. s sentenced to one / . .
A/ 42/648 Enqi ish Page 9 yeai's imprisonment and three years' suspended term. But three month s later ha learned that his oentenoe had been increased to four years' imprisonment. (3) Mr. Au Amani was put on trial in January 1984, nine months after his arrest. During his trial, he was oonstanUy insulted. After the accusations ware read out and he denied t. em , the sentence was not pronounced and he was taken away. He was never i ru d of the contents of his sentence. The entire procedure took less than five minut . He had no access to Legal defence. (4) A follower of the Saha'i faith stated that three persons attended his trial, a mollah, a judqe and a clerk. No lawyer was present. The accusations consisted of participation in Baha'i meetings, membership of Baha'i administration, possession of Baha'i material rnd helping Israel. Another Baha'i appearing before the Special Representative stited that his trial lasted for about 20 minutes. A judge named Gilani accused him of spying for Israul, qoinq there on several occasions and aendinq money there. (e Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and to freedom of exprea ion 23. The followers of the Baha'i faith appearing before the Spacial Representative described various instances of persecution and harassment to which they personally or their family members, h d been subjected. Some of them attached various documents tz confirm their alleqations. Several have close family members who were executed or were killed by incited mobs. Most of them spent periods of various duration in prison and ware themselves victims of beating and ill—treatment or were witnesses to other co—reliqionista being beaten and ill—treated. 24. In moot cases they and their family members suffered from harassment and various restrictions atfeotinq their livelihood, access to education and other aspects of their daily life. In one instance, the case of a murder of a Saha'i was dropped, although the murderers were known to the police and a file of evidence had been sent to the attorney—qeneral. The police advised the victim a family not to pursue their complaint. 25. In another instance a former civil servant who was dismissed from his job submitted to the Special Representative a translation of an official document informinq him of his dismissal from service without any explanation, the document stated the followings it is obvious that you will have no position and no rights in this organization whatsoever from the date of the diemisoal. The same person's daughters were prevented from oontinuinq school. When.one of them inquired about the reason, she received a written reply from the chancellor of the university concerned, announoinq that Njp reply to the letter dated ... with reqard to the reason for preve stinq you to continue education, this is to inform you, that as announced by the Ministry of Culture and Higher Education, because of your being a member of the misled sect, of Baha'ism, your admission is not possible according to paragraph 1, of article 11, of the Ministry's directions. The daughter of another person produced a simil&r document which attested that N• accordinq to the order of Karaj Ministry of Education, since Baha'iam is not racoqnized as an official religion, she cannot continue her education at the Islamic educational centre. . .
A/42/648 Enqi. ish Page 10 Since the above-mentioneu student is a Professional Baha'i and believes in Daha'iam, her dossier has been submitted to herself . A Baha'i pharmacist and his wif' were dismissed from their oba. Ilocordinq to a document presented to the Special Representative, he was dismissed “consider inq the provisions under Directive No. 7560 dated 31 December 1980 of the Ministry (of Health) • since it was inconsistent with the restrictions and regulations stated under Arti. le 14 of the Civil Service Act, due to faith corruption •,.‘. The Special Representative received several other documents to the sama effect. 26. One of the Bahis'is appearinq before the Special Representative alleqed havinq been severely harassed and ill—treated after it was discovered that he had married a Moslem wife. Pressure was exerted on him to separate from his wife and children, since his marriaqa was considered illegal and his children illeqitimate. He was told that, if ha racanta( his faith and converted to Islam, he could remarry hi wife. He was forced to sign a paper to that affect in order to be released from prison. Other Baha'ia also stated that it had constantly been made clear to them that, if they recanted their faith, all measures against them would cease and they could regain their posts and studies. 2. WrItten information 27. The Special Representative has continued to receive written information made available to him by various bodies concerned, includinq non—governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council. That information contained allegations of human rights violations in the Islamic Republic of Iran of a similar nature to those reflected in previous reports of the Special Representittive and his predecessor. A summary of such allegations is reproduced below. (a) tqht to life 28. Accordinq to information made available to the Special Representative, some 100 persona were a] .leqedly executed in the Islamic Republic of Iran in the period October 1986 to September 1987. The charges against these persons were not communicated to the Special Representative. According to the sources that made the allegations, these persons had been executed because of their political or religious convictions. It was alleged that all of them had been tortured prior to their executions and that some were tortured to death. 29. Followinq are the names of persons who were allegedly executed or who died under torture and, when available, the date and place of their execution or death. Ahmad Kavih, 26 January 1987, at isfahanp Tahereh Pour. Baqer Dehkordi, Rahman Shojaie and Jala]. Ramezani, March 1987, at Istahan. Surush Jabbari and Abul Qaeim Shayiq March 1987. at Tehran. Sheida Behzadi and Maasoud Hojati, March 198 7 p Said Samani, Reza Lofti, Mohamed AU Tzafari, Behrouz Afuari, April 1987. at Tehr an p . .
