What are the benefits of statements and resolutions on ‘human rights violations’ in Iran?
Amnesty International is a non-profit organization founded 60 years ago to hold governments accountable for respecting the rights of their citizens based on human rights principles and international laws. Supporting human rights, establishing justice in the world, documenting cases of human rights violations, and preventing violations of human rights are among the missions this international organization has defined for itself.
The Iran section of this human rights organization has published hundreds of statements and reports so far, especially during the 42 years of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s existence. Some Radio Farda listeners have asked what impact the publication of these statements has on improving the human rights situation in Iran?
To answer this question and similar ones, we conducted a special interview with Raha Bahrani, a lawyer and researcher on Iran affairs at Amnesty International, which you can listen to and read.
Ms. Bahrani, one of the issues that Radio Farda listeners usually raise, and often do so as criticism, is the impact of publishing these statements and even UN resolutions that condemn human rights violations in Iran. This group of Radio Farda listeners says that for 42 years these statements have been issued, but according to them, they have had no impact on improving the human rights situation in Iran. What is your response to this?
This is a legitimate question. We are facing a massive human rights crisis in Iran and existing international mechanisms are not adequate to address this human rights crisis. Every year we face massive numbers of human rights violations and international crimes in the country, and those who ordered and committed these atrocities remain immune from punishment. One of the main reasons for such a situation is, on the one hand, an inefficient judicial system that is complicit in human rights violations in Iran. Because if you compare Iran’s situation with many countries in the world, the primary duty to address human rights violations in the current global system rests with states and their judicial systems. However, in Iran, instead of addressing human rights violations, the judicial system is complicit with those who ordered and committed human rights violations and bears direct responsibility in this regard.
In such an environment, in fact, victims of human rights violations and people in general initially look toward the international community, but in the international community there are limited capacities for holding governments accountable, and these capacities do not include the ability to easily systematically try all human rights violators in a country in courts. Now, to answer your question about the impact of these resolutions, I need to explain what mechanisms exist at the international level to address human rights violations.
Tell us about the mechanisms for addressing human rights violations. What are these mechanisms like?
Here we can address at least three main mechanisms, two of which have a human rights and political dimension, and one of which has a criminal dimension.
At the international level, there are independent UN human rights bodies, such as the Human Rights Committee, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, and the Committee Against Torture, which oversee covenants that countries have signed, and countries must continuously submit their record to these bodies every few years, and alongside that, human rights organizations submit their parallel reports, and during this review, governments in various fields must be accountable.
But this accountability takes the form of questioning governments, requesting answers from them, and then issuing recommendations to them, which subsequently obligates them to implement these recommendations. If they don’t comply, they actually face greater condemnation. But beyond that, there is no mechanism in the international community to hold them accountable.
What are the legal remedies or rather criminal remedies in the international community to address those cases of human rights violations that constitute crimes, such as torture?
One mechanism is the International Criminal Court, that is, a mechanism that goes beyond human rights objections and relates to those cases of human rights violations that, due to their severity and also their widespread nature, constitute international crimes, such as torture, which is considered an international crime, or war crimes and genocide.
In the case of this category of human rights violations that take on an international criminal dimension, countries may be referred to the International Criminal Court. But unfortunately, even in that case, there are still many limitations in today’s world.
On the one hand, countries must normally accept the statute of the International Criminal Court, that is, recognize the jurisdiction of this court so that their cases are reviewed. Only in exceptional cases can the Security Council, which is again a political body, decide to refer a country to the International Criminal Court if its members collectively assess a country’s situation as grave and [evaluate it] as international crimes.
Ms. Bahrani, regarding Iran, is it possible that cases of human rights violations such as the 1988 executions or the November 2019 killings be referred to the International Criminal Court?
Given that China and Russia are in the UN Security Council and, as we witnessed in the case of Syria, prevented Syria from being referred to the International Criminal Court, unfortunately one can assume that in the case of Iran, the same serious obstacle may exist. We face serious political obstacles at the international level for holding the biggest perpetrators and instigators of international crimes accountable.
Another criminal mechanism that could be helpful in these limited circumstances is the principle of universal jurisdiction. Many countries today have passed laws based on which, if there is evidence and documentation that individuals were involved in international crimes such as torture or crimes against humanity, and if these individuals set foot in the geographical jurisdiction of these countries, the prosecution of this country has the ability to initiate proceedings against those individuals, issue arrest warrants for them, and try them; even though the crime was committed in another country such as Iran.
Yes, like what happened in the case of Hamid Nouri, who is detained in Sweden because he is accused of involvement in the 1988 executions, right?
