HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE CONSIDERS REPORT OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN

The Human Rights Committee has concluded its consideration of the third periodic report of the Islamic Republic of Iran on the measures undertaken by that country to implement the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Presenting the report, Mohammad Reza Sajjadi, Permanent Representative of Iran to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that Iran had moved in three directions to institutionalize the promotion of human rights, and had engaged in legislative reform, capacity building and raised awareness. Iran had taken fundamental steps and effective measures to promote and protect human rights via extensive national and international efforts. An advisory and technical assistance agreement with the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights had been signed, human rights had been included on school curriculums and open invitations were extended to thematic Rapporteurs. Mr. Sajjadi also noted that Iran was working with the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights to make preparations for a visit by the High Commissioner. Iran had honoured their obligations under international human rights documents, aside from being signatory to several international instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Over the course of three meetings, the Iranian delegation answered questions posed by Committee members relating to a number of issues, including the application of the Covenant by lawyers and judges, whether domestic legislation had been harmonized with the Covenant and whether these courts were required to respect the Covenant and its provisions. Committee Experts expressed concerns about the death penalty in Iran, particularly with regard to pregnant women and minors, impunity, guarantees of a fair trial and the appeals process, torture and illegal detention. They referred to the marriageable age for girls, women's rights and the rights of students, protestors and political activists who had been arrested. Committee members asked what was being done to combat the trafficking of persons, honour killings and discrimination against religious and ethnic minorities, particularly the Baha’i peoples. Freedom of expression, with particular regard to press freedom and censorship of the Internet and social networking websites, was also raised.

In closing remarks, Khosro Hakheeme, Deputy Secretary-General of the Human Rights Council in Tehran, said that the Government was determined to keep its commitments with the international community on civil and political rights, and intended to follow all of its obligations. He said he had studied and discussed all of the issues raised by the Committee, and that there was a need to be more patient when dealing with human rights issues. Those who tried to promote human rights dialogue would help to create more understanding among all parties, and to take greater steps for the dignity of human beings.

In preliminary closing remarks Zonke Zanele Majodina, Chairperson of the Committee, thanked the Islamic Republic of Iran for taking the important step of resuming dialogue with the Committee after 18 years, which was an indication that Iran was renewing its commitment to honour its obligations under the Covenant. Ms. Majodina thanked the delegation for the extensive replies and for taking time to answer most of the questions that had been proposed. She welcomed the information on the many draft bills going through the Iranian parliament, and expected that those bills would materialise into laws in the future. However, several concerns of the Committee gave rise to repeated questions, such as the status of the Covenant within national law in Iran, the status of women, the death penalty, guarantee of a fair trial, extrajudicial killings, torture, and illegal detention.

The delegation from Iran included two Members of Parliament, as well as members from several governmental departments and ministries including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the High Council for Human Rights, the Judicial Division of the Administrative Justice Tribunal, the Legal Division of the Judiciary, the Ministry of the Interior, the Office for Treaties, the Directorate for Human Rights, the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, the General Directorate for Foreign Media and the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to Geneva.

The Committee will hold its next public session on Wednesday, 19 October at 11 a.m. when it will consider working methods. On the same day at 3 p.m. the Committee will meet in public to begin consideration of the third periodic report of Jamaica (CCPR/C/JAM/3).

Report

The third periodic report of Iran (CCPR/C/IRN/3) says that the Constitution of Iran, adopted in 1980 with an overwhelming majority, includes 24 articles dealing with human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Constitution regards the protection of political and social rights within the confines of law as the responsibility of the Government of Iran. No authority has the right to abrogate legitimate freedoms, not even by enacting laws and regulations for that purpose. The Constitution also states that all people of Iran whatever the ethnic group or tribe to which they belong, enjoy equal rights, and that all citizens of the country, both men and women, equally enjoy the protection of the law and all human, political, economic, social and cultural rights, in conformity with Islamic criteria.

Many measures and legal facilities have been put in place to promote the human rights of women at individual, family and social levels. The Charter on the Rights and Duties of Women in Iran underlines the importance of women's rights, especially in the principal areas of immunity of life, property and dignity, freedom of thought and security in having beliefs and the right to decent life and health. The rights of women at family level are two-way relationships. Family rights are based on prevention of social abnormalities and aberrations, to ensure the individual health of women and children. In this connection men’s role is as the provider of the economic life of women. New legal decrees that were beneficial for women included a bill to enable women to inherit from their deceased husband, a bill for women to be entitled to equal blood money (Diyeh) as men, and the right to benefit from alimony in permanent marital relationships.

The report says that the death sentence in Iran is only applied to certain crimes and has stringent legal proceedings. Implementation of the death sentence in public will only take place with the agreement of the Head of the Judiciary and due to social exigencies. Pregnant women should not be executed prior to delivery, and moreover pregnant, menstruating or breastfeeding women should not be flogged. According to the prevailing practice of children’s courts over the recent years persons under the age of 18 are not sentenced to death. The Constitution of Iran stipulates that all forms of torture for the purpose of extracting confession or acquiring information are forbidden and any testimony obtained under duress is invalid in court. Although torture is forbidden by law there is no definition of the offence of torture in the Iranian law. Innocence is to be presumed and no one is to be held guilty of a charge unless his or her guilt has been established by a competent court.