A/42/648 English Pego U Kiomars Shahi, May 1987, at Tehranp In addition, it was alleged that Mohamed Reza Ghabrai, Raziyeddin Taban and Jahanqir Behtaji had bean executed. The date of their alleged execution was not communicated to the Special Representative. 30. It was further alleged that, on aevara]. occasions, mobs or individuals, allegedly incited by reliqious officials, killed followers of the Baha'i faith without any action taken by the authorities to prosecute those responsible for the kiflinqe. The names of two victims ware oomznunioated to the Special Representative: Bijan Ta].ibi, killed on 2 September 1986 in the village of ‘lardavard . near Karaj, and Xraj Mihdi-Nizhad, killed on 4 September 1986 at Bandar—Abbas. (See also sect. III, eubsact. A Cd).) (b) Right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 31. I'toat of the specific allegations onmmunicated to the Special Representative under this section concerned the treatment of detainees in Iranian prisons and the conditions prevailing therein. There were also a number of specific a]1eqe tions regarding methods of torture applied in Iran to prisoners und a number of individual oases of prisoners who had alleqodly been subjected to tortur . Th.I written information concerning torture and ill—treatment of detainees is consistent with the oral information referred to above. Cc) Right to liberty and security of peraun 32. V'ouowinq are some of the specific allegations communicated to the Special Meprtse ttatives (1) According to communications dated 30 March and 10 April 1987, the Iranian Deputy—Minister of Information had stated on 18 March 1987 that, during the summer of 1986, around 700 persons had been arrested and imprisoned allegedly for political reasons. It wan alleged that arrests had been carried out in sscrocy. by abducting persons in the street;B, homes and working places, and that no details were given to the families of the detainees' whereabouts. (2) In May 1987, ..t was alleged that Evin prison officials were authorized to detain and keep in custody what was described as ‘objecting visitors of political prisoners' for up to 10 days. It was further alleged that many political prisoners who had served their term of prison continued to be imprisoned. Cd) Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and to freedom of expression 33. Allegations communicated to the Special Representative u der th .s section principally concerned the situation of followers of the Baha'i faith — as a community and as individuals — in the Islamic Republic of Iran. According to information received by the Special 1 epresentative, relative to the period July 1986 to June 1987, executions of Baha'is continued, albeit at a lower level I. .
A/42/64 a Enq]. ish Page 12 than in previous years. Six followers of the Baha'i faith were alleqedly executed during the p.riod under consideration. In addition, four Baha'iu, inoludinq two youths of 15 and 16. were killed by mobs that were alleqedly incited by reliqious officials. It was further alleged that the judicial authorities took no steps to brinq those responsible for the killings to justice, even when their identities were known. In two cases, the victims' relatives were alleqedly themselves imprisoned when they complained to the authorities about the murders. 34. Followers of the Baha'i faith allegedly continued to be subjected to summary arras and detention without trial. By June 1987, some 200 Baha'is were in detention, allegedly solely because of their faith. This reportedly represented a significant drop from earlier tiqurea, following the release of a larqe number of Baha'js who had completed their prison term or were released after beinq imprisoned without trial. Another 200 were released on bail on condition that they must return to prison whenever ordered to do so by the authorities. 35. Baha'i children at primary and secondary levels were reportedly qraduully beinq readmitted to school, but were alleqedly being subjected to constant pressure and indoctrination and to threats of beinq prevented from taking their examinations unless they renounced their faith. Mmiesion to universities and other institutions of higher education was allegedly forbidden to Baha'is. 36. Economic pressure and harassment allegedly continued. Employment in governmental or pare—governmental institutions, includinq hospitals and schools, allegedly continued to be denied to Baha'ia. The seizure of business enterprises and of real and personal property of Baha'iu alleqe 1y persisted. Saha'i merohiinte, shop owners and businessmen allegedly had their liconces withdr wn and were thus deprived of their moans of livelihood. Baha'is living in certain rural areas of the country had a .teqod1y been driven out of their homes, farms and orchards and the properties were subsequently sold. In cases where Saha'is had rented out their properties, the tenants were told that the rent should be paid to government agencies. 37. Baha'i cemeteries allegedly contirued to be desecrated and closed. In many cities, including Tehran, Raeht, Tunikaban, Urumiyih, Yazd, l4amadan, Qazvin, Kar j and Mashad, the Saha'ie had difficulty in burying their dead. 38. The riqht to leave Iran legally w s allegedly otill denied to Baha'is, who were allegedly required to recant their faith in order to obtain a passport and exit permit. 39. Baha'is were alleqedly denied re].iqious freedom in all its aspects. This included the prohibition from maniteattnq their faith, meeting as a community, maintaining places of worship, teachinq their faith and disseminatinq their literature. Former members of Baha'i administrative institutions, which were disbanded in 1983, continued to be persecuted / the authorities and were alleqedly victims of torture when they were arrested and imprisoned. All Baha'i holy places and religious sites in Iran had allegedly been s.onfiscated and many, includinq the holiest Baha'i shrine in Iran, had allegedly been totally destroyed.
