Economic and Social
Council
Distr.
G E t E RAt
E/CN. 4/1988/24
25 January 1988
EN3 LISH
Original: E 3LISU/FRENCH
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Forty—fourth session
Iteoe 12 of the provisional agenda
QUESTION OF THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHtS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS
IN ANY PART OF THE WQRT4) . WITH PARTICULAR EFEPENCE TO COLONIAL AND
OTHER DEPENDENT COUNTRIES AND flRRITORIES
Report on the human rights situation in the Is lamic Republic of Iran by
the Specia l Representative of the Cormiissiqp jtr. Reynaldo Galindo PohI ,
pprsuant to resolution 1987/55
UNITED
NATIONS
E
GE. 88—10275/2246G
E/CN.4/1988/24
page ii
CONTENTS
Paragraphs Pace
I. INTRODUCTION 1 — 4 1
II. ACTION TAKEN BY THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE 5 - 6 2
III. INFOPJ4ATION RECEIVED BY THE SPECIP L REPRESENTATIVF 7 — 23 3
1. Oral inforoeation 7 — 3
2. written informatic'- 1 -
XV. CONSIDERATION OF VIEWS OF THE IRANIA N GOVERNMENT 24 - 71 7
1. Compatibility of international law with
Is lamic law 27 — 59 7
2. Replies to Tklleged Violations of Human Rights . .. . 60 — 71 14
V. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AN]) CONCLUSIONS 72 — 82 17
flex 22
E/cN. 4/1988/24
page 1
I. INTRODUCTION
1. By its resolution 1987/55 of 11 March 1987 the Commission on Human Rights
decided to extend the mandate of its Special Representative, as contained in
Commission resolution 1984/54 of 14 March 1984 . for a further year. and
requested the Special Representative to present an interim report on the
situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran to the
General Assembly at its forty second session, and a final report to the
Commission at its forty—fourth session.
2. In compliance with the above mentioned resolution, the Special
Representative presented an interim report to the General Assembly (A/42/648),
and submits herewith his final report to the Commission.
3. The interim report concentrated on items and issues appropriate to give
the General Assembly an overview of the evolution of human rights and
fundamental freedoms in the Islamic Republic of Iran during the period from
September 1986 to October 1987. The final report updates the situation to
January 1988 and considers some issues that were purposely not discussed in
IIe interim report. The two reports nay thus be considered as two parts of a
whole, width the interim report being the first part of the final report and
its indispensable frame of reference.
4. The final report contains five sections: Introduction, Action taken by
the Special Representative, Recent information, both oral and written, on
a]J.eged violations of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran,
Examination of contentions presented by the Government of the Islamic Republic
of Iran on several important issues; and General considerations and
conclusions.
E/CN. 4/1988/24
page 2
II. ACTION TAKEN BY THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE
5. On 4 November 1981, after being informed of the appointment of
Mr. Sirous Nasseri as Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the
Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations Office at Geneva the
Special Representative addressed to him a letter which read as follows:
flj have just been informed of Your ccellency's appointment as
Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations at Geneva.
While transmitting to you my sincere congratulations, may I also express
the hope that we shall now be in a position to enhance our contacts and
further deveLop the constructive dialogue upon which we embarked in
Geneva last July.
As you may know, I plan to visit New York between 16 and
27 November 1987 in order to present my interim report to the
General Assembly. I also plan to visit Geneva between 11 and
15 January 1988, in connection with the preparation of my report to the
Commission on Human Rights. I do hope that, on the occasion of these
visits a meeting may be arranged between us in order to further clarity
our respective views.”
6. On 20 January 1988, after having conducted a series of informal hearings
in the course of which 11 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 to him their experience, the Special
Representative addressed a letter to the Ambassador of the Islamic Republic
of Iran communicating to him the summary of oral and written information
reflected in Chapter III below and in the annex to this report. The letter
read as follows:
‘As you may know, during my visit to Geneva from 1]. to
15 January 1988 I conducted, in the framework of my mandate under
Commission on Human Rights resol.ution 1987/55 a series of informal
hearings with eleven persons who claimed to have firsthand knowledge and
experience of various aspects of the human rights situation in the
Islamic Republic of Iran. P. sunmary of the allegations made in the
course of these hearings is enclosed herewith for your information.
A summary of allegations which were contained in documents provided
to me in recent months by various organizations and bodies concerned, is
also enclosed herewith. I would greatly appreciate receiving any
information or comments that Your Excellency's Government may wish to
provide with regard to these allegations.
I would like to seize this opportunity to express my sincere hope
that the constructive dialogue upon which we embarked last year will
continue and further develop in the future.”
E/CN. 4/1988/24
page 3
II I. INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE
1. Oral information
7. On 12, 14 and 15 January 1988 . the Special Representative conducted a
series of informal hearings in the course of which 11 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.
Ten of the persons received by the Special Representative were followers of
the Baha'i faith and one person described himself as not affiliated with any
political or religious movement, but a supporter of the “National Council of
Resistance of Iran”. Of the followers of the Baha'i faith, three indicated
that their name could be mentioned in the report. OEey were Mr. Etenadi,
Mr. Fereydoun Somali and Mr. Abdul shoghi Tebyani. The person who described
himself as not—affiliated to any movement was Mr. Fereydoun Guilani.
8. Mr. Guilani worked in the editorial board of the Persian language
newspaper Keyhan until three months after the coning to power of the Islamic
Government aria is also a poet and author. He spent two years, from 1981
until 1983, in the Evin prison in Teheran for alleged anti—Islamic activity
and for publishing articles and poems hostile to the Government. He described
in detail conditions prevailing in that prison: overcrowding, insufficiency
of food, inadequacy of hygienic conditions and medical treatment, and, above
all, torture and ill—treatment of detainees. According to Mr. Guilani guards
in the Evin prison tortured him for three months, under the guise of
inflicting religious punishment, or Taazir”. He described in detail the
torture to which he was subjected. While he was blindfolded up to Seven
persons beat him with bars and cables, kicked him on all parts of his body,
tied him to a “Taazir bench” and beat the soles of his feet — resulting in
extremely painful and swollen feet. Mr. Guilani described his trial. It took
place before a religious judge, named Haji Mohasheni, with a prosecutor and a
guard also attending. It lasted for only a few minutes , during which 36
charges were read out. He had no attorney and had only a few minutes to
defend himself. OEe verdict was not announced immediately, and he found out
later that he had been sentenced to three years' imprisonment. After his
release from prison he resumed his writing activity and was consequently
rearrested for six months, for having written articles describing the
conditions in the Evin prison. The publication of books he wrote after his
second release was prevented by censorship.
