Basic HTML Version
Au t umn&wi n t e r
2 0 1 4 & 2 0 1 5
DEFENDERS
5
the UPR being comprehensive is the vast
expanse of human rights discussions that
take place in the session. On this basis
one report is published by the government
under review on the strong points and
improvements and also existing problems
in the way of the promotion of human
rights internally, one report from treaty,
developmental and protection bodies of
the UN on human rights, which indicate
the actions and positions of the country
under review against UN treaties and
bodies, and ultimately a report from
NGOs and civil society institutions from
all over the world, which in a way is
indicative of the image of the country
under review on public consensus; these
reports are reviewed and assessed by
states in the UPR session.
The Second Report on Iran
In the 2010 session on Iran, ultimately
188 complementing and encouraging or
criticising were given to Iran, and the
Iranian delegation accepted 126 of the
recommendations, reviewed and studied
16 recommendations and rejected 46.
October 2014 was the time for the second
report on Iran. On the basis of the Human
Rights Council regulations, this report
concentrated on the 126 commitments
that Iran had accepted in the previous
session. On this basis another three
reports from the government, UN
bodies and civil society institutions were
submitted and readily made available to
all member states.
In its national report, the Islamic
Republic of Iran had tried to determine
its country human rights improvements
between February 2010 and October
2014, and to clarify some existing
ambiguities in understanding of human
rights policies and also relevant religious
laws. In the UN High Commissioner for
HumanRights report regarding the human
rights situation in Iran against UN treaties
and monitoring and support bodies, it
tried to while pointing out human rights
treaties that Iran was not state party to, to
review the Islamic Republic’s reporting
to treaty bodies to which it is state party
to. In the last report, meaning the report
prepared from a collective of information
submitted by civil society institutions
from around the world, in total 49 NGOs
stated their views on the human rights
situation in Iran, 23 of which submitted
their reports to the UNHCHR from inside
Iran. Although in this report, the points
that Iranian NGOs had made mostly in the
dynamicity of society and their balanced
recommendation to the government for
the improvement of human rights situation
of the country, they were much less that
other NGOs reports. There were 19
quotations from Amnesty International,
13 mentions of the Centre for Human
Rights Documents on Iran, 10 from
Human Rights Watch and 7 from Bahaii
International, compared to one quotation
from each of the domestic Iranian NGOs
reports. These indicated that a fair and
balanced approach was unfortunately not
in the UNHCHR report.
Points on the Review of the Iran
Report Session
- The atmosphere of the session was
much calmer and balanced in comparison
to the 2010 session. Perhaps part of the
reason was the more positive atmosphere
that had come for the Islamic Republic
with the coming into office of Dr.
Rowhani and his actions as president and
the other part the more balanced approach
of the Iranian delegation.
- Since 104 countries had requested
submission of statements in the Iran
session, a 65 seconds opportunity was
given to each one. Using this opportunity,
the said governments over a 2:40 hour
period they mildly or strongly criticised
and also welcomed Iran’s human rights
actions, and the Iranian delegation
also in 80 minutes presented its human
rights achievements and also answered
some of the ambiguities raised by some
countries.
- Three subjects of “high number
of
executions”,
“collective
of
recommendations regarding women”
and claims regarding the “violation
of minorities rights, within a group of
religious minorities and even gender
minorities” had the most number of
In its national
report, the Islamic
Republic of Iran had
tried to determine
its country human
rights improvements
between February
2010 and October
2014, and to clarify
some existing
ambiguities in
understanding of
human rights policies
and also relevant
religious laws.