Human Rights Council Holds Interactive Dialogue on Iran and Starts Interactive Dialogue on Venezuela

Concludes Interactive Dialogue on Belarus

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and started an interactive dialogue with the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.  It also concluded its interactive dialogue with the High Commissioner on the situation of human rights in Belarus in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election and in its aftermath.

Javaid Rehman, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, introducing his report, said the thematic focus of the report was accountability and the legal, structural and policy impediments that for decades had resulted in persistent impunity for human rights violations of the most serious kind. On this issue, there were many challenges to be addressed.

Iran, speaking as a country concerned, said it did not recognise this mandate.  This was a fallacious and distorted report, inflicted upon the Council by the United Kingdom, which could not produce a credible outcome.  The report was not factual, it was one sided and misleading, cherry picking was prevalent and it was endorsing fallacies.  

In the ensuing discussion on Iran, some speakers said the Government of Iran continued to oppress its own people, and show disregard for all human rights, in particular with regard to women and girls and their right to reproductive health.  Ethnic and religious minorities continued to suffer from discrimination and oppression.  The number of executions from minority groups continued, and there was a shocking number of executions for those engaging in consensual same-sex relations.  Some speakers pointed out that country-specific mechanisms and resolutions tabled without the consent of the country involved ran counter to the promotion and protection of human rights, and the Office of the High Commissioner and the Human Rights Council should ensure cooperation in an objective and impartial manner, standing against selectivity, politicisation and double standards in human rights.  The Universal Periodic Review mechanism was the correct place to ensure that human rights were upheld on an equal footing.

The Council then started its interactive dialogue with the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

Michelle Bachelet, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said since her last update in September 2021, some reform initiatives had opened up new opportunities, including reform of the judicial system and re-structuring of the police, steps to address over-crowding in prisons and others, and had led to significant institutional transformation.  Efforts should be made to effectively address past human rights violations, and the Office stood by to help with these efforts.  The Government had an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to the fight against impunity through prompt judicial action.

Venezuela, speaking as a country concerned, said the Council should work without bias, selectivity, politicisation and double standards.  The concerns of the High Commissioner were noted and would be responded to in due time.  Venezuela regretted the allegations of human rights violations and other discourse which generated doubts as to the State’s activities, and said they were not in line with reality.

In the ensuing discussion on Venezuela, some speakers expressed concern for the continued practice of extrajudicial executions, adding that the dynamics of cruel, inhuman treatment and torture continued: accountability remained key in removing these violations and strengthening the rule of law.  The Venezuelan authorities should promote broad democratic participation in the affairs of the country, and find a solution to the multi-dimensional crisis.  Some speakers said the Bolivarian revolution had showed its value and its endurance.  Politicised approaches failed to bring any positive elements to the promotion and protection of human rights.  The Government of Venezuela had promoted human rights at a national level and had worked to eliminate the dreadful results of the unilateral sanctions which seriously impacted the rights of its people. 

At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its interactive dialogue with the High Commissioner on the situation of human rights in Belarus.

Ms. Bachelet, in concluding remarks, said that accountability for human rights violations was fundamental.  Ideally this process should take place at the national level where the Government would assume the protection of human rights and guarantee the right to remedy.  However, there was little prospect in Belarus for accountability for the violations which had taken place and it was for this reason that her report made a series of complementary recommendations for the Government of Belarus and for other States to act in universal extraterritorial jurisdiction.  These were not new recommendations conceived for Belarus but had been made elsewhere. 

In the discussion on Belarus, some speakers said the numerous violations of human rights and other acts committed amounted to crimes against humanity.  A high number of human rights violations had taken place, including cruel and inhumane punishment and detention without trial.  A genuine dialogue with international mechanisms was vital, and the work of the Office had been impeded by the authorities.  Other speakers pointed out that the work of the Office of the High Commissioner should be guided by the principles of impartiality, non-selectivity, non-politicisation, constructive dialogue and cooperation, and the mandate holders should avoid politicisation, encourage cooperation, and discharge their function in a neutral and impartial manner.  In this regard, this was not what had occurred.

Speaking in the dialogue on Belarus were Latvia, Spain, Sovereign Order of Malta, Republic of Moldova, Laos People’s Democratic Republic, Bulgaria, Iran, Zimbabwe, United Kingdom, Ukraine, Cyprus, Malawi, Tajikistan and Egypt. 

Also speaking were: Human Rights House Foundation, International Federation for Human Rights Leagues, International Bar Association, Right Livelihood Award Foundation, Advocates for Human Rights, International Commission of Jurists, World Organisation Against Torture, Human Rights Watch, CIVICUS - World Alliance for Citizen Participation, and Liberal International.

Speaking in the dialogue on Iran were Israel, Germany, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Cuba, Syria, Venezuela, Luxembourg, China, Netherlands, Switzerland, Sri Lanka, Russian Federation, Australia, Ireland, Belarus, United States, Belgium, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Albania, Nicaragua, North Macedonia, Malawi, Lao People's Democratic Republic, New Zealand, Zimbabwe, Yemen, France and Argentina. 