Presentation of the Report

MOHAMMAD REZA SAJJADI, Head of Delegation and Permanent Representative of Iran to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, inspired by the exalted teachings of Islam, the Constitution and international conventions, had given the greatest importance to the promotion of human rights in its goals and programmes. Chapter three of Iran’s Constitution, which was passed into law with 98 per cent of the vote, was titled ‘the rights of the nation’, and described the human rights and basic freedoms of the nation. All State organs in Iran were manifestations of the will of the people and had come into office as a result of the direct or indirect vote of the people. Iran had moved in three directions to institutionalize the promotion of human rights, and had engaged in legislative reform, capacity building and raised awareness. Iran had thus taken fundamental steps to promote and protect human rights via extensive national and international efforts.

Many effective measures had been put into motion to better promote and protect human rights. An advisory and technical assistance agreement with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had been signed, human rights had been included on school curriculums and open invitations were extended to thematic Rapporteurs and their subsequent visits to Iran took place between 2003 and 2007. Mr. Sajjadi also noted that Iran was working with the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights to make preparations for a visit by the High Commissioner. Bilateral human rights dialogues between Iran and different countries had produced positive achievements, for example human rights dialogues with Japan, Switzerland, Australia and Russia, in addition to four rounds of human rights dialogue with the European Union. Iran had honoured their obligations under international human rights documents, aside from being signatory to several international instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.

KHOSRO HAKEEME, Deputy Secretary-General of the Human Rights Council in Tehran, said that Iran attached great importance to the work of the Human Rights Committee. He noted that a number of high level officials from Iran were in the delegation. The victory of 1979 People’s Revolution was regarded as a great reward for Iranians, and the revolution created a solid foundation for the promotion of a democracy inspired by Islam. The Constitution was a clear document and roadmap indicating the future of the country. The document guaranteed human rights and fundamental freedoms. The judicial system of Iran was independent from the legislative and executive branches. Iranians had equal rights before the law, and the prohibition of torture, public trials and impartiality of judges were guaranteed.

In 2001, the then-chief of the Judiciary issued a circular for the establishment of the human rights headquarters. In 2005 the human rights headquarters had been recognized as the highest body for human rights affairs in the country. The human rights headquarters was presided over by the head of the judiciary and employed senior members of the judiciary. In 1968 the Government of Iran signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in 1969 the then-parliament approved the treaty. After the 1979 Revolution, Iran considered rejecting the Covenant but general policy was to cooperate with the United Nations. The provisions of the Covenant did not contradict the rights of the Constitution of Iran, therefore Iran had always submitted periodic reports to the Human Rights Committee and continued their cooperation with the Committee. A political approach must be avoided in presenting the reports.

As a founding member of the United Nations, Iran respected all of those principles and remained committed to their obligations based on international laws and principles. Iran had also taken measures, legal reforms and amendments to ensure the promotion and protection of human rights over the past few years. The Bill for Family Protection was now under consideration; the Bill for Deleting Titles to Crimes was being considered; the Bill for Computer Crimes was now being made into a law; the Law for Legal Proceedings had now been approved; and a Bill for the establishment of a supervisory body in the judiciary and the Bill for Juvenile Justice had now been approved. The Bill for Social Punishments and other settlements as an alternative to prison sentences, and the Bill for Prevention of Crimes had already been submitted to the parliament. The Bill for Supporting Children and Young Adults had been submitted to parliament; a Bill for Mandatory Insurance for vehicles had been approved as well as a Bill for Discretionary Punishments. To promote women’s and children’s rights a number of offices had been established throughout the country. A National Headquarters for Women had been established, in addition to a headquarters for protecting the rights of citizens in all provinces of the country. A specialised meeting of human rights was to soon be held with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and other specialized agencies. Iran had also cooperated with the Universal Period Review mechanism.

Delegations had been sent to the United Nations in both Geneva and New York to participate in human rights meetings, and Iran had also taken measures to raise awareness of human rights domestically, for example via media campaigns, an information centre on the Human Rights Council, via the judiciary’s public relations department, and through academic seminars. Iran planned to increase public awareness on principles of human rights, and had provided information and support to human rights institutions in Iran. Iran was a diverse country made of different ethnic groups, who had different traditions and values, yet those groups lived side by side in peace and tranquillity. To maintain that tranquillity the Government said all citizens, regardless of ethnicity, should benefit from the law. To that goal, many programmes, such a health programmes, had been set in motion.

Iran itself was a victim of terrorism, for example the assassination of Iranian atomic scientists, which was an impediment. In recent years certain States had worked to increase the flow of narcotics into Iran. It might seem that the number of executions were high. But 70 per cent of those executions were linked to narcotics. Iran was a victim of the narcotics trade. Regarding unilateral relations, Iran wanted to benefit from the expertise and experience of the Human Rights Committee, and was ready to answer questions from the Chair and Committee members.

Questions from Experts

A Committee member was pleased to see the delegation 18 years after the last report, and thanked them for their spirit of cooperation, even if some written questions had not received written responses as expected.

An Expert was pleased that the report of Iran was before the Committee, and also that Iran had submitted written replies to the Committee in a timely fashion. The replies were helpful and contributed to making the dialogue constructive. In Iran treaties had the force of law, and therefore the Covenant did as well. Had the Covenant ever been invoked before domestic courts? The delegation was asked to clarify how treaties influenced legislation.

An Expert referred to the human rights of women in Iran. The principle of equality between women and men was the core principle, if not the cornerstone of the human rights framework erected by Member States of the United Nations since its inception in 1945. Young and old women, women with a university education, women belonging to minority groups, women of different sexual orientations, were all experiencing discrimination in Iran. The number of female students seeking entry to university in Iran was lower than ever before, sources said that was due to quotas, and that some universities were practising gender segregation. Could the delegation elaborate on that?

