HCHR- Kazem Gharibabadi, the Vice-President of the Judiciary for International Affairs and Secretary General of Iran's High Council for Human Rights reacted to the mandate extension of UN special rapporteur on Iran and said: “The international community is experiencing the most extreme examples of politicization and instrumental abuse of international mechanisms of human rights; which had led to the reduction of the credibility of these mechanisms, including the Human Rights Council. Considering that once again the total number of negative votes and abstentions, despite all the existing pressures and threats, is more than the total number of positive votes for the resolution, it is once again proved that the nature of this resolution is political and baseless; more importantly shows that the legitimacy and acceptability of the reporting mechanism against Iran has greatly declined.”
"This resolution was sponsored by the UK and supported by some Western countries who have a dark history in the field of human rights;” he added. “The countries that voted in favor of the resolution cannot claim to be concerned about the human rights of the Iranian people, as they are directly or indirectly the major violators of the rights of the Iranian people due to the cruel and illegal unilateral sanctions imposed by the American regime. The Council's decision to extend the special rapporteur mandate with the least positive votes will not be a basis for cooperation and interaction, and the Islamic Republic of Iran strongly rejects it.”
Gharibabadi also noted that Javaid Rehman, the special rapporteur who is a British citizen himself; “has acted completely political and biased.”
He added that the The High Council for Human Rights examined the performance of special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran according to the code of conduct for special procedures mandate-holders.
The High Council for Human Rights’ detailed examination of the performance and reports of special rapporteurs since 2011 shows that their so-called assessments, which are mainly based on false information, do not reflect the realities of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran; they rely on unofficial sources whose authenticity is surrounded by severe doubts. The special rapporteurs mostly have the citizenship of the same country (United Kingdom) which sponsors the resolution to extend the mandate thereof – a conflict of interest that per se shall be condemned and rejected.
The report examines the performance based on the Human Rights Council resolution 5/2 of 18 June 2007. According to which, the first obligation is “impartiality, professionalism & full independence in compiling & presenting reports.”
“According to the available documents, in addition to various developments in the field of economic, social, cultural, political, and civil rights, and notwithstanding the cruel unilateral coercive measures, the Islamic Republic of Iran has managed to make very good progress in the field of reforming criminal laws as well as regulations related to drug penalties. Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, it has taken effective and serious measures to support prisoners. Unfortunately, such advancements have no place in the special rapporteur’s reports”; says HCHR report.
Moreover, the reports notes: “The Islamic Republic of Iran enjoys the richness of Islamic-Iranian thinking in human rights. “Despite calling himself a Muslim, the special rapporteur does not have a proper understanding of the true Islamic teachings and is, therefore, not in a position to comment on Islamic rules. This lack of knowledge, on the one hand, and his lack of true belief in religious teachings, on the other, along with the political nature of the mandate assigned thereto, has caused the special rapporteur to sometimes take an insulting approach while rejecting criminal laws in Islamic law.”
“The special rapporteur is solely focused on protecting offenders, criminals, and terrorists. He, unfortunately, has deliberately shut his eyes to the real victims of human rights violations as a result of the United States’ cruel and illegal unilateral coercive measures, the use of chemical weapons against the people of Iran, the terrorist attacks that have martyred over 17,000 innocent Iranian people, and also the violations of the rights of Iranians abroad.
Without any investigations and verification, every small case becomes a human rights subject by the special rapporteur. This is despite the fact that his reports do not mention the assassination of the greatest hero of the fight against terrorism, Lieutenant General Martyr Qassem Soleimani which – according to the report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions– was described as a violation of the main principles of international law. Although the responsibility of the special rapporteur reflects cases of human rights violations against the people of Iran, the special rapporteur has remained tightlipped about the August 2020 criminal attack on the Iranian passenger plane by the Zionist regime’s warplanes, as a result of which those on board suffered severe fear and panic, and some of them were also wounded and seriously injured (severed spinal cord). It is sadly surprising that the special rapporteur has even refrained from mentioning the massacre of women, children, and innocent people by the al-Ahwazi Takfiri terrorists who launched a terrorist attack in Ahvaz on 22 September 2018, during which 24 innocent people, including a child, were martyred and 68 others sustained injuries. Having completely thrown his weight behind offenders and criminals in his reports, the special rapporteur has simply turned a deaf ear to the 22 October terrorist attack in the Holy Shrine of ShahCheragh (PBUH) in Shiraz, which left 15 innocent civilians martyred and more than 40 others injured.”