9. The followers of the Baha'i faith who appeared before the Special
Representative described their experience and that of their family members and
friends. Most of them spent periods of various durations in prison and some
ad members of their families executed. All of them had allegedly been
;ibjected to harassment and discriminatory measures, such as denial of
ducation, dismissal from jobs, confiscation of property, extreme economic
rdship and brutal searches and arrests. Those of them who had been
imprisoned invariably described the conditions in prison as extremely harsh.
Nmy also described the physical and psychological torture to which they were
;uhjected. The latter sort of torture i- c1uded threats of execution and of
;exual abuse.
E/cN. 4/1988/24
page 4
10. One person described the case of an elderly woman, Mrs. Sharghieh Imaniar.,
with whom she shared a cell, who had allegedly been whipped a hundre,i times nn
her feet and, as a result, had deep cuts and was bleeding. The prison
authorities nevertheless denied that woman permission to see a doctor and put
her into solitary confinement for three months without giving her any
treatment. The same person was also shown the body of Mr. t4arkazi, a member
of the Baha'i Council of Iran who was executed on 23 September 1984. His ribs
and most of his bones were allegedly broken and his body was severely wounierL
11. Mr. Fereydoun Somali described an incident at the end of 1984, in which a
fire broke in a factory in which he and 30 other Baha'is were employed. The
fire was allegedLy started deliberately, as the doors of the factory were
looked from the outside. Consequently, Mr. Somali was severely burnt and had
one eye seriously injured. Several months later, following six months of
hospitalization and surgical operations, his eye condition required an urgent
operation for a cornea transplant. But on the eve of the operation the
hospital informed him that the office of the Islamic Committee had not
authorized his surgery, stating that an eye of a Moslem could not be given to
a Baha'i, and that he had to find an eye from another Baha'i for his
transplant. Mr. Somali presented a photocopy of a document originally written
in Persian, with its English translation, signed by an Islamic Committee,
stating that “following our telephone conversation, since Mr. Fereydoun
Shomali has personally confessed his connection with the Zionist Bahai
faction, the cornea graft is not to be performed for religious reasons”.
2. written information
12. subsequently to the completion of his interim report to the
General Assembly (A/42/648) the Special Representative received written
information contained in various documents, reports and letters, which
referred in particular to alleged violations of the right to life, the right
to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
and the right to liberty and security of person, as well as information
concerning the economic situation of followers of the Baha'i faith and the
treatment of Kurdish civilians.
Information concerning the right to life
13. In November 1987 the Special Representative received a list published by
the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran containing names and particulars
of 14,028 persons who were allegedly killed by Iranian government agents
during the years 1981—1987. OEe list contained 2,000 names of persons that
had not been previously published. Out of that list the Special Representative
submitted to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran 60 names of
persons who were allegedly executed or tortured to death during the years
1986—1987. The Special Representative requested the Government to provide him
with any information or comments regarding those alleged cases of execution
and death. The names and particulars included in that List are reproduced in
the annex to this report.
14. In addition, it was alleged that a prisoner named Hossein Sabbaqi, was
tortured to death in the prison of Babolsar, north of Iran, in September 1987.
E/CN. 4/1988/24
page 5
15. The People's Mojahedin Organization alleged on 27 November 1987 that 36
persons, described as political prisoners, had been secretly executed in
recent months. hccording to that source a group of 26 persons were executed
in the Evin prison, Teheran. The names of the alleged victims were reported
as follows: Khalil Ramezani, Cyrus Abbasvand, Pereydoun kqdoust, Farchild
Nemati, Seyed Mohammad Heydari Ghahi, Soulmaz Chahidi At fan, Mohaimnad Alt
Abranki, Ardechir Abtari Rad, Amir Hossein Naderi, Qasse n Rhalidi, Mahmoud
Zakipour, Anouchirvan Ebrahimi, Alizadeh, Moloud Rahruani, Hassan—Moradi,
Alireza Djahani, Massoud Ansari, Alireza Chahraki Farahani, Madjid Pazira,
Ooeid Reza Qomachi, Massoumeh Seddiq, Karim Thai All Mohamoeadi,
Mohammad Firouzi, Rahmat Pchaman ra, Mansour Qomachi Langueroudi,
Qolamreza Separgami, All Taher Djouyan, Sheyla Mokhtarzadeh, Madjid SafaL
Hossein Moafi, Seyed Djalal Chafii, Baqer Chekofteh Gohari, Alireza Djarnali,
Kioumars Chahi, Maziar Lotf I and Fereydoun Hassan—Dolat.
16. It was further alleged that two followers of the Baha'i faith . Ardishihr
Akhtari and Amir Husayn Nadiri, were executed on 28 September 1987 in Teheran.
Information concerning the right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment
17. Allegations regarding the conditions prevailing in Iranian prisons
continued to be communicated to the Special Representative. Several
communications were received from families of political prisoners in Iran,
alleging Ill—treatment and torture of such prisoners as well as extremely poor
conditions in prisons in which they are held. According to a communication
from several mothers and wives of Iranian political prisoners, received in
October 1987, Iranian Government agents harrassed, ill—treated and detained
political prisoners t relatives who demonstrated in front of the United Nations
Office in Teheran on 10 september 1987. on the eve of the visit to Teheran by
the United Nations Secretary—General. Many of the participants in that
demonstration were allegedly sent to three prisons and were ill—treated. Some
were released after several days while the whereabouts of others were still
unknown.
Information concerning the right to liberty and security of person
18. In october 1987 the Baha'i International Cormounity transmitted two lists
of persons detained in Iranian prisons and believed to be in danger of
execution. The first list contained 12 names of Baha'is, most of whom had
already spent periods of one to five years in prison. They were the
following: Ihsanu'llah Ayadi: ?araju'llah Sa'adati; Suhrab Dustdar;
Ramidan—Ali Amu'i; Bihnam Pasha'it Muhammad Dihgani; Izzatu' l lah Khurram;
r4ihran Pashakkur; Farid Dhakiri; Vahid Qydrat; Shahrukh Huvayda'i and
Mrs. Parvin Pana'iyan—Idilkhani.
13. The second list contained five names of prominent Baha'is who were
arrested on 21 October 1987 and were reported to be held in Evin prison,
eh r n• Two of them, Jamalu'd—Din Khanjani and Hasan Mahbubi were reportedly
Cormer members of the National Baha'i Council of Iran, and were said to be in
danger of execution. The other three Baha'is arrested on that date were named
as Changiz Fana'iyan, Suhrab Hajiyan and Bahman Samandari. The Special
Representative was subsequently informed that these five persons had been
released without any conditions.
