The Fate of Human Rights World-Wide
Mehrtash Rastegar
On the 13th May, 2010, the fate of the protection of human rights world-wide shall be determined. The world's second
worst human rights transgressor, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), will witness whether their campaign to win the
election for membership of the United Nations Human Rights Council (the Council) will come into fruition.
The 192 member states of the UN General Assembly will cast their votes by secret ballot on the 13 May, 2010, in
New York, USA. Membership of the Council is divided into 5 regions: i) African States, ii) Asian States, iii) Eastern
European States, iv) Latin-American and Caribbean States, and v) Western European and other States. The IRI is
candidate to representing the Asian states at the Council. There are at present thirteen Asian states who are
members, in which four seats are soon to become vacant. Five Asian states have submitted themselves as
candidates: Maldives, Thailand, Malaysia, Qatar, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Four of such will be elected to sit
on the Council; however, one state will not have this honour. Such a state must be the IRI.
States who are candidates for membership of Council are required to draft a 'pledge' illustrating their commitment to
human rights. On page 7 of the IRI pledge, it has been argued that the IRI "is fully convinced that politicization,
selective approach and application of double standards significantly impede the genuine promotion of human
rights...and should be avoided".
This could be argued at the IRI in reminding them not to involve their political agendas in issues concerning human
rights; the IRI authorities use politics, law and religion to perpetrate their heinous violations of human rights.
They enforce harsh and oppressive enforcement measures, which mostly violate international human rights laws, under
the very wide umbrella justification of preserving 'national security', and for punishing those who 'insult God or
the holy sanctities'. The IRI have national laws that call for fair trials and non-discriminatory treatment of
minorities; they call for the protection and promotion of human rights world-wide when presenting at the
Councils 7th session in its Universal Periodic Review of the situation of human rights in the IRI, 2010 (UPR).
However, their conduct is unequivocal in demonstrating a blatant disregard for any provision and mechanism of human
rights, both nationally and internationally. The Bahai minority have endured decades of persecution and summary
executions, simply for following a different line of religion to the ruling elites. Other minority groups, such
as Kurds, Azeris, Baloch and Ahwaz Arabs have been subject to unfair and harsh human rights abuses. Women are
heavily subjugated by the Civil and Penal Code of the IRI, for example, under the Penal Code a husband may execute
his wife if he finds she has committed adultery; however, if a wife kills her cheating husband the state executes
her for murder. The rate of child executions rival China's gross human rights record - in 2009, 160 juveniles were
on death-row. Dissenting voices are silenced by the sound of the tightening of the noose as the IRI execute their
brutal clamp-down on academics, poets, writers and journalists for even remotely questioning any arm of the government.
The UN recommendation to release such illegally detained persons (Austria) was rejected by the IRI authorities at the
Council's 2010 UPR. Such is a compelling rationale for why the IRI should not be elected.
Since the Council's establishment, and following the Council's UPR on the IRI in its 7th Session, there has not been, nor
even adopted a single resolution condemning Iran. The Council has failed to hold a single special session on the human
rights crisis in the IRI. Furthermore, it has failed to mandate any investigation into the purported human rights
violations before, and most importantly, after the disputed presidential election of June 12, 2009. The best the UN
human rights bodies issued were recommendations in their 'concluding observations'.
This may give rise to the serious concern that the Council has become a political tool not just for the 'west', but also
in favour of religious extremism and the hidden agendas of their governments. This tool will become sharper, equipping
the IRI to wield it as a weapon should they become elected members of the Council; such begs the questions what drastic
action would the IRI stir against non-Islamic states, such as Israel or 'the west'; or what misuses, and abuses, of power
would the IRI endorse if they were to be elected in May, 2010? Could this be an opportunity for the IRI to infiltrate the
Council and infect other members with its fanaticism?
As futile as it may appear, the embassies of the countries that form the UN General Assembly must be lobbied in
illustrating the serious discontent and concern people around the world have towards the IRI gaining membership to
such an international human rights platform. This may be undertaken in the form of letters; demonstrations outside
relevant embassies; petitions and media attention.
What hope will there be for human rights if a key transgressor sits on a crucial international human rights body?
ShareThis