A/4 2/64 U Engliub Page 13 40. Xn addition to that information, the Special Representative received copies of Iranian court rulinqu which denied redress or compensation to the tam,t3ies of two Baha'is killed by Muslims, on the qrounds that the Baha'i victims were “unprotected infidels”. The first case concerned a Muslim driver who had killed a Baha'i in a traffic ar,' ident. Following are excerpts of the court ruling, as translated from the Persian lanquaqoi “In reviewing File No. ... and in consideration of the reports of the clerks of the Ministry of Justice, and of the views of the official experts of the Ministry of Juet&oe, and of the adviser of t e Court. as well as the evidence reflected in the file pertaining to the casa of Mr. ..., who is 23 years old and accused of manslaughter caused by driving a motor vehicle without observance of the Government traffic rules, the Court is certain that the accused is quil.ty. However, as far as the fine and payment of damages are concerned, ., . since the viotip was a member of the m iaquidad and misleading Baha'i community and is considered as an unprotected infidel, and u nce there is no explicit provision in Islamic laws about damaqes and tines payable to unp .oteoted intidels consideri' q all the points mentioned above, the Court rules that the accused is relieved of any obligation (towards the family of the victim). However, because of his negliqenc of traffic rules, he ia sentenced to three months disciplinary imprisonment in accordance with Article 1.49 of the Penal Code.” (Signed) Bultani (Judge of the No. 1 Penal Court of Teheran, Branch 3.46). 41. The second case concerned a Muslim who was accused of delivering a premeditated blow to a Baha'i, resulting in the latter's death. The document, written on an official interroqation and minutes sheet bearing the letterhead of he Ministry of Justice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, as translated from the Persian lanquaqo, reads as followsi “With reference to the case of Mr. ... who is accused of delivering a premeditated blow to ... resulting in his death, and concerning the contents of the tileu of the invostiqation as well as the statements of the relativo. of the deceased, reflected in the minutes of the Court dated 1 October 1964, it is stated that their eon (the victim) was a Baha'i. There is nothing in the files to onteut this claim. The question is that, in the law of punishments and fines, there is no provision that clearly states that Muslims are not to be punished or fined in a case involving a Raha'i claimant. “The accused has not yet been called for investigation and hear inq of the charges. (We therefore request) that you please deliver your decision, taking into consideration the law of the Fitwas (religious decrees) about this cas . ” (Signature illegible) Counsel of the Court. The reply from the President of the Court written unde the question on the same of ficial sheet reads as followos “Considering that the one who was killed was, according to the testimony of his father and mother, a Baha'i, and was following the laws ane customs of Baha'iam, and also taking into consideration the Fitwas of the famous I. .