Women needed to be involved in the decision-making process. Iran said that in principle there was no obstacle to appointing a woman as Head of State, or to the Guardian Council, to become a presiding judge or to any top decision-making positions. Only seven per cent of parliamentarians were women and that was the lowest percentage in the history of Iran. Most high-ranking women were appointed to the Ministry of Education; while this was a positive move it maintained the stereotype of women as teachers. What measures were there to appoint women to other positions?

A Committee member referred to the One Million Signatures campaign, and said that many women involved in it had been detained. During detention they lacked access to legal advice, visits from family members and suffered ill treatment. What were the Iranian Government’s policies in that respect?

The Social Safety campaign targeted women on the streets and in public areas with regard to their clothes. Over 70,000 police had been placed on the streets in order to arrest women who were not properly dressed. Information had also been received that women had also been arrested in private places. Please explain more about the Social Safety campaign.

A Committee member raised the issue of violence against women, including domestic violence and other forms of violence: all had been recognized by the United Nations as a form of discrimination. What measures had been taken in Iran to eliminate violence against women? Was there a law to prohibit it, and also support networks for victims?

Concerning the death penalty, for what crimes was a death sentence imposed? For example, could it be imposed for drinking alcohol or contravening religious laws? People were still being sentenced to death for being homosexual. Likewise, when Iran submitted its report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2005 it agreed to a moratorium on executing minors. It would seem that was still not the case – children under the age of 18 were still being given the death sentence and executed.

Likewise there had been no response regarding stoning. Why did stoning as a method of execution continue to be handed down by courts, despite a moratorium issued by the judiciary in 2002?

What forms of capital punishment were enacted, and were they set by the courts or the judge? Furthermore were the executions public, and who decided on that? The Covenant required that the death penalty be handed down after a fair trial, including the right to appeal.

Regarding impunity, there was a definition called ‘mahdoor-ol-dam’ (deserving of death), under which some crimes could be committed without deserving death because the perpetrator was defending the law. That applied to only some crimes. Were there plans to amend the Penal Code with the aim of removing ‘mahdoor-ol-dam’? There was also the matter of impunity following the post-Presidential election events of 2009. The international community was aware of those events, yet Government reports once again did not correspond with reports made by other institutions. Over 100 people were victims of that impunity and some of those people may have been executed. Inquests had not been held into the deaths of people who had been executed, including human rights activists. Many persons had disappeared, especially following the demonstrations, and may have died as a result of extra-judicial killings, yet nothing was known of them.

Honour crimes were still taking place in regions of Iran, and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, who visited Iran in 2005, said that since 2001 over 500 women have been killed in honour crimes, and over 300 women had killed themselves by setting themselves on fire, because they had been involved in honour crimes.

Concerning sexual relations between same-sex consenting adults, those individuals faced very serious discrimination and punishment, including execution, simply because of their sexual orientation. Information from non-governmental organizations stated that some people had been put into prison because of their sexuality. Some persons were forced to undergo operations to change their sex because they were considered to be ill in some way. Were their forced surgical operations taking place?

The Committee had asked for statistics on people undergoing torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The State said there had been 13 instances since 2007, all of which had resulted in convictions. That seemed an extraordinary low number, even in less populous States. Could more information be provided on how those figures were obtained, and the complaint mechanisms for persons?

There were continued reports of flogging for minor offences; an actress was reported to have been sentenced to be flogged for appearing in a film. Some of the uses of corporal punishment were related to religious doctrine, but others were not. For the latter crimes corporal punishment could be abolished. What was the function of the auxiliary law enforcement bodies, and what legal authority did they have?

Regarding pre-trial detention, arbitrary detention and incommunicado detention, did the delegation agree that persons had been held in such detention? State written replies said a judge was obliged to bring a case to trial within one to four months. Did that mean that was the maximum length of pre-trial detention? At what moment did a person become entitled to have access to a lawyer after being arrested?

What information could the delegation give on solidarity confinement? Was it rarely used, and if not, was the State willing to implement rules making sure it was only rarely used?

Could the delegation give more information on prison inspections and conditions within? Did prisoners have access to basic food and water? Reports said prisoners were deliberately restricted from food, water and basic medical care in order to ensure cooperation. How were prison inspectors trained?

The delegation had confirmed that women could now become judges and a member of the judicial committee had publicly declared that if the Draft Family Law was approved women could act as judges in family courts. Those courts were still presided over by men, however.

In Stalin’s Soviet Union and in Hitler’s Third Reich the courts and interpretations of law were subject to a higher ideology. A Committee member said he would be loath to think that the frequent reference to Islamic dogma in the report meant a similar interpretation occurred in Iranian law.

A Committee member raised the position of wives who had to obey, refer to their husband and submit to conditions which could demonstrate discrimination against women. The report noted that a woman was entitled to own half the marital assets? Was that enshrined anywhere? Furthermore, was polygamy legal, and if not, were there any sanctions?

Response by the Delegation

Responding to these questions and comments, the delegation said the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights had the same weight in all areas of law, for example penal laws or criminal codes. Local laws had been made to correspond with the Covenant. Judges and attorneys preferred to quote local laws and thought they would suffice. It was difficult to give examples or statistics, because the statistics were not published in one place – courts kept their own statistics, and so the Government was forced to rely on the judges themselves and what they could remember. That made Governmental life more difficult. One legal reform had been to allow women victims of tainted blood to receive equal blood money to men. The delegate said they needed to organize more training courses for judges.