E/CN. 4/1988/24
page 6
20. It was further alleqed in October 1987 that a prisoner named Seyed Alt
Taherdjouyan, described as a member of the People's Mojahedin Organization,
burned himself to death in the prison of Gohar—Dasht, in Karaj, Western Iran ,
allegedly in protest over the torture and poor conditions suffered by
political prisoners in Iranian prisons-
Information concerning the economic sitaation of followers of the Eaha'i faith
21. According to information received in January 1988 the Iranian Government
has, in recent months, increased its economic pressure on followers of the
Baha'i faith. This pressure allegedly manifested itself in various manners,
such as the cancellation of business licenses, the confiscation of shops,
farms and other Baha' i—owned properties and the denial of membership in
co—operatives to Baha'i farmers. By way of illustration of such pressure the
Special Representative received the English translation of a letter originally
written i t t Persian, dated 5 July 1987, by which the Is lamic Revolutionary
Committee of Abbas—Abad, Tunukabun, informed a Baha'i tailor that “because of
your membership in the misguided Baha'i sect, your business licence is hereby
revoked and declared null and void'. The Special Representative also received
a photocopy of a conmiunication originally written in Persian, and its English
translation, dated 9 June 1987, which contained a guide—line signed by
Ali Samadi, Commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Committee of Abbas—Abad,
stating that uaccording to the decision made by the high authorities for the
security and order, it is forbidden to hire or to give any licenees for work
to the members of the aberrant Baha'i group. It is recommended to cancel all
the previous authorizations and licenses previously issued to them”.
22. It was further alleged that thousands of Baha'is wl had been dismissed
from their positions in education and government in the early 1980's,
continued to be denied their jobs and pensions, and that they had been
instructed to repay all salaries received during their period of government
employment.
Information concerning treatment of Kurdish civilians
23. OEe Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan alleged, in a comiuunicatiOn
dated October 1987, that the Iranian authorities had ordered the evacuation
and resettling of 23 kurdish villages, with a population of 3,680 people,
located in the Bolfat region, south—east of Sardasht (Iranian Kurdistan). The
villages affected by that measure were reported as follows: Dolatou,
Dawdaweh, Halesha, Sawan, Mam Kaweh, Mazra, Darmakon, Pashghabran, Spidareh,
Siramerg, Baizamara, Ayshadina, Bardassour, Kodaleh, Mamandaweb, Zaleh,
Newtchwan, Souraban, Abmad Briw, Guerdena, Doll Rhanwan, Guilkank and Wardeh.
E/CN. 4/1988/24
page 7
IV. CONSIDERATION OF VIEWS OF THE IRANIAN GOVERNMEWT
24. The Special Representative has taken into account the views expressed,
both orally and in writing, by the Iranian Government. Some of those views
were extensively quoted in the Interim Report, whenever appropriate, in
accordance with the international practice and the terms of the mandate.
Other views have provided material for the considerations concerning general
substantive parts of the reports, and a few have been considered as
contrasting points for the clarification of the approaches and the actions
taken by the Special Representative in the discharge of his duties.
25. In his Interim Report the Special Representative indicated the points
with respect to which he was unable to agree with the positions adopted by the
Iranian Government. Differences on the interpretation of pertinent provisions
and on the accepted international practice have added obstacles, doubts or
incertitudes to the discrepancies based on disparate original perceptions
regarding international law and Islamic law. The discussion of those points
may therefore play a paramount role in the process leading to the satisfactory
operation of the system of human rights in Iran.
26. It therefore seems timely and necessary to clarify the reasons supporting
the opinions expressed by the Special Representative in his reports and the
motivations of his actions in the discharge of his duties. It may be for the
benefit of all concerned to explain why and how the Special Representative,
though using flexible approaches and criteria and willing to take into account
the peculiarities of the Iranian situation, was directed and guided by
international instruments and by his mandate to adopt those actions and
positions. The peculiarities of the Iranian situation present problems of
application that are, to some extent, new, and, as such, enrich the practice
in this field and involve novel views and arguments regarding the protection
of human rights at worldwide level.
1. compatibility of international law with Islamic law
27. After scrutinizing the explanations and the arguments presented by the
Iranian Government, it may be stated that the main source of divergence in the
interpretation of international instruments concerning human rights derives
from the question of compatibility between international law and Islamic law.
This issue concerns the social, legal and historic role of religion in general
and the peculiar place of religion in the Islamic Republic of Iran in
particular. This seems to be one of the nost important questions or even the
funaamental one regarding some of the difficulties the Iranian Government
encounters with respect to the international instruments on human rights.
This has been apparent in various official statements quoted in previous
reports and in particular, in “The Viewpoints of the Government of the
Islamic Republic of Iran on Commission on Roman Rights resol jtion 1987/55
nd on the issues contained in document E/CN.4/l987/23”, (E/CN.4/l988/12 —
E/CN.4/Sub.2/1987/35), hereafter referred to as “The Viewpoints.
E/CN. 4/1988/24
page 8
28. The radical difference results from two significantly distant
approaches: whereas the General Assembly of the United Nations and the
Commission on Human Rights, and therefore the Special Representative, regard
treaties and solemn declarations of the United Nations as the fundamental
framework to examine the prevailing situation in respect to human rights, the
Iranian Government regards Islamic law as paramount, and international law as
merely supplementary to, or corroborative of Islamic law.
29. “Islamic law is founded on the very original concept that divinity reigns
supreme and divine law is pre-eminent to human law. The Declaration (that is,
the Universal Declaration on Human Rights) is genuinely secular in its theme
and essence and, as such, differs from Islamic law in its origin. There may
be similarities or even perfect compatibility on some provisions, in
particular, those that meet the condition of jus cogens , but the original
perceptions remain widely apart' (“The Viewpoints”, p. 7, para. 6). The
Universal Declaration on Human Rights discards any distinction with respect to
religion, and calls for freedom to manifest religion in all its realms. In
contrast, “in the case of Islam, manifestation of religion is inclusive of
operation of the State apparatus. It also constitutes the origin of law 0
(‘The Viewpoints”, p. 7, para. 1).
30. This conception has practical implications, as it has been stated by
Iranian representatives. It is pertinent to refer to the official statement
of the Iranian representative at the 673rd meeting of the Human Rights
Committee on 10 April 1986: “... relevant human rights instruments such as
the Covenants and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights contained
provisions whose implementation would be contradictory in a country where
Islamic law is observed”. “... for example, the right to religious freedom in
an Islamic society where persons could not embrace any other religious creed.
The same would apply to the Covenant's prohibition of corporal punishment
which would be contradictory to justice under Islamic law” (CCPR/C/SR. 673.
p. 13).
(a) Absence of religious and philosophical foundations in the Universal
Declaration on Human Rights
31. Those crucial statements deserve some comments, It is true that the
Universal Declaration on Human Rights is a secular document. This assertion
should be understood with some qualifications in order to put the Declaration
within a frame corresponding to the history of its preparation and adoption.