4 2/64 8 nql ish Ps ie 14 theologians, ... which states that infidels c anriot receive money derived from non-Muslim citisena (followers of the 800k) t.e. Christians and Jews) and are not to be compensated (by Muslims), the natural conclusion would be that such (infidels) cannot claim QISM (retaliatory puvsishment). Xrreupeotive of the right or wrong of the above (conclusion), the verdict is hereby iHuued that the defendant should not be prosecuted.' 8 qned) Rida'f, President of the Court. B. information and comments p ovid.d or madeavailable by the Government of the Islamic Re u ,1ioof Iran 42. The Bpeoial. Representative considered material that was provided, or made available to him, by the Government of the Islasto Republic of Iran, as we].]. as statements and declarations by Iranian officials at v,tioue United Nations bodies. pollowing are views off the Government of thu Islamic V epublic of Iran, reqardinq soise of the issues referred to in subsection 1. of section XII, as reflected in the above mentioned material and atatementas 41. with r.qard to the riqht to life, the Gove tment of the I laniio Republic of Xt n on sev.ral occasions expressed the view tha the provisions of artiule 6 of the tnt rnational Covenant on Civil and Political R qhts were in conformity with the Islamic law prevailing in that country. This view was most recently expressed in 9th. viewpoints'. Paragraph 12 of that doc.uitent states the following: ‘With respect to the right to life, the I3lamio Republic of Iran finds the provisions of articLe 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and political Rights mainly in conformity with 1s.dmio law. Application of the death penalty is only called for in the cases of the moat serious crimes and requires the consent of the Supreme Judicial Council, the highest judicial authority in the Islamic Republic of Iran.' 44. The Government of the Islamic Republic of iran has provided the Special a.pr.s.ntative with a very large amo nt of materis 1 ., describing in great detail acts of sebâtaqe and terrorism that had been perpetrated in Iran since 1980, resulting in tho death of a large number of aiviliaho, inoludinq Government officials, elderly people, women and children. The perpetrators of these aLts were allegedly members of groups that have been providing the Special Representative with information containing allegations of human ghts violations by Iranian qovernm.nt agents. A document entitled Dimenstonu of terrorist crimes , puL liahed in F.bruary 1986 by tli. Public Relations Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ot the Islamic Republic of Iran, describes in detail acts of terrorisa perpetrated in Iran in the years 1981 and 1982. Acoord nq to that publication, thos. acts included assaults on Friday prayer inure, the country's authorities and i.adinq personalities, assaults on banks, assaults on cultural, centres, news agencies and newspaper offices, aaau1te on Islaraia associations, assaults on governmental organizations, assaults on schools and teachers, assaults on mosques and Islamic scholars and assaults on shopkeepers. All these aota were reportedly perpetrated by members of the I%ojahedin group, which claimed responsibility for then in its various publications. In another booklet entitled ‘Commands of . S
A/42/64 8 Engi ish Page 15 terrorist activity”, published by the same department on the same date. it is stated that on 12 August 1983, AU Zarkesh, deputy of (Mojahedin leader) Massoud Rajavi, i suod a statement reporting that 2,800 persons were assassinated in one your from 20 June 1902 to 20 June 1983. Among the victims were very high—tanking clergy and 40 coninandoru of the Revolutionary Guards Corps. Another booklet published by the same department, entitled “Victims of terrorism”, includes a list of several hundred names of persons who were killed indiscriminately by terrorists in their houses, streets or while at work. It was alleged that the Mojahadin organization had claimed responsibility for many of these killings. Other booklets describe in detail instances of torture inflicted by members of the Mojahedin organization on civilians. No information has been received regarding possible recent terrorist activities in the country. 