Ahmad Shaheed: The human rights situation has not changed under the Rouhani government

The reports of Ahmad Shaheed, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Iran, have been a source of concern for the Islamic Republic's judicial system for many years, but this has not caused him to change his course.

He defends his methods, saying he gets his information about Iran in a variety of ways: government reports that are published, government websites that write about various issues, and through Iranians inside the country who are in contact with him. What follows is his response to “Ruz”’s questions about the human rights situation in the Rouhani government, criticisms of his work style, and the future outlook. He remains dissatisfied with the human rights situation in Iran and in the Rouhani government, but says it is possible to cooperate with Hassan Rouhani.

Mr. Shahid, you were responsible for Iran's human rights file during two different governments in Iran (the Ahmadinejad government and the Rouhani government). Has the change of government in Iran led to a change in the approach to the issue of human rights in Iran?

"There have been some changes and improvements, but they haven't been significant. The changes in the new government have been, for example, that diplomats talk to me more or provide me with more information."

And has this led to a significant change in Iran's human rights situation?

Not because of these talks, but because of my reporting and the fact that the human rights situation in Iran is being discussed, there is more willingness to talk and resolve some of these issues. No country is announcing that it has done something because the UN has asked it to.

Do you hope that talks with Islamic Republic officials will lead to you traveling to Iran?

It is very unlikely. I don't think Iran would be willing to have an independent rapporteur come into the country and prepare a report. Because they think - as Mr. Larijani once said - there are various issues within the country that will be mentioned in the report.

And doesn't this lack of travel to Iran make the reports flawed?

You cannot find alternatives for two issues, one is the cooperation of the government and the other is the possibility of traveling to Iran. But if you can travel to Iran without the cooperation of the government with you, there will be bigger problems. Suppose I travel to Iran and meet with people. After the meeting, the government arrests them. This will become a bigger problem. I get my information about Iran in different ways. Government reports that are published, government websites that write about various issues, and I have contact with Iranians from inside the country and collect information. But I agree that traveling to Iran can help. But I can also narrate the issues and problems without traveling to Iran. However, considering the various reports that the UN publishes about Iran and attracts attention, you can see that Iran is also trying to resolve and address some of these problems, now not necessarily in the positive way that is expected. One example is the debate over replacing life imprisonment with the death penalty for drug traffickers.

I asked this question because government officials, in particular, often point out that your information is obtained through the government's opposition, and this issue causes imbalance and lack of impartiality in the reports.

You see, in any human rights research methodology, you have to look for examples to pay attention to the category in question. All the information in my reports is collected not from the opposition but from the “victims” of human rights violations. Much of this information has actually been reported by state media or has been mentioned in reports by parliament or government institutions. For example, when I write about the budget in my reports, my source of information is the reports of the Iranian parliament, or when I write about the age of marriage or child marriage, my information is extracted from official government sources.

An example in this regard goes back to one of your reports about the suspension of two footballers (Sheith Rezaei and Mohammad Nosrati) for celebrating after a goal and linking it to homophobia. An issue that was challenged not only by the government, but even by some critics of the government, who objected to the way the report reflected this issue.

This was not about the punishment of two footballers or a football-related issue. The punishment they were given was clearly an example of homophobia. Homophobia is widespread in Iranian society. Regarding issues such as homophobia, which Iranian society has not yet accepted, this does not mean that I refrain from reporting on it. Or regarding the issue of retribution, many government officials say that this issue comes from religion and is part of Islamic law. But international law says otherwise. I agree that if I went to Iran, it might be possible to look at the issues more closely, but this does not change international law.

Mr. Shahid, you were a supporter of the nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1. Could this agreement lead to an improvement in the human rights situation in Iran?

Not the nuclear deal, but the events that happen after it, including the lifting of sanctions that put pressure on the people, can help improve human rights. For example, the ban on the entry of some basic goods and medicine, etc. has been lifted. I also believe that the opening of the country's doors and trade relations will reduce some restrictions and also increase lawfulness. Investors will not be willing to invest their capital in a place where the rules are not respected. These relations will also create a new vision of the world in Iran. Of course, the issue is not only about commercial profit. There are many companies in Europe and America that are also interested in the issue of human rights. I think that in these circumstances, human rights activists will have more opportunities to pressure the government to comply with standards.