Treaty laws were equal to domestic law, but the lawyers and jurists in Iran had different opinions. Some may consider treaty laws superior, others may not. Equity was not implemented in the civil code, but in cases of equity the judge followed the same principle.

Measures had been taken by the Iranian Government to facilitate access of women to high office and also to increase their managerial capacity. Certain offices in Iran had been earmarked for women, namely the Office of the Advisor to the President on Women and Family, the position of Advisor to Women in all Government offices, also the Ministry of Education, and the Head of the Research Department. In Iran there was a meritocracy: women had competed with men and had managed to reach high offices including membership in the cabinet and as advisor to the president, chairing different cultural committees as well as Members of Parliament. There were currently four women Members of Cabinet and eight women Members of Parliament, a six fold increase. Iran was working hard to increase the presence of women in high office. Women who were active in certain fields were invited to training courses by the Government to increase their abilities.

Iran had a current policy on the rights of women, they believed there were differences between men and women, due to physiological differences, and because of those Islam gave special rights to mothers and wives. Women were the heads of the household and enjoyed special rights according to Islam.

There had been considerable progress in Iran over recent years on women’s status in society from 1993 to 2011, illustrating the acceleration of changes in society. Women had benefitted from literacy campaigns, complementary education, and university courses that sometimes had over 60 per cent of women students. In the health sector 70 per cent of medical specialists were women.

There was no quota system restricting the entry of girls into university. On the contrary there was positive discrimination, in some medical fields, for example gynaecology – only girls could apply. Over the past 30 years there had been an increase of women’s activities in society, for example in women's rights non-governmental organizations and other social groups.

When a couple went to the courts it was the woman who often had preferential judgement. The Bill for the Protection of the Family said that a woman, with a court’s approval, could prevent her husband from applying for a job which did not befit the stature of their family. If that happened the court would prevent the man from seeking that employment. That was a facility set aside for women.

Iran did not have gender discrimination in the common sense. There were women-only colleges, and also there were specialized hospitals only for women. That was an opportunity for women to feel more at ease.

Polygamy was not out rightly prohibited in Iran, but had been very much limited. Under the Family Protection Law, the husband was permitted to marry again in very special cases. Examples would be if his first wife was mentally unstable. New marriages had to be recorded, and if they were not recorded they would be punished under Islamic code.

Concerning domestic violence, violence in general, regardless of where it happened, was considered a crime in Iran. There were trained emergency services who could help prevent domestic violence, or provide appropriate services and referrals etc. There were also shelters for battered women.

In Iran the prevailing point of view was one of human rights. If amendments were needed in that context they would be duly incorporated.

A delegate stated that after the elections Iran faced problems from terrorist elements.
The allegation that over 100 persons were killed following the events of 2009 was rejected by the delegation. The lives lost were, in fact, the lives of law enforcement officials. The delegation also denied the allegation that Iran had not held any officials responsible for those events. In fact Iran had prosecuted a number of people during that time: three judges were suspended and three members of the police force were sentenced to imprisonment. There were other court rulings the Committee should take into account.

The delegation said a Committee member had raised a question about patrolling activities by the police force. The patrols were in line with the laws of Iran and the responsibility of the law-enforcement body. The allegation that 70,000 members of the police force were mobilized to patrol the dress code of Iran was rejected.

It was permissible to reference Islamic fatwas, as they were mentioned and protected by the Constitution. However the penal system of Iran was a system based on the rule of the law and according to the constitution and the Islamic penal code any sentencing should be based on the law. Fatwas helped refer to certain points and legal issues for which there was consensus.

Cases of women murdered following accusations of infidelity had been raised. There had been 163 such cases, not six. If a husband discovered his wife committing adultery, he was not permitted to kill her; instead retribution would be delivered through the legal system. Adultery was a crime and the culprit would be jailed.

The constitution provided for the right to a fair trial. No person could be subpoenaed without a sound basis, and the subpoena must be in the written form. A judge must tell an arrested person what crime they had been accused of no later than 24 hours after their arrest.

Concerning capital punishment, in the Islamic judicial system capital punishment was only for two serious types of crime: wilful killing and narcotics. In cases of wilful killing the owners of the blood could decide what happened to the perpetrator. Given the situation in Afghanistan, the use and trafficking of narcotics was very serious, and 70 per cent of executions in Iran were narcotic-related. If the Government did not deal seriously with narcotic crimes the young people would be targeted and there would be serious repercussions. It was untrue that death sentences were given for ethnic reasons. People from various ethnic backgrounds were living side by side in peace in Iran. A person was given capital punishment because of the crime they committed, not ethnicity.

Iran’s codes on executing persons under 18 years were currently somewhat incomplete. The Government started legal reform 19 years ago. Once the reforms were complete there would be a new set of laws and those blind spots would be filled. However mature persons below the age of 18 more or less had legal responsibility. There was a grey area there, but they would not be executed and the Guardian Council had given its blessing. There was an appeal process in Iran. The initial sentence was always open to appeal.

A delegate stated that they did have information on issues such as the presence of an attorney and surgeries performed for sex change, but had ran out of time to share them.

Iran had not yet joined the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. Iranian laws on women's rights were more complete that the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. Nobody in Iran had been prosecuted for joining the One Million Signatures Campaign. Persons on that campaign may have committed other crimes but joining that campaign was not grounds for being arrested. Only a limited number of people had joined it in Iran. The women’s community in Iran were against the One Million Signatures Campaign and its goals and objectives.