45. A recent illustration of the Iranian position on erroriam may be seen in “The viewpoints”, paragrahs 14 to 17, which roads as followat “... People's t'bjahcdin Organization is the main source of the Special Representative, as the majority of the so-called allegations have been produced by this organization. People's 1.bjahedin is a terrorist organization with iho headquarters based at Baghdad. They hold military bases in the territory of Iraq from where espionage and military activities are conducted alongside the military forces of Iraq against the Islamic Republic of Iran ... They are also involved in acts of sabotage in factories, farms and other resources and wealth of the Iranian people. Their activities have, in general, been a throat to the “life of the nation” as they have engaged in a direct confrontation with our people on all fronts, including the war imposed by foreign forces. “On this basis, it is clear that the People's Mojahedin Organization oar ot, by any moans, be considered a political group eligible to enjoy the same rights as other legally recognized political groups end parties. On the other hand, our information related to the names of members, and sympathizers of this group, particularly those with whom the Special Representative has met, reveals that they have acquired citizenship from Iraq and are not recognized as Iranians. At the same time, these members, along with their leadership, arc being handsomely paid by Iraq, the country currently at war with the Islamic Republic of Iran, to engage in combat and other military activities on the front, as well as within the Iranian territory, against Iranians. They are therefore collaborators with the enemy at wartime and may, at best, be considered as mercenaries whose definition and rights are &‘sctibed in article 47 of Protocol I, supplementary to the Third Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949. Before addressing any individual case, therefore, the legal status of these persons needs to be clarified by the Special Ropresentat ive. “The Tudeh Party is well known as a surrogate organization whose members are subjects of a foreign country. People's F' edaian Organization is a faction of the People's Fodai Guerrillas which split over some ideolegioal disputes and choice of alliance with foreign Governments.” . S
A/S 2/648 English Page 16 46 As regards the right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatwent or punishment, the Government of the Telamic Republic of Iran has, on several occasions, stated that torture was forbidden by its constitution. In a document entitled “Report on the performance of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1985”, submitted to the Special. Representative by the Mthiutry of Foreign At faire of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which was attached as annex IV to the report of the former Special Representative to the General Assembly at its fortieth session (A/40/874), the following was stated regarding this questions “In a ordance with article 38 of the Cons itutio ial Law of the Islamic public of Iran, any kind of torture exercised to extort confession from the prisoner is forbidden threatening third parties to beat testimony or to take oat” is not permissible and such a testimony, confession or oath is of no value. The violator of this article shall be penalized. To this end, the lawmaker has formulated re julations which shall severely punish the violator. “In conformity with Islamic Penal Code, approved n 18 May 1983, and according to article 58; ‘If a prison staff, or one of the judicial officials molestu or applies corporal punishment on the accused to extort a confession, he Bhall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment ranging from six months to three years, and that, in case the convict dies, the individual responsible shall be condemned to death. Furthermore, the legislator has banned any kind of molestation even if it is not aimed at extorting a confession or any information, in which case the violator shall be severely punished. “1 ccording to article 62 of the Islamic Penal Code, ratified on 18 May 1983; ‘In the case of one of the judicial or non—judicial staff molesting or having the prisoner molested without legal consent, he shall have to pay mulct or be flogged 74 times in compliance with Retribution. Mo even if a prison official commits an illegal act in the process of enforcing the law, he shall be punished for article 59 of the Islamic Penal Code utipulatest Whenever an official chastises the convict or has him punished more severely than he should, he shall be punished either in compliance with Retribution or shall have to pay mulct, otherwise the violator shall be sentenced either to an imprisonment term ranging from six months to three y ars or to any other punishment cons luient with the type of crime he has perpetrated. 47. In this context, it may be noted that the Iranian Charge d'affaires in Paris, Ghulamreza Haddadi, wan quoted by the Iranian English language newspaper “Kayhan International TM , of 23 May 1987, as stating, in reaction to an Amnesty International report alleging tDrture of Iranian prisoners; “Torturing the prisoners in Iran is forbidden in accordance with the Islamic law ... None of the instances of alleged torture have specific sources and even the hypothetical victims are not identified. Moreover, the illustrated documents are not related to Iran ... No one in the Islamic Repub1 c of Iran is threatened or detained becau c of his ideological beliefs”. I. .