It is secular in the sense that it does not contain or reflect, at least in a
direct way, religious standpoints. This omission was intentional and
responded to the definite objective to get support from all quarters of
beliefs, philosophies and cultures. For instance, the foundation of human
rights and freedoms on the doctrine of natural law, consistent with the
Christian teaching, was deliberately avoided, although some of the authors of
the Declaration firmly adhered to the theory of natural law.
32. Jacques Maritain, the respected scholar who wrote the introduction to the
texts by eminent persons consulted by UNESCO in 1947 and who synthesized the
common denominator of the enlightened replies, advised to avoid speculative
E/CN. 4/1988/24
page 9
and theoretical thinking as the only way to get wide support for the
Declaration on the making. He stated that justifications though
indispensable, were unable to lead to general agreement ( Autour de la Nouvelle
D4claratjon universelle des Droits de l'Homme , textes r4unis par l'UNESCO,
Paris, Editions du Sagitaire, 1949). Maritain was a proclaimed and practising
Christian and a follower and innovator of the old natural law tradition.
33. OEe delegations that discussed and finally adopted the Universal
Declaration in the General assembly of the united Nations followed Maritain's
advice. They thus avoided the questions of ultimate origin, remote causes and
philosophical foundation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, either
religious or secular, rational or empirical, idealist or materialist, and
concentrated on rules for action, that is, adopted a pragmatic approach.
Professor Ren6 Cassin , one of the most influential contributors to the
Universal Declaration remembered circumstances under which the question of
religion was dealt with (R. Cassin, Droits de l1iommeu, Academie de Droit
International, Recueil des Cours, 1951, vol. I I, pp. 284 et al) .
34. States from all continents and geographical groups agreed on the norms
for action embodied in the Universal Declaration, in spite of disparate
cultural backgrounds and antagonistic socioeconomic structures and
ideologies. A universal consensus was thus created on the meaning and scope
of the human rights to be protected at worldwide level, as direct effect of
the obligations acquired through the Charter of IIe United Nations.
Consequently an authoritative interpretation of the pertinent provisions of
the Charter emerged. Membership of the United Nations necessarily carried
obligations on human rights as defined by the Universal Declaration; and some
of the provisions of this instrument may be said to be applicable to
non—members of that Organization.
35. There is no legal challenge or obstacle of principle to the operation
that would reintegrate to the Universal Declaration the ultimate supporting
elements that were discarded in order to avoid the wreckage of the goal to get
unqualified backing to a univeral system of human rights. This operation,
that could be undertaken from a religious and philosophical perspective, could
not provide a universal foundation, and certainly would not get the
unqualified adherence of all States and peoples. But such limited result will
not belittle in any way the significance and the necessity of that exercise
for certain cultures and Countries, Surely it will have to be coherent with
the current system of international protection of human rights, and
consequently would not be permitted to jeopardize, alter, supersede or
derogate from existing norms of international law on human rights.
04 Adherence of Islamic Countries to the Covenants and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights
36. The Iranian Government contended that the two Covenants on Human Rights
and the universal Declaration were ratified during the ruling of a secular
r4gime by legislators who did not have the competence and knowledge nor the
will to examine them against the tenets of Islamic law, and that the Iranian
Parliament would have to take up this task in the future. “Meanwhile we
continue to adhere to the provisions of the Declaration and the two Covenants
which are consistent with. or at least not contradictory to Islamic law (‘OEe
ViewpointsN, p. 8, para. 10).
E/CN. 4/1988/24
page 10
37. The selective adherence to certain international norms Concerning human
rights may be consistent with the Tranian legal system hut is incompatible
with international law. Even if legislators did not have knowledge of the
tenets of Islamic law, duly acquired State obligations remain unaffected and
unchallenged. International legal obligations ate acquired by States, and
Governments act as their representatives. International obligations of States
do not break down with the change of qovernment or r gime. This is a
fundamental principle derived from the absolute necessity to provide security
to international relations.
38. Iranian representatives as well as representatives of other Islamic
States accepted those instruments. The views expressed by representatives of
other Islamic countries at the time of the adoption of the Universal
Declaration make it possible to state that there are different views on the
question of compatibility between international law on human rights and
Islamic law. It is indeed difficult to accept that all Islamic States did not
pay attention to those instruments. The more consistent explanation of the
fact of generalized acceptance of those instruments would be that there are
different understandings of the problem and its resolution.
39. At the meeting of approval of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
by the General Assembly of the United Nations, the representative of Egypt,
Mr. Raafat, made reservations regarding articles 17 and 19, on account of
limitations Islamic countries pot to the contract of marriage of Muslim women
with persons belonging to another faith, and the proclamation of man's right
to change his religion or belief (art. 19). In his opinion the Declaration
could be understood as ‘encouraging, even though it might not be intentional,
the machinations of certain missions, well known in the Orient, which
relentlessly pursued their efforts to convert to their own beliefs the masses
of the population of the Orient” (United Nations, General Assembly, third
session, first part, 1948 Plenary meetings, Official Records, V. 6, p. 913).
40. The delegate of Pakistan, the well known diplomat Sir Zafrullah Khan
stated full support of his country to article 19: Pakistan was an ardent
defender of freedom of thought and belief and of all the freedoms listed in
article 19”. Afterwards he voiced reservations with respect to this article,
not in regard to the rights it consacrated but to a possible abusive use of
them. Sir zafrullah quoted the Koran as saying: “Let he who choses to
believe, believe, and he who choses to disbelieve, disbelieve”. He added that
Moslem religion was missionary because “it strove to persuade men to change
their faith and alter their way of living, so as to follow the faith and way
of living it preached, but it recognized the same right of conversion for
other religions as for itself”.
41. Sir zafrullah expressed anxiety at the possible abusive use of article 19
of the Universal Declaration on grounds of the actions of certain other
religions (obviously Christian), whose activities had sometimes assumed a
political character and had given rise to objections (United Nations,
General Assembly, Ibidem ) .
E/CN.4/ 1988/24
page 11
42. Those reservations resulted from possible misuse of some provisions of
the Declaration but they did not criticize the recognition of the rights
listed in article 19. The delegations of Egypt and Pakistan did not oppose
the Universal Declaration and voted for its adoption, So the reservations
were not sufficiently important to separate those countries from the consensus
that had been built through the reduction of the instrument to rules for
action, Other Islamic countries that were at the time members of the
United Nations voted in favour of the Declaration: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran,
Lebanon (a country with strong Moslem influence), and Syria. Saudi Arabia
abstained, and Yemen did not participate in the vote.