The average age of marriage for women was 25 and 29 for men. The law permitted the age of 13 for girls and 15 for boys. The average age of marriage had increased in Iran because of cultural issues.

There were different provisions in the law for the requirement for a husband to give permission for a woman to leave the country. There were many conditions that could be raised in a marriage by a woman. The marriage contract could also set conditions for men, and those conditions could be mutually agreed for a man and a wife. Women could enjoy the right to file a divorce lawsuit.

The Government was following a number of plans concerning domestic violence and violence against women, considering the issue in different ways in order to take into consideration the legal background and problems. Of course the Government had been able to take very constructive steps to reach the goal, but there were shortcomings and time was too limited to talk about them in today’s meeting. A bill on the protection of women stipulated that non-governmental organizations should also be active in supporting women and children with regard to security, but there was no time to talk about all of the improvements made in that field.

A lawyer had the right to be present at the time of investigations, even in the 24 hour pre-trial detention, but could not be allowed to interfere in investigations. If the defendant did not have the capability to hire an attorney, an attorney would be provided by the State, and the judge could not go ahead until the attorney was present. The sentence would not be valid if an attorney for the defendant was not present. If a judge believed the presence of a lawyer created certain legal problems, or if the presence of the lawyer could undermine the process of detecting the truth, the judge may decide to impose certain limits on the presence of the lawyer. Such a decision could be protested in the court process.

The judiciary was in charge of the administration and supervision of prisons, and there was sufficient monitoring in place. The Attorney General could visit any prison without prior notice to tour the facilities. A new office called The Rights of the Citizen sent persons to prisons to monitor and supervise. If a prison was outside the prison system it would not be a legal prison.

It was categorically denied that persons who were transsexual or transgender had been forced to have gender-change surgery.

The laws of Iran did not recognize the right of a husband to murder his adulterous wife as an ‘honour killing’. It was very possible that murder could happen for any reason, for example money or to enact vengeance. An honour situation could be another reason for murder, but of course the numbers were not high, and the culprits were dealt with like any other murderer. However if the owners of the blood (of the victim) gave up their claim there were certain provisions for the punishment of the murderer.

Confession under duress meant that confessions had been produced by torture. Legally those confessions had no value, and if a Government employee committed such a crime as carrying out torture, he would be fired from his Government job.

Regarding Basij (a paramilitary volunteer militia) and legal capability, a limited number of Basij were permitted to work as bailiffs. Special conditions had to be in place: the crime had to be evident, police officers must not be on the scene, Basij were only permitted to arrest the culprit and keep the crime scene from being tampered with, and then they must hand the culprit and crime scene over to the police. Basij had to be trained and should carry a card showing they had completed their training.

Follow-Up Questions from Members

It has been said by the State party that there was no need to invoke the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as the judges applied the Constitution of Iran which was perfectly in line and compatible with the Covenant. If that was the case the member did not understand why minors had been sentenced to death, including death by stoning, or even why corporal punishment occurred at all, as the Covenant indicated the death penalty was incompatible with the right to integrity. The Committee understood there were draft laws that proposed amendments. However, irrespective of the place that the Covenant had in the State legal system, the State had ratified the Covenant and so should meet the obligations it had taken on. Could the delegation provide clarification of that?

Yesterday the delegation said the Constitution of Iran took precedence over the Covenant. However the overall policy of the judiciary of Iran was to allow Islamic law to take precedence over all areas of law. In that case was the Covenant inferior to some religious dogma which put the individual in jeopardy?

The report mentioned amendments to the penal code, especially qisas sanctions against pregnant women. Would those amendments be taken on?

The written response of Iran said that polygamy was prohibited except for certain special cases. Yesterday the delegation told the Committee that polygamy was not prohibited. Could the delegation provide a clear answer? Furthermore the State party said that it was possible to include provisions on shared assets in the civil marriage contract. Could that civil contract then include other conditions that would be related to the capacity of the husband to give permission for travel, to inheritance and to polygamy?

It was clear that women had an important professional role in Iran and were well-placed, particularly in the education and health sectors. However the political representation of women was very limited. There were only eight women in the parliament. Did Iran consider that situation acceptable, and would they consider adopting any positive discrimination measures in that field, as had happened in other countries?

Questions about the provision of the death penalty for religious crimes or crimes of a sexual nature, or for children under 18 years, had not been answered. Further there was no reply on the mode of the death sentence. The delegation was clearly embarrassed about the Committee’s questions on the death penalty.

Could the delegation provide more information on the appeal process, and also on the process of providing a law to a person when they were arrested, especially during the interrogation process?

An Expert asked about the exact statistics on persons killed, disappeared or subjected to other human rights violations following the events of 2009. Could the delegation provide information on the investigations conducted regarding those events, and whether any persons had been prosecuted? Information was given on militia – Basij - who acted in certain circumstances before the police arrived, but according to sources the Basij militia also acted during events and perhaps sometimes exceeded the competence they had been given. There had been cases of journalists and political activists being executed with impunity by the Basij militia or the police, and that seemed to happen to people who were not convenient to the system.

Why did the State party not consider that the issue of homosexuality fell under the Covenant? Furthermore could the delegation provide information on the discrimination of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons and censorship of related materials?