But can't these same business relationships cause Western governments to turn a blind eye to human rights violations in Iran?

Certainly a different approach is needed than what has been done so far, but sometimes it is not the governments that invest that are considering human rights policies, but it is civil society that is putting pressure on governments to respect human rights in different countries. However, even if some companies are purely profit-seeking and some governments are supporting them, there are enough different voices in these countries that are loudly raising human rights concerns. I think that this will ultimately put pressure on governments to respect human rights.

You talked about some government officials talking to you. What issues do these officials talk about when they meet with you? For example, do they have the freedom to talk to you about each and every topic in your report?

They never talk about some issues. For example, there is no talk about LGBT people, or about Baha'is, or about Christian converts. But they are willing to talk about most other issues, and that is why there are many issues that we can talk about together.

And have these talks – even in an informal form – led to a solution to the problem in Iran?

I have a few main tasks: one is to create awareness and public attention, and the second is to highlight the problems and put pressure on them. I am not in this position to solve or judge. Yes, there have been issues that we have sometimes talked about that have changed in Iran in some way. For example, there have been cases that have been taken into consideration, or for example, there have been plans and bills that have been put forward in the parliament that have been stopped or amended because there have been discussions about their margins. What I do is to help create narratives and discourse around issues that are related to human rights. Yes, there have been cases where they have made changes in some cases or their behavior, but even so, these have been very minor and there has not been a fundamental change in the human rights performance of the Iranian government in the past four or so years.

Have you requested to meet with high-ranking members of the government? Or has such a discussion ever arisen?

No, according to the rules of the UN, I am based in Geneva. I tried to meet some government officials in the field of human rights, but I did not try to meet with the President or the Chief Justice. I do not think such a meeting would be particularly useful. Because I cannot talk to them about specific problems. I talk to those who have specific information about the events or with people from whom I am supposed to get information on a specific issue. I do not think that as an expert at the UN, there is a need for me to talk to high-ranking government officials.

Who are the government officials in the field of human rights?

With the human rights officer in the judiciary, some members of parliament, some officials related to the fight against drugs, one of the prosecutors pursuing drug cases, etc. These meetings lasted several hours and, in my opinion, were more useful than meetings with political officials.

By the usefulness of these meetings, do you mean that the discussions led to a result?

Yes

Can we say that your reports are one of the reasons why the plan to replace punishment for people involved in drug trafficking in Iran was proposed?

I can’t say that there is a direct connection between the two. But we have talked about this issue many times, we have had discussions. As a result, when they are looking for a solution to the drug problem, we can say that they are in a way engaged in resolving these discussions. I am not saying that I did this, but specifically because of international concern about the execution rate in Iran, this country has tried to find a solution to it. I can give a specific example in this regard. About two years ago, Javad Larijani, in an interview when asked about the high number of executions in Iran, said that 80 percent of executions are for drugs and if we amend this law, this number will also change. You can see here a direct connection between the attention and concerns that were in the UN reports and Iran’s response. Or about the issues related to torture in Iranian prisons, which I mentioned in one of my reports. Iran has taken steps to correct some of its behavior in this regard, and although this issue still persists, I have received reports that the situation has changed slightly in this regard, although concerns remain.

You welcomed the election of Mr. Rouhani, but in your recent reports you have noted that the human rights situation in Iran has in some cases worsened since a few years ago. Two and a half years ago, did you have such a picture of the human rights situation in Iran under Mr. Rouhani?

I don’t remember supporting Rouhani, I remember talking about the election process. I also welcomed Rouhani’s promise of reforms. Human rights issues were not a priority for Rouhani from the very beginning, and after becoming president, his main efforts were focused on resolving the nuclear issue. He spoke about gender equality (although we didn’t see much of him in policymaking), his deputy for women’s affairs [Shahindokht Molaverdi] is very active in this area, and he has made efforts regarding academic freedoms, including the return of some expelled professors to universities or the establishment of a Kurdish language department in Kurdistan. However, human rights changes during Rouhani’s tenure have been very minimal, but given that he continues to explain a moderate approach, I still think he can be a good option to work with.