A/42/64 8 ) ngl ish Page 17 48. Au reqarda the riqht to liberty and security of pucuonu, the document rstu rad to above (A/40/874, annex IV), states the followings 0 Artiolo 32 of the Constitutional Law atipulateus ‘No one may b arrested except as dictated by law. In case of arrest, the accused must be immediately informed or the reason for hi. detention, irs writinq, and within 24 hours at the latest, a preliminary file must be placed in the hands of a competent judge and the trial proceedings must be initiated as soon as possible. The violator of this provision shall be punished according to the law. NThorutoru, the above—mentioned provisiun ha3 not only secured the individual against wilful arrest, but the conditions for the arrest following the perpetration of a crime have also been stipulated and the official shall place a tile in the handa of competent judqe within 24 hours. The Islamic Penal Code approved on 18 May 1983, in it. article 71, has pointed out the luqal punishment for any illegal arrest. The said provision shall affect all the government judicial or non-judicial officials and even ordinary citizens, as stated in article 71* ‘Any one of the government hiqh—rankinq officials or officers of the three eovoreiqn powers (the legislative, the executive or the judiciary) without haiPinq any order i suud by thu competent authorities, except the instances dictated by law, detains or sends an individual to prison and/or forcibly continua him in a place, ho shall be condemned to an imprisonment term ranging from six monthu to three years and/or he shall be divested of his position. Thu individual who has knowingly sit up a hiding place to commit such a crime shall be roqarded as an accomplice who shall be floqqod 74 timei and/or be sentenced to an imprisonment term ranqinq from three to six months and, in either case, he shall be divested of his position for five years. Xt the violator releases the detainee prior to prosecution and in case the length of detention does not exceed five days iso shall be sentenced to an imprisonment tens ranqinq from t to six months.' Further, in the same document, the following is utatuds 1 1n the Islamic Republic of Iran, the guardians of thu peace (the Police and Gendarmerie tot ordinary crimes, and the revolutionary committees for terrorist crimes) can arrest the accused in cases of obvious crimes arid present to the examiner the reasons for the charge and arrest in 24 hours. TL'oue found in violation of their specified duties shall be prosecuted according to the procedures mentioned above in paragraphs 16 to 26. 49. Au regards the viewpoint of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning the situation of the Baha'i community in that country, the Special Representative has received over the past few yoarc a coneidurable amount of material provided by the iovornusunt, including declarations and statements by
A/42/648 } nq1ish Paqe 18 Iranian officials. The Iranian Government has systematically refused to recognize the flaha'ia as a religious minority. SO. A recent illustration on the Iranian Government's position regarding the Baha'is may be seen in The viewpoints , paragraph 18 of which states as follows: “Baha'ism is a foreign—affiliated political movement established through the then tearist Russia and Great Hritain as a means to ensure their colonial interests and long—term objectives in Iran. All activities of this political movement, disguised as a religion, either directly or through other conspiratorial means, have been aimed at the subversion of the Governments in Iran and gradual obliteration of Islam as the established faith and unifying base of the Iranian people. Such subversive activities were only diminished during the latter period of the Pahiavi régime when they infiltrated all segments of the Government and held high positions in the Army and in SAV , the Shah's notorious secret police. Most of the Shah's policies, in respect to both internal and external affairs, were practically formulated and executed by the Baha'is. This is despite their claim that Bahz 'is are forbidden to become involved in partisan politics or to hold any political post. The Baha'is also maintain that they are obedient to the Government of the country in which they live, and preach non—violence. Their brief history is to the contrary, filled with long periods of riots and armed rebellion against the established Governments in Iran and other countries in the Islamic wor1i. 51. As regards the right to freedom of expression and the prosecution of persons for their political beliefs, the document referred to above (A/40/874, annex IV), stated the following: No one is prosecuted in the Islamic Republic of Iran for his political beliefs. Accorainq to Principle 23 of the Constitution: ‘inquisition into beliefs is prohibited and no one should be persecuted and remonstrated merely for holding a belief'. s... However, creating organizations and group activities for the purpose of propagating corruption and overt campaign against Islam upon which the I laaic Republic of Iran is based and for whose propagation it is founded may be considered as detrimental to the national security and in opposition to the system of the Islamic Republic; nctivities of these organizations and other similar organizations may be considered as counter—revolutionary and membership of such organizations could be considered a crime. These crimes, being as they are crimes against security or terrorist crimes, are not in fact r clitical crimes, though committed with political motives, because they are detrimental to the territorial integrity and the internal security of the country. Therefore, they are liable to legal punishment and like other ordinary crimes are subject to the requlations for criminal procedures, the only difference being that these crimes are investigated in the Revolutionary Courts in accordance with the Law o Revolutionary Courts, ratified in 1361 (1982h I. .