In his reports, the special rapporteur deals extensively and illegally with certain individuals with dual citizenship who have been arrested for or convicted of a crime. This is despite the fact that out of several million Iranians living abroad, very few are in detention for committing criminal acts, and NOT for holding dual citizenship. Dual citizenship is not considered an advantage for criminals, and the special rapporteur’s emphasis on their situation is regarded as a form of discrimination and weakening of judicial justice. This comes as the foregoing person still refuses to mention the fate of more than 4,000 Iranians imprisoned in different countries, some of whom have been arrested, incarcerated, and prosecuted simply on the charge of evading illegal sanctions.
Regarding the second obligation which is reference, source & report preparation methodology, HCHR concludes: Unfortunately, the special rapporteur relies on sources such as those of the terrorists (especially the notorious Munafiqeen terrorist organization), websites based outside Iran, and opponents of the Iranian nation who have been abroad for decades. This contradicts Article 6 of A/HRC/RES/5/2.
.
“The special rapporteur regards the media as a source of reporting. On average, only 10% of the information sources mentioned in the reports are from Iran’s domestic media. The rest come from hostile foreign media or Persian-language anti-Iranian outlets, which are primarily involved in spreading fake news and false reports. This is enough to thoroughly question the credibility of such reports, which indeed cannot provide an authentic, fair, and impartial evaluation of the facts on the ground regarding the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
“Despite a very tight deadline of 5 or 8 days given to the Government, the Islamic Republic of Iran has always presented its comments and opinions on the draft reports of the special rapporteur. On the strength of Paragraph (d) of Article 8 and Paragraph (c) of Article 13 of A/HRC/5/2, the mandate-holders shall give representatives of the concerned State the opportunity of commenting on mandate-holders’ assessment and of responding to the allegations made against this State, and annex the State’s written summary responses to their reports. The foregoing person’s utter disregard for the comments submitted by the Islamic Republic of Iran on his reports and refusal to rectify the flaws therein, as well as failure to annex Iran’s comments thereto, run contrary to the provisions contained in the annex to Council Resolution 5/2 and are deemed as systematically wrong and unprofessional action.”
On the third obligation about “conflict of interest in appointment of special rapporteur”, the report notes: The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran was indeed a human rights revolution, after which the political system changed froma dictatorship to a democratic Government based on people’s right to self-determination. Promoting and protecting human rights have a significant role in the policies, planning, and measures of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has achieved remarkable progress in various fields. While the rights of the Iranian people have been repeatedly violated since 1979, especially as a result of cruel sanctions and terrorist attacks, and at the same time, considering the suffering of the international community from injustices, aggression, occupation, and killing of innocent people in light of the deafening silence of the so-called champions of human rights, the appointment of a special rapporteur for the Islamic Republic of Iran is wholly unjustified and a politically motivated scheme.
“The appointment of a special rapporteur for the Islamic Republic of Iran and the tabling of a resolution to extend his mandate every year do not reflect the genuine concerns of the international community; such schemes are clearly in line with the political and short-sighted interests of certain countries who claim to be defending human rights. The international community is experiencing the most extreme examples of politicization and instrumentalization of human rights mechanisms – a process that, day by day, has reduced the credibility of such mechanisms, especially the Human Rights Council, and disappointed the actual human rights defenders and activists. The low number of votes in favor of the resolution to extend the special rapporteur’s mandate is emblematic of the States’ dissatisfaction with the politicization of human rights. The combination of votes on the resolution extending the special rapporteur’s mandate since the beginning of his mandate in 2018 proves that the legitimacy and acceptability of the country-specific mechanism against the Islamic Republic of Iran and the credibility of the special rapporteur have significantly been reduced.”
The report also notes that: “It is also surprising that certain individuals with apparent social and political affiliations with the sponsor or co-sponsor of the resolution to extend the special rapporteur’s mandate have been appointed as the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. For further explanation, Javaid Rehman has British-Pakistani citizenship, completed his education at British universities , and is currently a lecturer at Brunel University London. Moreover, Ahmed Shaheed, the former Special Rapporteur on the so-called Situation of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, who had studied in England , was invited to work as a lecturer at the University of Essex one year after he was appointed as the special rapporteur. The appointment of special rapporteurs with social and political affiliations with a government sponsoring a resolution, or a state that has always supported the tabling or extension of country-specific resolutions, can lead to a conflict of interest. Such relationships can clearly violate the basic principles of the Human Rights Council as well as the general criteria for the appointment of the special procedures mandate-holders in terms of impartiality, and independence, both of which are fundamental legal principles in proceedings or performing any monitoring or fact-finding mandates. Such dependency raises a reasonable doubt that this mandate cannot act without partiality, the non-observance of which can automatically question the independence of the mandate-holder. In fact, it is a prerequisite for making decisions and presenting impartial and independent opinions. Therefore, the Islamic Republic of Iran believes that special rapporteur who has such ties cannot act in the framework of a logical, impartial, and independent observer.”
To read the full report, click here.