43. The Universal Declaration emerged as the authoritative understanding and
the agreed interpretation on the meaning and scope of the human rights and
fundamental freedoms whose protection was provided for by the Charter of the
United Nations. From then on the international protection of human rights
from excess or misuse of power entered international law and complemented and
strengthened national protection. The Universal Declaration was acclaimed and
accepted by countries of all cultural, religious, and economic and social
systems.
(c) Absence of Islamic scholars in the Elaboration of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights
44. The Iranian Government stated that “no Islamic scholar or Muslim
jurisprudent had a chance to participate (in the preparation of the Universal
Declaration). Therefore Islamic States do have the right to reserve their
views on the validity or applicability of those provisions. Many Islamic
States have ratified the Declaration and this does give rise to
responsibility, but ratification is not synonirrious with satisfaction” (“The
viewpoints”, pp. 7, 8, para. 8).
45. the participation of Islamic scholars in IIe preparation of the Universal
Declaration was indeed limited, and may even be considered extremely limited
considering the extent and importance of Islamic culture. Nonetheless it was
not entirely absent. At least one Muslim scholar was consulted by UNESCO :
Mr. Humayun Kabir. (Textes r4unis par l'UNESCO, “Les droits de l'honune, la
tradition de l'Islam et les problSes du monde actuel”, pp. 158—161).
Mr. Kabir favoured a universal system of human rights under a world
authority. Furthermore it may be assumed that representatives of Islamic
countries at the United Nations were conversant with Islamic teaching and were
professed Moslems.
46. The argument and criticism referred to above may be considered of
political character. In 1948 Islamic countries did not have the influence
they exert today in international relations. From a strictly legal point of
view the case must he viewed under a different light. As a matter of fact
official representatives of Islamic member States of the United Nations
in 1948 did participate in the proceedings. The crucial point in regard to
the legal capacity to oblige the State consists of authorization and
accreditation through full power to act on behalf of the State (Convention on
the Law of Treaties, arts. 7 and 8) . The professional qualifications of the
2/ eN. 4/1988/24
page 12
delegates who express the official position of a State or group of States is
not an element of the will to consent. The selection of delegates with
suitable specializations to deal with the subject matters under debate in
international fora is left to the discretion and wisdom of each Government.
47. certainly it would be possible that national representatives become
liable under municipal law but this would be an internal affair.
Responsibility under municipal law does not affect international obligations
acquired by duly authorized and accredited representatives . The Convention
on the Law of Treaties (Art. 27) prescribes that States parties can not invoke
municipal law in order to justify the non compliance with a treaty. The
legality of the consent to be bound by international instruments does not
impede in any way the accountability of national officers who did not follow
instructions or exceeded powers. Conversely the accountability mentioned
before does not affect international, obligations.
(d) Pin Islamic Declaration of Human nights
48. The Iranian Government referred to an Islamic Declaration of Human Rights
that could redress the flaws of international instruments adopted under the
aegis of the United Nations. 0 The Islamic Declaration, once finalized, will
make the most notable achievement of co—operation among Islamic States on this
issue and they shall undoubtedly find it more pertinent to their concerns
regarding human rights and fundamental freedoms” ethe Viewpoints”, p. 8.
para. 9).
49. An Islamic Declaration of Human Rights would certainly contribute to the
consolidation of human rights around the world. The regional declarations
adopted so far, as those of the European Community and the Organization of
Anerican States have not departed from the structure of international
protection of human rights of the United Nations. They have increased the
protection of human rights through special commissions of surveillance and
even ad hoc courts of justice. That is, regional declarations have gone
beyond the system sponsored by the United Nations.
50. An Islamic Declaration of Human Rights might express particular
viewpoints, including religious and philosophical foundations, but it may be
expected that, the same as previous regional declarations, it will be
consistent with the universal system of the United Nations and will increase
the protection of human rights with a special commission and a court of
justice.
51. Judgement may be deferred in order to examine the final product, but in
the meantime, on account of the rich cultural heritage and the humanitarian
content of Islamic teaching and tenets, the formulation of a declaration
consistent with international law may be expected.
52. Phe Universal Declaration has acquired the status of customary
international law. Consequently it binds all States, including those that
were not members of the United Nations at the time of its adoption.
Furthermore new members implicitly accept previous decisions of the competent
organs of international organizations. It is commanded by reason and
sanctioned by custom that new members accept the transactions that have been
performed within the terms of the constitutive treaties.
E/CN. 4/1988/24
oage 13
(e) Municipal r 4 aw and International Law
53. The departure of municipal law from international law has beer, the
subject of careful study by eminent scholars and judges and has produced
extensive legal literature. A dominant consensus has emerged in the sense
that municipal law has to be integrated within international law anr1
consequently any departure leaves international law in full force.
International law must not be bent by deviate municipal norms.
54. Accordingly international law preserves its features, contents and
functtons in spite of contradictory municipal law. International
jurisprudence has proclaimed the dictum that as far as international law is
concerned, municipal law operates as a fact and no more than that. The
admission of unilateral departures from existing international law would
threaten the security and stability of the entire fabric of international
relations. The values, motives and ends behind those departures, as
pertaining to the domestic jurisdiction of the State, remain unchallenged.
(f) Selective Adherence to International Instruments
55. In the case of Iran the main effect of the alleged incompatibility of
international law with Islamic law regarding certain provisions of the two
Covenants and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been the selective
adherence to a number of provisions and the refusal to accept the validity and
applicability of others, as indicated by the quotations mentioned at the
beginning of this section.
56. The legal, political and moral nature of the instruments concerning human
rights does not admit selective acceptance and rejection. Each instrument
constitutes an indivisible body, and once a State is bound, it is bound by the
entire instrument. Termination and suspension of international obligations
are ruled out with respect to human rights. Nonetheless there are a few ways
open to countries which encounter difficulties of application of or are
displeased with existing norms.
57. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights permits that in
case of public emergency which threatens the national life, a State party may
take measures derogating from its obligations regarding a number of
provisions . “to the extent strictly required by the exigences of the
situation”. Though the Iranian situation appears to meet the condition
indicated in that provision, the Iranian Government has not taken advantage of
the authorization under the Covenant.
58. Claims and criticism against existing norms may constitute the first
stage of a process leading to the establishment of new norms. In principle
all norms of international law are susceptible to change, even those of
jus cogens , as stipulated in the Convention on the Law of Treaties (arts. 53
and 64), and no rule or human institution is immune to change. But in so far
as the process of change has not culminated in the establishment of new norms,
the existing law has to be respected and applied. International relations
would become untenable and, in extreme situations, chaotic, if unilateral
positions of States would suffice to introduce exceptions to existing law,
even where those positions or actions are well enshrined in the cultural
heritage of the States concerned.