A/4 2/648 English Page 19 IV. CONSXDERATIONb AND OBSERVATIONS A. Considerations 1. Information provided by he Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran 52. The Iranian Government has reacted to acme extant positively to the activities of the Special Representative, as contained in the final report pre3ented to the Commission on Human Rights at its forty-third session. The presentation of The viewpoints TM facilitates the discharge o the duties of the Special Representative because this document clarifies the prob1. ms that the Iranian Government encountora in co-operating with the implementation of the mandate which the Commission entrusted to the Special Representative in 1986 and which it ...newed at its forty-third session (Commission on Human Rights resolutic'n 1987/55, para. 5). Consequently, it prc 'ides e:Lemente to overcome those problems. Furthermore, TM The viewpoints” of tars a summary of the theoretical and factual position of Iran On isoucu that have hindered the implementation of the resolutions of the General Assenbly and the Commission on Hwni n Rights since the very inception of this item on their respective agendas. 53. The exact knowledge of the Iranian thinking on the theoretical and factual issues regarding the pectinant resolutions and the terms of the mandate offers the elements for a dialogue within the lines of co-operation that the competent organs of the United Nations have consistently stressed in their consideration of this quest ion. 54. The meeting the Special Representative held with Mr. Birous Nasueri provided the opportunity for further clarification of certain issues and positions. 2. Recent events in the Islamic Republic of Iran 55. It is interesting to note two recent occurrences in the Islamic Republic of Iran: the solution of the problem affecting the medical profession, and the pardoning of numerous prisoners. The Iranian Government informed on the denouement of the problem confror ted by the medical profession in l 6 (“The viewpoints”, p. 12, pare. 29; final report E/CN.4/1987/23, paras. 61—62). According to that information, the call for a strike of the physicians was illegal and was made without previous notice to the Government. The document acknowledged that some medical doctors had been arrested on charges of violation of State regulations. Finally, the bill that was the source of the protest and the strike was rejected by the Council of Guardians of the Iranian Parliament. 56. The Special Representative has not received any information contradicting the statement contained in the Iranian document. The Special Representative therefore considers that the problem that affected the medical profession last year is solved. 57. The second occurrence is the pardoning of prisoners. The Iranian document reported that many prisoners had been pardoned and released in recent months. I. .
A/ 4 2/64 U ng1iuh Page 20 Thoso included 1.8O( prisoners in Sistan and aa lauchostan and 1,200 prisoners in Khorauan provincou alone, and other provinces arc following suit” (“i he Viowpoints”, p. 24, pars. 39). Althouqh it has not boon specifically stated that the pardoning included politics]. prisoners, it may be inferred that. this has been the case, on account of the activities attributed to some of thu riuunors after beinq set free. The Special. Representative welcomes the perdoninq of pri8onos i3 , and expresses the hope that this may be the first stage of a procous lcadinq to a general amnesty for political prisoners. 3. Co—operation from the Government of the Islamth Republic of tran 58. The Iranian Government has restated ae1 ctive adherence to certain provisions oV international instruments on human rights and fundamental freedoms (“The ViewpoifltI3N, p. 8, pare. 10). The Special Rep esonthtivc cannot aqreo on this stand, on qrounds that legal obliqations and commitments on human riqhta do not foresee or admit partial acceptance of instruments that have boon conceived, drafted and adopted as a unified, coherent and complete set of norms. 59. Within the selective adherence mentioned above, the IranianGovornment has indicated that important provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are compatible with Islamic laws “Au is ovidc t, no significant diverqcnco exists between the provisions of international levi and those of the Islamic law on some of those certain classifications of rights of individuals”. It is possible, therefore, to address to—called allegations regarding riqhts of individuals that have been guaranteed by both Islamic and international law. 60. The Iranian document mentioned the provisions of tho International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that it considered fully compatible with Islamic laws right to life (art. 6); prohibition of any kind of torture (art. 7)) safeguards in case of arrest or detention (art. 9); guarantees for fair trial (art. 14); and freedom of thought, conscience and reliqion (art. 18). The docuw nt refers to provisions of municipal law that reflects those international norms. For instance, the Iranian Constitution (art. 23), prohibits inquisition into beliefs and persecution of individuals for theiL beliefs (“The viewpoints”, pp. 8 and 9. pares. 12 and 13). 61. The provisions of the International. Covenant on Civil and Political Riqhth that the Iranian Government selectively accepts qivo legal support to the bulk of the five cato ories of allegations presented to its consideration. Consequently, the legal. bases o those allegations are not under discussion. The pendinq question is the official information on those specific allegations. 62. Strictly following the generally recognized practice of international orqans dealinq with human rights, it is pertinent to insist that the thorough reply to the alleqations of violations of human rights conatitutes a paramount elor cnt of the process of ascertainment of the situation oonoerninq human rights in any country that in a member of the United Nations and bound by the correspondinq legal instruments. The denial of the allegations as a whole, without details, as was / . .