Exactly. And for this reason, one aspect of human rights work is identifying perpetrators and instigators of human rights violations and documenting cases of human rights violations so that if these individuals ever set foot in the geographical jurisdictions of countries that believe in universal jurisdiction, they can be immediately subject to legal prosecution.
What remedy exists to hold officials responsible for human rights violations, for example, officials of the Islamic Republic, accountable in the short term?
One mechanism is the inter-governmental human rights mechanisms of the United Nations. That is, the UN Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly. These bodies are fundamentally political bodies because their members are made up of governments in the world. Therefore, governments unfortunately also take into account their economic-political relations. However, in these bodies, over the course of years, with the efforts of human rights organizations in corners of the world and international human rights organizations, specific sessions and meetings and specific mechanisms for addressing human rights violations have been defined, and when these inter-governmental bodies, that is political bodies composed of governments, pass resolutions, it actually shows that there is collective concern at the global level about a country’s record of human rights violations, and this is politically costly for governments. That is, they never want to face these successive condemnations at the international level. However, this depends on whether that government wants to show how much indifference or audacity regarding human rights violations.
Some governments, including the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, despite being condemned and questioned by the majority of countries in the world year after year, still take no steps to improve the human rights situation, and in fact we are facing continuous indifference to the voice of global protest from the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The international community and Amnesty International have in multiple instances accused the Islamic Republic of breaching its international commitments under the international covenants it has signed. Ms. Bahrani, is there a way for victims to file complaints against the Iranian government for violating these covenants?
At the international level, there are treaties that, if the Iranian government had signed them, victims of human rights violations would have had the opportunity that if their legal remedies within the country were exhausted, they could turn to these international bodies.
For example, the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, if signed by governments, would allow victims to file individual complaints to the Human Rights Committee that oversees and monitors compliance with this international covenant by countries. However, unfortunately the Iranian government has not signed this protocol, and therefore individual complaints cannot be filed with the Human Rights Committee, and this committee can only review Iran’s general implementation of the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in its periodic reviews.
Similarly, the Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have protocols that, if countries sign them, recognize the jurisdiction of the committees overseeing these treaties to receive individual complaints, and again the Iranian government has not signed any of these and has not signed the statute of the International Criminal Court.
Therefore, for all these reasons, there remain limited mechanisms for holding Iranian officials accountable at the international level, which primarily consist, on one hand, of independent UN human rights bodies that condemn human rights violations in the form of periodic reviews or statements and encourage Iranian officials to change their behavior, and [or] resolutions that governments pass in the UN Human Rights Council or General Assembly.
According to international law, can the November 2019 killings be classified as crimes such as crimes against humanity?
This is an investigation that Amnesty International is currently conducting and we are organizing all the documentation that has been collected over the past year and a half within the framework of international laws related to crimes against humanity so that we can continue the path of seeking justice and, by preparing a report, show the international community what international crimes were committed regarding the November 2019 killings and why it is important that Islamic Republic officials be held accountable at the international level. Because it is clear within the country that the judicial system is not responsive to the suffering of families; on the contrary, it protects those who slaughtered protesters and passersby.
Ms. Bahrani, with all the explanations you have given, tell us what importance these documentations and statements that Amnesty International publishes have?
Documenting human rights violations and continuous reporting on these cases is important from several perspectives. First and foremost, it is showing solidarity and empathy with the families of those killed and victims of human rights violations and civil society that is struggling under the pressure of repression to improve the situation, and it is important that this solidarity be shown at the international level.
Regarding documentation, Amnesty International, due to its precise research and documentation methods, has very credible reports at the international level. These reports are used by UN bodies, that is, the UN Secretary-General and UN Special Rapporteurs, and also reports are used by governments that are in bilateral and multilateral talks with Iranian officials, and serve as the basis for governments’ diplomatic protests regarding various cases of human rights violations.
From another perspective, these documentations are important and that is the future of human rights pursuits and the fact that if someday courts are held for perpetrators and instigators of human rights violations or truth commissions are formed, reports prepared by organizations like Amnesty International over the years become very important for providing a clear and accurate picture of what happened in the past and what steps need to be taken so that such atrocities do not recur.
In the short term, what impact do these statements have on improving the situation of people and victims of human rights violations?
In short-term periods, in various fields, these pursuits have led to amendments of laws and improvement of the situation of individuals in dangerous conditions. These statements have saved lives, and we must not forget that, although we are facing a massive and structural human rights crisis, every step that prevents one family from mourning, reduces the suffering of one person in detention, provides access to medical services, or stops their torture, has very high value. Every step taken by any person and any organization that reduces this suffering and stands by the victims is extremely important.
Source: Radio Farda