Response by the Delegation

Responding to these questions and comments, the delegation said that the Covenant referred to certain obligations and Iran respected those. However, to reform laws, bills must go through parliament and certain other stages. For the past 15 years Iran had performed well with regard to passing new laws. When the Ayatollah served as Chief of the Judiciary, he issued a directive on those issues. Iran had organized specific meetings in the Human Rights Council, including one such meeting last month during which sentencing was discussed. Furthermore every province of Iran had a liaison officer; a seasoned judge who constantly monitored cases that were cause for worry for the Committee, and also liaised with the Human Rights Council.

In the past decade Iran had been serious about changing laws, but the Committee must not forget about unique cultural aspects of a society, religion and local sensibilities, all of which must be shown respect – therefore reform took time. The Government did respect the Covenant, but sometimes a judge did not refer to it and instead heeded national law. Of course the punishment had to befit the crime, but the Government would do their utmost to urge judges to heed the Covenant when sentencing.

A delegate said he did not hear any contradictory comments regarding polygamy. A permanent marriage was the preference in Iranian law, but if a spouse was sick or could not perform her matrimonial duties the husband could approach a court and ask to remarry. That was not prevalent. The family culture in Iran was very strong, and within it women had a lot of influence over the behaviour of their husbands. There was a strong inclination to keep the family unit intact and maintain the dignity of the family as some behaviour was not socially acceptable. Any temporary marriage without the permission of the permanent spouse led to divorce.

There was nothing in the holy Koran to prohibit women from holding key political positions. There was no obstacle for women to stand as candidates for election to the Assembly of Experts. There had been no questions on the Guardianship Council. No woman had ever been restricted from running for president. There was a growing trend for women to become members of the Government, and there were four women in the Cabinet.

Representatives of the parliament were elected by the vote of the people; there were no quotas for women or men. Quotas would be a contradiction to democracy. As mentioned by a committee member, positive discrimination could instead be realized by having consultations with political groups who might agree to put more women on their candidate lists. The parliamentary elections would soon take place and the Speaker of the Parliament was personally asking political groups to add more names of women to candidate lists. However public awareness needed to be raised on the issue. God willing the Government would be able to increase women’s presence in key official positions in due course.

Married women could have both their own and shared assets with men. Women dealt with domestic affairs and worked as housewives, so there were special legal provisions because of the social impact and relationship of wives in Iran. To overcome the problem there were financial mechanisms to provide rights to women. For example when a couple divorced they could equally share their assets, because of the responsibilities a woman had as a housewife and raising children.

Only serious crimes received capital punishment. Under Iranian law other certain crimes could receive a death sentence, but that had never been implemented. There was capital punishment for homicide, manslaughter and drug trafficking. In all cases the sentence could be appealed. Furthermore, if there was a ruling that was not acceptable to the head of the judiciary it could be investigated by the Supreme Court. However it has been noted that the legal system faced problems: the Government had developed new approaches in the field and had amended the law. The Guardian Council had not objected to the amendment.

Nobody had ever been forced to undergo sexual reassignment surgery in Iran.

Questions from Committee Members

Regarding trafficking of persons under the age of 18, was the early age for marriage – 13 years – and the concept of temporary marriage, a front to force girls into prostitution?

There were no foreign journalists in Iran and the last permits were withdrawn after 2009. In addition there had been threats to the families of Iranian journalists living abroad: such threats were allegedly practised to deprive those journalists of freedom of expression. Could the delegation please clarify?

Any criticism of the Government was regarded as divisive. That was a restriction of freedom of expression, and contrary to the Covenant. Although the reports cite several cases of restrictions of journalists, students, writers and artists, the Expert said he would refer to one example, Mrs. Nasrin Sotoudeh, a lawyer. Mrs Sotoudeh gave an interview to the BBC and was subsequently imprisoned for 11 years for an offence against the security of the State: the Court did not give any explicit explanation how the acts she committed constituted a violation of the security of the State. Could the delegation explain? Furthermore there was a growing list of journalists in exile from Iran, and over 40 journalists were imprisoned in Iran. Was there a definition of State security in Iran?

Regarding freedom of expression on the Internet, non-governmental organizations reported that following the events of 2009, the Government took steps to narrow the bandwidth of the Internet in Iran, slowing it down dramatically so Internet use dropped off as a result. The authorities had barred social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, which were used extensively in Iran, web-based email such as Gmail and Yahoo, instant messenger and SMS text services, and practiced jamming of transmissions. The Internet had substantially changed communication around the world and in many cases was replacing traditional media; State parties should take all necessary steps to foster the independence of that new media and ensure the access of individuals thereto.

An Expert asked about discrimination to some religious minorities in Iran, such as the Baha’i group. According to information received by the Committee, 110 persons were in prison merely for being Baha’i, with many waiting for trial. The Expert asked for an explanation.

It has been alleged that workers in Iran were prevented by security forces from forming independent trade unions, holding public meetings or making a peaceful protest. How was the use of force against workers’ gatherings justified?

The delegation was asked for specific information on the number of women's rights activists who had been arrested since 2005, in particular the 41 members of the One Million Signatures Campaign. Furthermore members of that campaign had been harassed for holding private meetings in their home, as well as prevented from holding public meetings. Women's rights activists had been arrested in other situations, and sometimes for reasons such as having overly loose headscarves. Could the delegation please comment on those arrests? How could defences against national security be applied to women's rights activists?

In the two and a half years prior to the 2009 presidential elections some 200 students had been detained, and at least 160 students had been detained from university. The delegation was asked to please report on the number of students arrested and detained during and after the 2009 presidential elections.