/42/64U Hng l ish Page 21. done by the Iranian Government ( “The viewpoints”, p. 14, para. 40 Cd )), is not sufficient for a sensible assessment of the situation on human rights in that country. 63. The Iranian Government agreed with the thesis of the Special Representative, included in his oral presentation of the final report, in the sense that absence of co—operaticn from a State in reapec t to measures adopted by the oompetent orqans of the United Nations cannot paralyse international action (“The viewpoints”, p. 12, parse. 30 and 31). No do facto veto is legally admissible in respect to activities undertaken within the United Nations system of protection of human rights. This is a foundation from which important conclusions may be deducted. 64. Amonq the obstacles to the extension of full co—operation, the Iranian document referred to resolution 1907/55 of the Commission on Human Right, and the negotiations it had tried to undertake with the sponsors ‘in order to remove some of the obstacles and pave the way for full co—operation” (“The viewpointsu, pp. 11 and 12, parae. 24—28). 65. Considering the obstacles and reactions to specific activities related to the mandate, the Iranian document concluded that it had extended partial co-operation to the Special Reprea ientative. To that effect, the document mentioned some information and the meeting of the Special Representative with the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations in New York. The Special Representative acknowledqod the importance of this meeting in hi. oral introduction to the interim ropor' before the Third Committee of the General Assembly nd in his final report (E/CN.4/1987/23, pera. S . 66. The Special Representative wishes to point out that the partial co-operation ho received last year from the Iranian Go' ,ernment had proceeded further, both through documents and personal contacts. Therefore, there are grounds to hope that it may t,tiu. increase in the months preceding the presentation of the final report. B. Observations 67. Detailed allegations of human rights violations were transmitted to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran in order to enable it to verify their accuracy and to provide information and comments. 68. The Iranian Government has dented all the allegations without specifically refers. ing to any of them. Though the Iranian Government has made known its motivations for refusing to answer those allegations, the Special Reprisentative still believes that ciroumatancial replies constitute a significant element to clarify the situation of human rights and correspond to the prevalent practice of States. Moreover, those replies would enhance the co-operation the Iranian Government is expected to extend to the competent organs of the United Nations. 69. The allegations transmitted to the Iranian Government resemble, in nature, the alleqationq transmitted in previous years. The bulk of those allegations ooncern right to life, freedom from torture an) inhuman treatment, due procv ss of law, and I. .
A/42/648 Enqi ish Page 22 freodow of religion. The problem concerning the medical profession, which deserved particular attention from the General Assembly and the Commission on Muman Rights. appears to have been solved (see para. SS above 70. In his final report to the Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/1987/23), the special Representative indicated that the number of alleged violations of the right to life had diminished over the past t years. It would seem that this trend has continued during the period covered by the present report. 71. On the ott er hand, the treatnent of prisoners and the violations of the regulations of t ir trial continue to be matters of concern. The oral and written information received by the Special Representative coincided in statinq that maltreatment and torture, both physical and paycholoqical were common in Iranian prisons during interrogation and before and after the final verdict. They also coincided in affirming the existence of extremely summary and informal proceedinqn, unawareness of specific accusations, lack of leqal counst l and other irreqularitieu in respect to fair trial. 72. In the course of the informal hearings, the Special Representative reached the moral conviction that the persons appearing before him referr d to facts that certainly happened to them, and that their declarations were not the product of feverish iluaqination or of mere fabrication guided by political or religious motivations. These persons presented the traces of maltreatment, and exposed their account of events in a convincinq, articulate and coherent manner. 73. The alleged practice in Iranian prisons is co 'itrary to international norms and is against Iranian law, and consequently deserves to be investigated by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Special Representative believes that this practice, which is illegal, does continue to occur in some Iranian prisons. 74. The Iranian Governnhnt has improved' the partial co—operation that it has extended to the Special R preuentative, both through written material, and personal contacts, and this improved co—operation has been helpful to the clarification and underatandir q of the prevalent situation of human rights in Iran. None the less it has not reached the level of co—operation that both the General Assembly and the Cc,uunlseiori on Human Riqhts have consistently requested in their resolutions concerning this matter. 7• The information received so far from the Government, the opposition groups and independent sources do not contain elements liable to change the view the Special Repreuentative expressed in his final report to the Commission on Human Rights (B/CN.4/l981/23) according to which he believed that acts continued to occur in Iran that were inconsistent with international instruments to which the Government of that country was bound. 76. It would appear that the frequer y and number of alleqations during the recent past have somewhat diminiehodi nevertheless, the persistence of certain facts justify continuinq international concern. Indeed, among the several factors that may have contributed to the trend mentioned above is the persistent interest and monitoring by the competent organs of the United Nations.