E/CN. 4/1988/24
page 14
59. ?urtheroeore, it nay happen that certain specific ways of application of
general rules to particular cases might be adapted in order to take into
account the peculiarities of each concrete case or situation. OEinking in a
speculative way, a working arrangement of action and inaction, formal
authorization and mere toleration could be conceived. This expedient would
have to be carefully studied and worked out with respect to concrete
situations and cases only. It could not be ruled out a priori , but to
transform it into a means of disregarding, putting aside, getting rid of or
introducing unilateral modifications to binding international instruments
would be inconsistent with the existing system of human rights. This would be
anoIIer example of application of the ancient adage saying that whereas
justice is good equity is even better.
2. Replies to Alleged Violations of Human Rights
60. The Iranian Government has refused to provide detailed replies to the
allegations of violations of human rights presented to its consideration: on
four grounds: the terms of the resolution of the Commission on Human Rights
creating the mandate, the method of conveying the allegations to the attention
of the Government, the qualifications of the witnesses interviewea by the
Special Representative, and the use of a certain terminology in official
resolutions and documents. The question regarding the terms of the mandate
will not be discussed in this report.
(a) The method of conveying allegations
61. With respect to the method of conveying allegations to the attention of
the Government, the Iranian Government stated that the groups that had
provided such information were disqualified as valid interlocutors and that
they had “the only common denominator ... that they all follow the sane
objective of undermining the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It
is quite questionable, therefore, that these groups have been the only sources
of information for the so called detailed and specific allegations.
Nevertheless the Commission should be informed that to respond to these so
called “allegations” in the present format creates a legal problem. None of
these groups have registered themselves or are qualified to be registered as a
political party or a minority in the Islamic Republic of Iran. To respond to
these specific sections of the Report would implicitely imply recognition of
the status the Special Representative has granted them. A situation that
would run contrary to Iranian Law” (“The Viewpoints”, pp. 10—11, para. 23) .
62. It is necessary to clarify that the Special Representative has not
granted any recognition to any of the groups which have served as channels of
communication of alleged violations of human rights. OEe mention of the
groups that have acted as vehicles for the presentation of concrete cases can
not and should not be construed as intended to grant or recognize them any
particular status. The mention of those groups has no other purpose than to
orovide the Iranian Government with a complete picture of the allegations.
The granting of recognition or status would go beyond the mandate of the
Special Representative and would not correspond to his intention.
J /CN. 4/1988/24
page 15
63. All the allegations concern individuals and many of them ware made by
individuals in their individual capacity. The political affiliations of those
persons are not under discussion. They may or may not be members,
sympathizers or simply acquaintances of any of the groups referred to by the
Iranian Government. They are human beings entitled to the enjoyment of
protection of human rights. International law on human rights gravitates on
the generic and most common dimensions of human beings, without consideration
oC particular features such as race, nationality, sex, religion, culture or
economic or social position. Natural persons are recognized in their inherent
dignity and worth.
64. The study of the situation of human rights prevailing in a given country
requires the collection of all available information. It would be unwise to
reject a priori certain sources and to accept others. Indeed all information
is debatable and subject to scrutiny. It is precisely for that reason that
the circumstantiated views of the Government concerned have an important
role. After a controversial examination of the cases it would be possible to
have a more accurate view of the situation regarding human rights, Judgeraent
would follow the examination of facts arid vehicles of information.
65. The Iranian Government suggested, as an alternative, that the Special
Representative may receive information from certain political groups
informally and convey it to the Government in the same manner, in order to get
the official consent to publish the names of such groups in official
documents. The Government objects to the publication of the names of such
groups alleging that it provides them with “publicity, exposure and clout”
(“The Viewpoints”. pp. 11, 12, 15, paras. 28. 40(g)). If public documents of
the United Nations are used for propaganda purposes, that fact goes beyond the
intention and the capacity of control of the competent organs. The suggested
procedure might be adopted by the Commission on Human Rights, but according to
the present formulation of the mandate the Special Representative has to
present to the Commission, through his reports, all the available information,
without any restrictive procedure, To further clarify this suggested
procedure, it is convenient to have in mind the distinction between
information provided by groups as such and information provided by
individuals. The suggestion mentioned above concerns only information
emanating from and concerning groups.
(b) The qualifications of witnesses
66. with respect to the q ualifications of the witnesses interviewed by IIe
Special Representative, the latter has received communications and examined
witnesses in accordance with the well established practice of international
organs dealing with human rights. The Inter—American Commission on Human
Rights started this practice in 1962 . and from then on this procedure has been
extensively applied, witnesses are indispensable to collect firsthand
information and to assess the prevalent situation of human rights.
67. The Iranian Government would like the Special Representative to apply the
restrictive rule of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(art. 41) (“The Viewpoints”, p. 11, para. 24 . This rule applies to the Human
Rights Committee and has not been adopted as practice by other international
organs entrusted with the protection of human rights.
E/CN. 4/1988/24
page 16
68. The mandate of the Commission on Human Rights empowers the Special
Representative “to make a thorough study of the human rights situation based
on such information as he may deem relevant, including comments and material
provided by the Government” (resolution 1984/54, para. 4). the mandate
therefore leaves it to the discretion of the Special Representative to
determine the relevant information. Certainly discretion can not be equated
to arbitrariness. The Special Representative has used that authorization
within the terms of the international practice on human rights and in
accordance with duly and widely recognized international standards.
(c) The question of the term “Minority”
69. The tranian Government has objected to the use of the term “minority” as
applied to the members of the Baha'i faith. The adduced motivation is the
absence of a standard definition at the United Nations. And, indeed, the
Sub—Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of
Minorities is far from reaching an agreed definition of this term.
70. The term “minority” has been consistently used by the Commission on Human
Rights in its resolutions in reference to the Baha'is. OEe Special
Representative has sometimes referred to this group in the sane manner, within
the terms of ref erende of his mandate.
71. The term “minority” has been studied by sociologists and has entered and
has been incorporated by the international lexicon for a long tine.
Sociologists generally define “minority” as a group of people differentiated
from others of the same society by race, nationality, religion or language.
The application of that term to the Baha'is would not add or diminish
characterizations to their entity. They are what they are irrespective of the
words used to refer to them. The Special Representative deals with the
Baha'is as individuals, and is interested in groups as formed by individuals
and as providers of information on individuals. The view of the Iranian
Government denying the condition of minority to the Baha'is has been duly
reflected in the Special Representative's previous reports.