An Expert was pleased to note that the average age for women to marry was 25, despite the legal age of marriage for girls being 13. Was legislation in place to reflect that practice, and to set the age of majority at 18 and use that as the minimum age for marriage for both girls and boys? What provisions were in place to prevent forced, early and temporary marriages?

Response from Delegation

Freedom of expression was guaranteed under the Constitution of Iran. Of course there were certain boundaries and limits, and those who went beyond the limits must be held accountable. The media were allowed to work within the limits. Internet, ISP services, radio and television were free and active in the country, and their freedom was guaranteed in the Constitution. The interpretation of the law for the press and media was clearly defined. Publications and printed materials were free to express their opinions unless they: distorted realities or violated their limits, insulted Islamic tenets and injunctions, published atheistic materials that may damage the very foundation of the State of Iran, printed pornographic pictures or propagated cultures that were against the Islamic culture, raised matters that may form the basis of racist outlook, raised matters against the security or interest of the State, disclosed confidential and classified documents, military secrets and matters related to non-public court trials, insulted religion or the leadership of Iran, brought false accusations against Government or State organizations, private individuals or organizations, committed plagiarism, or quoted articles from other sources which were interpreted as against the beliefs of the religion.

A delegate expressed surprise that an Expert said there were no foreign journalists allowed to be Iran. There were currently over 125 offices belonging to foreign journalists from five continents of the world, and over 250 foreign journalists were based in Iran, although a number of them were of course Iranian nationals, and some were foreign citizens. The foreign journalists were not limited to Tehran, they had permission to visit other cities and record events. Naturally their activity had to fall within the clear confines of the law.

The Ministry of Culture issued 500 press visas to foreign journalists every year. Seven months into the solar calendar year, the number of press visas issued was already well above 500, as there had been a number of cases of interest to foreign journalists, who applied for press visas and were issued with them.

Iranian media was very active, dynamic, and a forum for the exchange of ideas. In that exchange some ideas were not supportive of the points of view of the Government, and the media were completely free to have a completely opposite position to the Government. Furthermore President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that the Government had not reacted to many local media stories critical of the Government, and the writers of those stories had not been prosecuted. Sometimes the media went well beyond what was usually acceptable in publishing articles, but nothing happened to them.

The allegation of families of exiled foreign journalists being harassed was a surprise. In Tehran there were 2,000 journalists working on media, Internet sites, press, and television. For personal reasons some journalists might decide to leave Iran and work in another country. They were not in self-imposed exile; they had just decided to live in another country.

Regarding the Internet, 16,893 Internet websites had been up and running. They had permits and established identity with the authorities. In the last seven months 10,000 websites were added, so now around 26,000 new websites were up and running in Iran.

A media black-list was mentioned by an Expert: the existence of such a list was categorically denied by the delegation. All journalists were responsible for the stories they wrote, and if they broke the law they would be held accountable.

Concerning trafficking, there were three laws against the smuggling of women or children. If parents were not bound by their moral behaviour, custodianship of their children would be abolished and their children would be sent to child-protection centres. There were prison sentences of two to 10 years for smuggling persons, and for smuggling children perpetrators could receive the maximum jail sentence available. A draft bill would tighten sanctions against perpetrators.

If any temporary marriage was intended to cause prostitution it could be abolished, although temporary marriage usually took place within families. No person was ever forced to accept a temporary marriage so the Government had no role in that.

The Government had undertaken research on the smuggling of women, which was a global problem. A root cause was poverty, and policies must be introduced to reduce poverty in Iran. Programmes to enhance women’s status, especially in rural areas, were planned. Iran had also established a committee for young girls to learn about their rights, and to seek job opportunities in the Government.

A number of websites had been blocked and filtered in Iran. A working group was tasked with determining the criminal nature of websites, and a number of organizations had representatives in that working group. Websites containing pornography, prostitution and indecent material were obviously deemed criminal and blocked. Websites containing incitement against the system of Government were also pertinent. Families were concerned about the psychological health and well-being of their children surfing the net – parents did not want their children to be in danger. The State was responsible for the well-being of its citizens and these issues fell into that category. The Convention on the Rights of the Child mentioned child pornography on the Internet, and that was another reason to block websites.

There were workers’ guilds in Iran that supported workers, as well as some political parties. In 2011 there were at least 2,000 workers’ rallies which sometimes destroyed political property and participants picked fights with passers-by. Some of those persons were arrested for that, but all were released afterwards of course.

There was no discrimination directed against any single ethnic group in Iran, and it was unacceptable in Iranian culture for such discrimination to exist.

Education was fundamentally important, and schools and teachers were locally managed. In the province of Kurdistan, 80 per cent of teachers were picked out of the local community. The people followed their own local and cultural practices, such as their specific call to prayer. However Iran was particularly proud of the way it had dealt with terrorism, and made no ethnic distinction.

Religious minorities were treated the same as ethnic minorities. They had their own schools where they spoke their own language or dialect, and teachers were chosen from their communities. Those minorities were small, but there was some positive discrimination for them, for example the minorities had their own newspapers. Religious clerics of minority religions made annual visits to Iran and held friendly meetings with the Government. There was positive discrimination which allowed for five Members of Parliament from the minorities, who only accounted for two per cent of the population – 25,000 persons.

Officially there were two million Afghan refugees but unofficially the number was closer to three million. Over the past few decades they had been living in peace and harmony in Iran. A few had become infamous for engaging with crime, but that was just a few. Because of the Arab migration into large parts of Iran once it became a Muslim country, there were around two million Arabs in one province of Iran, although ethnically they were Arabs they had professions, representation in politics.

