The 39th Special Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council was held on 23 January 2026 to examine the human rights situation related to the protests and unrest in Iran. Convened at the initial request of five European states, the session ultimately resulted in the adoption of a resolution extending the mandate of the International Fact-Finding Mission for two years and the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Iran for one year. Both mechanisms were requested to conduct urgent investigations into the alleged human rights violations during the recent events and to present their findings at upcoming Council sessions.
During the vote, the resolution was adopted with 25 votes in favor (including all European member states of the Council, along with Benin, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Ghana, Japan, the Marshall Islands, Mexico, and South Korea), 7 votes against (China, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Pakistan, and Vietnam), and 14 abstentions (including Brazil, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, Thailand, Kuwait, and others).
At the opening of the session, High Commissioner Volker Türk, Special Rapporteur Mai Sato, and Sara Hossain, Chair of the Fact-Finding Mission, presented their accounts of how the unrest began and unfolded. Citing their alleged data and documentation, they condemned the methods used by Iranian security forces to control the situation.
The representative of Iran, opposing both the session and the resolution, put forward the following positions:
- The convening states have never had genuine concern for the human rights of Iranians; if they had, they would have lifted sanctions that have devastated people’s lives and halted their support for Israel.
- The protests were initially peaceful but quickly “turned into organized violence and terrorist attacks against security forces.”
- Iran’s official figure is 3,117 deaths, of which 2,427 were “killed in terrorist operations.”
- Iran does not recognize the legitimacy of the session or the resolution, viewing them as “tools of political pressure.”
- Iran has domestic mechanisms to address violence and terrorism and “will not yield to external pressure.”
- States with histories of colonialism, war, and genocide lack the moral authority to lecture others on human rights.
Positions of Member States
European countries—including France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Spain, and the Czech Republic—condemned the handling of the unrest, internet shutdowns, arrests, and other measures. They called for accountability, the release of detainees, and the extension of monitoring mandates.
In contrast, countries such as China, Cuba, Pakistan, Iraq, Indonesia, and Vietnam expressed support for Iran, arguing that the session was “politicized, selective, and interventionist.” They emphasized that the protests had “turned into armed violence” and that foreign interference was evident. Several states also described unilateral sanctions against Iran as a factor exacerbating the crisis.
Role of Civil Society and NGO Interventions at the Special Session
In addition to statements by Member States, the 39th Special Session also featured extensive participation from different civil society organizations.
A number of NGOs echoed the concerns raised by the Fact‑Finding Mission (FFM) and the Special Rapporteur, focusing primarily on allegations of excessive use of force, restrictions on communication, and the treatment of detainees. These organizations largely relied on remote documentation, digital evidence, and testimonies collected outside Iran due to the lack of direct access to the country. Their interventions emphasized the need for continued monitoring and accountability mechanisms.
However, several other NGOs—including Iranian civil society groups with long‑standing presence inside the country—presented a markedly different picture. These organizations highlighted dimensions of the unrest that, in their view, were insufficiently addressed by the FFM and the Special Rapporteur. They pointed to the presence of armed elements within the unrest, coordinated attacks on public infrastructure, and the involvement of trained groups whose actions went beyond the scope of peaceful protest. Some NGOs also raised concerns about foreign‑trained operatives and the role of external actors in escalating violence (based on the experiences they have got from the June invasion of Israel and US toward Iran) —issues they argued were largely absent from the FFM’s and Special Rapporteur’s assessments.
These civil society representatives stressed that the destruction of ambulances, schools, religious sites, and public transportation hubs had profound consequences for ordinary citizens. They argued that any credible assessment of the situation must consider the scale of violence directed at civilians, public property, and security personnel. Several NGOs expressed concern that the current UN mechanisms had adopted a narrow evidentiary approach, relying heavily on unverified digital material and anonymous testimonies without the opportunity for cross‑examination or technical verification.
From their perspective, this selective focus risked producing an incomplete narrative—one that overlooked the suffering of thousands of ordinary Iranians affected by armed attacks, intimidation, and widespread destruction. These organizations called for a more balanced and comprehensive methodology that would incorporate all dimensions of the crisis, including the impact of armed groups, the psychological toll on communities, and the broader security context.
Their interventions emphasized that the protection of human rights requires acknowledging the full spectrum of harm experienced by the population. They urged the Council and its mechanisms to adopt an approach that reflects the complexity of the situation, avoids politicization, and supports the rights and safety of all Iranian citizens.
Conclusion
Organization for Defending Victims of Violence maintains that genuine human rights advancement requires a comprehensive, balanced, and non‑politicized approach—one that recognizes the rights and suffering of all Iranian citizens and avoids turning human rights concerns into instruments of political pressure.