E/cN. 4/1988/24
page 17
V. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
72. The presentation by the Iranian Government of a document (“OEe
Viewpoints”) containing its views on several issues and its opinions on the
binding force of international instruments On human rights, has helped to
clarity controversial points and provided material which makes it possible to
have an insight into the intricate situation of that country. Clarification
of conflicting approaches and interpretations may sometimes consitute the
first stage of a process leading to some kind of common understanding and to
the eventual solution of the outstanding problems. the tranian document has
in particular permitted the Special Representative to elucidate his own
approaches and views on conflicting points.
73. The Special Representative welcomes the statement of the Iranian
Government that some provisions of the International Covenant On Civil and
Political Rights, particularly those which may be considered as jus cogens ,
are compatible with Islamic Law. This statement clears the normative basis
for the examination of the concrete allegations of violations of human rights
submitted to the attention of the Iranian Government. Disparate official
statements on this subject have been registered, but it seems that, with
regard to the situation of human rights, the position officially communicated
to the Special Representative should prevail. The Special Representative
expresses the hope that the Iranian Government will increase the normative
area of agreed application of norms concerning human rights in order to cover
the entire international instruments by which it is bound as a member of the
United Nations and a party to the two Covenants. OEis final outcome would
entail the abandonment of the selective adherence to some provisions of the
international instruments.
74. The original perception from which the Iranian Government derives its
initial positions and theses with respect to the international protection of
human rights may be considered as deeply enshrined in its cultural life and
its current national movement. The preliminary difficulties with respect to
the full application of the instruments on human rights could thus be
explicable. The statement on the compatibility of certain international
provisions with Islamic law may be understood as an effort of accomodation to
the international obligations and as the beginning of a sustained trend that
may eventually reach the point of acceptance of the positions adopted by the
General Assembly of the United Nations and the Commission on Human Rights in
their successive resolutions. The discussion and the clarification of the
question of compatibility of international law with Islamic law, and the
hypothesis of a working arrangement at a concrete and factual level are
therefore quite important. On the part of international organs of protection
of human rights a parallel effort night be undertaken in order to take into
account the peculiarities of the Iranian situation and to facilitate and help
the full compliance of Iran with the provisions of the international
instruments. Comments made and information provided by the Iranian Government
have been extensively quoted and referred to in the reports prepared by the
Special Representative previously, particularly in the Interim Report
(A/42/648). Both the practice of international organs of protection of human
rights and the terms of the mandate (resolution 1984/54, para. 4) determine
that comments from the Iranian Government should be received, considered and
included in the analysis of the prevalent situation.
/CN.4/l988/24
page 18
75. The views of the Iranian Government concern a variety of subjects, from
the qualifications of groups that have acted as medium for conveying
information to the compatibility of international law with Islamic law. The
Special Representative has been unable to agree on some of those views. There
is no doubt that the original perception based on the system of international
law on human rights differs from the original religious perception of the
Iranian Government. Nonetheless in the course of the oral and written
dialogue some points have been identified upon which a kind of working
understanding may exist. the Special Representative has tried to take the
Iranian views into account as much as possible, to the extent this was
consistent with the structure and operation of international instruments on
human rights, thus, a possible way was indicated to give some consideration
to the Iranian desire to apply particular rules to the use of information
provided by organized groups (supra, p. 65). The present use of such
information is consistent with the practice of international organizations but
there is no legal obstacle for the Commission to adopting particular rules in
handling such information. It has also been acknowledged that the
participation of Isla mic scholars in the preparation of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights was relatively minor, considering the importance
and extension of tslamic culture, without attributing any legal effect to that
fact. An hypothesis has also been outlined according to which a working
arrangement with respect to concrete cases might be worked out in order to
overcome obstacles of local character while ensuring the compliance with
international norms (supra, p. 59).
76. In his introduction to the Interim Report (A/42/648) the Special
Representative indicated, with respect to the enjoyment of human rights, the
coexistence of two complementary but distinct elements with their respective
levels of operation: the normative and legal level and the level of
implementation. The normative level is important and is constituted by
international instruments and municipal law. But despite its importance it
may have scarce practical occurrence if the level of implementation is
faulty. Governments therefore have to monitor carefully the level of
implementation through the actions of both petty and high officers, in order
to fully comply with international obligations.
77. with respect to the normative level, it has not yet been possible to
obtain complete texts of the pertinent Iranian laws, such as the Penal Code.
It has therefore not been possible to examine the compatibility of the laws
with international instruments. Nonetheless, it has been possible to examine,
to some extent, the level of implementation on the basis of oral and written
information, and the Special Representative has expressed in the Interim
Report his concern regarding the treatment given to prisoners during
interrogation and before and after the final verdict, as well as at the
extremely summary and informal proceedings, unawarness of defendants of
specific accusations against them, lack of legal counsel and other
irregularities.
18. The Iranian Government provided information quoting provisions of the
Constitution and the Penal Code concerning the punishment of judicial
officials and non judicial staff engaged in maltreatment and raclestation of
E/C . 4/1988/24
page 19
prisoners (A/42/648, p. 16, para. 46). It is the considered view of the
Special Representative that complaints regarding maltreatment and torture
should not be discarded without a thorough examination of each case, since
such practices are strictly forbidden by municipal law and international law.
79. The cogmiunication of allegations of violations of human rights has a
positive aspect, as it gives information to the Government concerned on facts
that may have escaped its knowledge and may orient the investigation and
contribute to the possible redress of any weakness in the national system of
protection of human rights. The communication of such allegations thus
contributes to the fair functioning of national institutions. The furnishing
of circumstantiated replies to such allegations also has a positive aspect for
any Government. As a matter of fact the Government concerned may benefit from
the inclusion of the replies in the reports, as both the General Assembly and
the Commission on Human Rights would be aware of its views and would have
additional information to formulate a balanced judgement on the current
situation. The replies are part of a consistent practice on this subject
matter. Furthermore they would not imply any recognition or granting of
status to any of the groups involved in political strife or, in any other way,
active in a given society. In the case of Iran the replies would be part of a
dialogue between the Iranian Government and the Commission on Human Rights
through the Special Representative, and nothing more. In the absence of
concrete official replies to allegations of violations of human rights only
one side voices its views, while the other side — the Government — remains
silent.
80. It may be convenient to emphasize again that the international protection
of human rights has a co—operative character which derives from the text of
the Charter of the United Nations. It activates the co—operation promised
among members of the United Nations. The objective of the exercise is to
ensure compliance with international obligations on the basis of co—operation
of each State and each Government. It is not a judicial procedure. It
appeals to good will, to moral and political standards and to legal norms
whose enforcement is, for the time being, imperfect. Its goal is not to
condemn a Government but to redress a given situation.
81. The Centre for Human Rights has developed a prograamie of technical
assistance which is based on the co—operative character of the action and
surveillance by the competent organs of the United Nations, whose ultimate
recourse is world public opinion. Governments wishing to be fully and
thoroughly acquainted with the continuing and fast developments in the field
of human rights and to know the intricacies of the application of
international instruments may take advantage of this service (Commission on
Human Rights, resolution 1987/37 and basic information provided by the Centre).