It was said a massacre had taken place: that was completely untrue. No person in Iran had been arrested because of his ethnicity, particularly Arabs. However some persons were arrested for being engaged in terrorist activities, particularly bombers, and they were arrested and punished.

The Baha’i, as far as religion and their beliefs was concerned, had problems with the rest of the community. The Government was not trying to hide that – it was evident. The Baha’i numbered around 20,000 people. Local communities did not take kindly to the Baha’i prophesising, and sometimes the police forces had to intervene. Nevertheless those religious minorities enjoyed all of their rights as citizens, and were also active working in non-governmental organizations.

There was a law for delaying the death sentence for pregnant women. A pregnant woman would not be sentenced to death, nor would she be sentenced to death while she was breastfeeding, for up to two years.

Unlike burglary or fraud, security crimes had not been specifically defined either legally or generally. However there was a chapter in the Islamic penal code on crimes against domestic and foreign security, in which certain crimes had been defined. Examples of such crimes included espionage, the disturbance of national security, the threat of an act of sedition or an act of bombing a public place which was considered an act of terrorism. Any perpetrator would be informed of their offence. Anyone who invited people to fight against each other in order to disturb national security could also be charged with a security crime, an act of terrorism or an act of espionage, in which case there was a legal definition.

Detention of persons over 24 hours was illegal, and any person who detained someone longer than that would be prosecuted. Persons had been prosecuted for that in the past, although only a handful of people, as only a few cases existed. Witnesses were permitted in court cases, and an attorney could ask as many witnesses as he or she wanted to take the stand, as well as a coroner, forensics, etcetera. The attorney for the accused could raise questions or objections in court. However if a person was accused of a crime of national security the case would be held in private, although a judge had to declare the reason for which he had made that decision.

Questions from Experts

An Expert asked the delegation about the director of the television station Nessma TV, who was threatened with prosecution for offences against religion and affront to public decency after broadcasting an animated film called Persépolis.

An Expert said that he was not convinced by the delegation’s reply on the situation of the Baha’i. The delegate said there had been difficulties between the Baha’i and the local population, but not who caused those difficulties. Had the Baha’i attacked local populations? Was the issue that of tolerance for a faith that was not the majority?

There were private circulars from the Ministry of Science, which concerned prohibition of access under various pretexts of Baha’i students from the university.

Another Expert asked about a draft bill which could undermine the work of non-governmental organizations in Iran.

Response from the Delegation

In response to the questions and comments, the delegation said that when workers rallied the Government never asked them if they had a permit, as they were coming together to air their grievances. It was a grass roots movement and they were never prosecuted for it.

There were laws regulating non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which dealt with all sorts of ‘social ills’. Their permits were issued by the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. There had been a growing trend for the activities of NGOs and their presence was regarded as a symbol of the organized participation of people. The Government provided them with very good facilities, and encouraged cooperation. The NGOs had been invited to parliament to talk about how the Government could provide them with assistance.

If the Baha’i did not impose their beliefs onto Muslims, nobody would bother them. Regarding Baha’i students at university, there are Jewish and Christian students and so on. However if any university student did not adhere to the laws of the institution, or created public disorder or disrupted the classroom, they would be expelled – that would surely be true of any university in the world. The Baha’i community were legally very well off. The delegate told the Committee he wished he had known earlier they wanted to speak about the Baha’i community as he had a lot of information on them.

Closing Remarks

KHOSRO HAKHEEME, Deputy Secretary-General of the Human Rights Council in Tehran, said that the legal system of Iran, like all other legal systems around the world, must operate on the basis of strengthening laws that were approved and adopted by the parliament. The Government was determined to keep its commitments with the international community on civil and political rights, and intended to follow all of its obligations. Mr. Hakheeme observed that Committee members had not adhered to the proper name of Iran, which was the Islamic Republic of Iran. He said he had studied and discussed all of the issues raised by the Committee, and that there was a need to be more patient when dealing with human rights issues. Those who tried to promote human rights dialogue would help to create more understanding among all parties, and take greater steps for the dignity of human beings.

ZONKE ZANELE MAJODINA, Chairperson of the Committee, thanked the Islamic Republic of Iran for taking the important step of resuming dialogue with the Committee after 15 years. That was an indication that Iran was renewing its commitment to honour its obligations under the Covenant. Ms. Majodina noted the large delegation, and hoped that in the future there would be more women, although she was encouraged by the few women who had been very active in the dialogue. She thanked the delegation for the extensive replies and for taking time to answer most of the questions that had been proposed. Ms. Majodina welcomed the information on the many draft bills going through the Iranian parliament, and expected that those bills would materialise into laws in the future. However, several concerns of the Committee gave rise to repeated questions, such as the status of the Covenant within national law in Iran, the status of women, the death penalty, guarantee of a fair trial, extrajudicial killings, torture, and illegal detention. The right of people with different sexual orientation was another area of concern, and the rights of those people fell squarely within the remit of the Committee. Freedom of expression, freedom of association, the rights of minorities, and the issue of the Baha’i had not been dealt with exhaustively. Because some aspects of the discussion remained outstanding, Ms. Majodina said that she considered that the dialogue with Iran remained outstanding and looked forward to their next report. Ms. Majodina reminded the delegation they should supply the Committee with additional answers and statistics in the next 48 hours if they had them.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CT11/018E