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.