82. In the light of the foregoing analysis the Special Representatives has
reached the following conclusions (of which the chapter on “Observations” of
the Interim Report nay be considered as the introductory part):
(1) OEe Special Representative appreciates the co—operation of the
Iranian Government and expresses his hope that this co—operation will reach
the level of full co—operation in the near future, in compliance with the
E/CN. 4/1980/24
page 20
reiterative resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations and the
Commission on Human Rights. The Special Representative also expresses the
hope that the Iranian Government will reconsider its position on some issues
referred to in this report, in order to fully comply with the provisions of
binding international. instruments on human rights. The Special Representative
believes that the development of coincidence of views and the actual
implementation of the co—operative character of the international protection
of human rights may lead to the gradual solution of the pending problems.
(2) The alleged incompatibility between some provisions of international
law on human rights and Islamic law is a domestic problem that should be
solved by the Government concerned, because it does not affect or change
per Se international obligations. From the point of view of international law
the obligations acquired by the Islamic Republic of Iran as a member State of
the United Nations and as a party to the two International Covenants are folly
binding and do not admit exceptions on account of constitutional problems,
rules and regulations of municipal law, or cultural or historic background—
even if lustified from a national point of view.
(3) Notwithstanding that assertion of principle and taking into account
the co—operative character of the international protection of human rights it
would be possible to make efforts in order to meet some of the misgivings and
concerns of the Iranian Government at a very concrete level and without
belittling the full force and the right application of agreed and binding
provisions on human rights.
(4) Although the selective acceptance by the Iranian Government of
important provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and political
Rights provides a normative basis for the five categories of complaints
communicated to the Government, it is expected, as a matter of principle, that
the Iranian Government may reach the point of complete recognition of all.
provisions of binding iternational instruments without discrimination of any
kind.
(5) allegations on violations of human rights have been communicated to
the Iranian Government in accordance with international practice. These
allegations refer to individuals. Whenever certain groups have played the
role of intermediaries to convey information the individual character of such
information has been kept. As human rights protect human beings in their most
common and generic dimensions, their political or religious affiliations,
their change of citizenship and other particular conditions or characteristics
are of no relevance.
(6) The circumstantiated official replies to communications of alleged
violations of human rights would certainly contribute to a better
understanding and evaluation of the situation regarding human rights and would
inform the international cormnunity of the concrete views of the Iranian
Government as well as the result of the investigations on specific cases.
Furthermore, these replies would be an important element of the fliti
co—operation required by the Commission on Human Rights.
E/cN. 4/1988/24
page 21
(7) The Special Representative expresses concern on account of
communications reVerring to new cases of summary executions and of informatto
according to which some prisoners were in danger of execution. Neverthelens
the Special Representative notes with satisfaction the information according
to which five prominent members of the Baha'i faith who were arrested in
Teheran in October 1987, includinq two former members of the National liaha'i
Council of Iran who were alleged to be in danger of execution, were recently
released from prison without any conditions. Information on growing economic
pressure on Baha'ts, such as cancellation of business licences, confiscation
of property, dismissal from government jobs and loss of pensions, as well as
denial of higher education, still continues to be received in a consistent
manner.
(3) Information on maltreatment and torture in prisons continues to be
received and was the subject of pathetic and moving declarations by witnesses
who had direct experience of the conditions prevailing and the bahaviour of
officers in prisons. Some witnesses presented the physical effects of
maltreatment that could be seen and interpreted by a layman. Medical doctors
gave expert opinion linking those effects to torture. Moreover, information
on irregularities of various kinds in the course of trials was abundant,
consistent and convincing. Consequently the Government nay wish to initiate
an urgent investigation of those complaints in order to take measures of
redress.
(9) The Special Representative continues to believe that acts still
occur in the Islamic Republic of Iran which are inconsistent with
international instruments on human rights, and that the situation in that
country justifies continuing international concern, study and constant
monitoring by the competent organs of the United Nations.
E/CN. 4/1988/24
page 22
ANNEX
Names and particulars of some persons who were allegedly executed or
tortured to death in Iranian prisons during the years 1986—1987.
Surname Forename Date of death Place of death
AQA ,I MOHAI4MAD 23.5. 86 BANDAR ABBAS
ARIAN QANBAR 24.11. 86 BONJNOURD
ABDOLIAN MOHAMMADRP ZA 5—6.86 TEHERAN
ABDOLLA HPOOR BAHM I.N 86—87 RASHT
AFIMADI AHMAD 5—6.86 TEHERAN
AI tMORADI BEHROOZ 10—11.86 SANANDM
?sRAB RflA 5—6.86 KARAJ
ASGARI VARIANI ALIREZA 86 -87 KARAJ
EI4AMI ALIREZA Winter 87 TEHERAN
FARAJI — 6—7. 87 GOHARDMHT
RADIAN HOSEIN 6—7.86 TEHERAN
HAJIAN MEHRDAD 4—5. 86 TEHERAN
HAJIZADEH IOOSEF 8.3.86 DEzFOOr
HAMIDI BANRAM 29 .9.86 KARM
HAQIQATKHAH SHAHIN 3. 2. 87 RAS}IT
JIRIA'I MOHAMMAD 2.3.86 KERMANSHAH
KAFFASH—NARVI SA'ID 14.2. 87 ZANJAN
KHAJEHZADEH IOOSEF 24.2. 86 DEZFOOL
KNALEQI AHMAD Autum 86 KARAJ
KHALIFEH AZDOLEMAM 24.2. 86 AHWAZ
KHARRAZIRA PAREAD 9—10.86 ISFAHA1
LOTFI MAZIAR 4.4.87 TERERAN
MADADILALEHLOO QORBAN 16.3.86 SARDAS HT
MAQBOOf IEQBAt ,I BAHMAN 4-5.86 GO 3AN
MIRISAPOOR MIRHPIMZEH J7. 6.87 ASTARA
&tOHAMMADI—
MOHAMMADZADEH MINk 29.2.87 TEHERAN
E/CN.4/1988/24
pane 23
Surname Forename Date of death Place of death
SHAHRIPiRT RASOOL 29.2.87 TEHERAN
MOHAMMADZAMANI KHALIL 5—6.86 KELACHA I
MOKHTAR ZADEM SOHEILA 28.6.87 TEHERAN
MONIR s' I ALT 6—7.86 KARAJ
MOOSAVI SEYYED-MOHA!4NADPEZA 5—6.86 BORAZYAN
MOQIMI SAID 5—6.86 TEHERAN
MOSHARET