Also speaking were: Ensemble contre la Peine de Mort, Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, Medical Support Association for Underprivileged Iranian Patients, Article 19 - The International Centre Against Censorship, Rahbord Peimayesh Research & Educational Services Cooperative, British Humanist Association, Ingenieurs du monde, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Centre Zagros pour les Droits de l'Homme and International Bar Association.

Speaking in the dialogue on Venezuela were the European Union, Saudi Arabia (on behalf of a group of countries), Paraguay, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Ecuador, France, Cuba, Syria, China, Spain, Sri Lanka, Argentina, Russian Federation, Cambodia, Chile, Belarus, Uruguay, United States, United Kingdom, Nicaragua, Colombia, Eritrea, South Sudan and Bolivia.

Speaking in exercise of the right of reply were Lebanon, Armenia and Israel.

The webcast of the Human Rights Council meetings can be found here.  All meeting summaries can be found here.  Documents and reports related to the Human Rights Council’s forty-ninth regular session can be found here.

The Council will reconvene on Friday, 18 March at 10 a.m. to conclude its interactive dialogue with the High Commissioner on the situation of human rights in Venezuela.  This will be followed by an interactive dialogue with the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and an interactive dialogue with the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan.

Interactive Dialogue with the High Commissioner for Human Rights on her Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Belarus

The interactive dialogue with Michelle Bachelet, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, on the situation of human rights in Belarus in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election and in its aftermath, started in the morning meeting and a summary can be found here.

Discussion

In the discussion on Belarus, some speakers said that the numerous violations of human rights and other acts committed in Belarus amounted to crimes against humanity.  A high number of human rights violations that had taken place, including cruel and inhumane punishment and detention without trial.  Belarus should provide access to and fully cooperate with the Office of the High Commissioner and all other United Nations mandate holders.  A genuine dialogue with international mechanisms was vital, and the work of the Office had been impeded by the Belorussian authorities.  The continuing deterioration of the situation, including intimidation of media workers and journalists, the dismantling of civil society, and the imprisonment of those who expressed dissent needed to be swiftly brought to an end.  The escalation of human rights violations was of great concern.

Some speakers said the situation in Belarus was characterised by complete impunity and lack of accountability for perpetrators of violations.  The so-called “constitutional referendum” was condemned.  The limitation of civil and political, and economic, social and cultural rights in Belarus was of grave concern - these actions should not go unpunished, and it was vital for the authorities to provide reparations for those who had suffered, and hold truly democratic elections.  All States should uphold the work of the Office of the High Commissioner.  Belarus’ involvement in Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified action against Ukraine was also condemned, as it violated territoriality and sovereignty, leading to a grave loss of life and other human rights violations. 

Belarus’ continuing efforts in protecting and promoting human rights were commended by some speakers.  Belarus was ensuring that its own political and legal processes were protected, along with its national dialogue.  The work of the Office of the High Commissioner should be guided by the principles of impartiality, non-selectivity, non-politicisation, constructive dialogue and cooperation.  The Human Rights Council should support Governments by ensuring they had support, and the mandate holders should avoid politicisation, encourage cooperation, and discharge their function in a neutral and impartial manner.  The selective practice of country-specific initiatives without the consent of the country concerned contravened these principles on the human rights front, as underscored in General Assembly resolutions.  This was a polarised debate, and Belarus was committed to its international human rights obligations, cooperating with the treaty bodies and reporting to the Universal Periodic Review mechanism.  The Council should not be used for pressure.

Concluding Remarks

MICHELLE BACHELET, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that many delegations had raised various aspects of accountability and on continuing allegations of human rights violations, on which she explained that, as in all other countries, accountability for human rights violations was fundamental.  Ideally this process should take place at the national level where the Government would assume the protection of human rights and guarantee the right to remedy.  However, there was little prospect in Belarus for accountability for the violations which had taken place and it was for this reason that her report made a series of complementary recommendations for the Government of Belarus and for other States to act in universal extraterritorial jurisdiction.  These were not new recommendations conceived for Belarus but had been made elsewhere.  Her report was focused on human rights violations and identified clear patterns and elements that raised real concerns of international crimes.  The Council had well known tools for furthering accountability.  The support of civil society was essential and her Office would continue to work closely with them.  She would continue to work on advancing accountability in Belarus. 

The Human Rights Council continued to call on the Government of Belarus to investigate violations of human rights and to hold perpetrators to account and provide victims of violations with access to acts of justice and remedies.  The situation was not improving so she would closely continue to monitor the situation, should the Council decide to extend her examination mandate.  The work of collecting and analysing information and evidence was key to service the purpose of accountability and prevention.  There were structural barriers that may hinder effective investigations, such as provisions in criminal law that made it difficult for a court to exercise their jurisdiction if the crime had not been committed by one of its nationals on its territory.  States should revise their laws for situations such as the one in Belarus, and be mindful that adequate resources were provided to their investigative authorities.  On the ongoing crackdown on civil society in Belarus in the context of Ukraine, Ms. Bachelet explained that she continued to monitor the situation of civil society activists who organised anti-war protests.  If the Council extended this mandate, her Office would act swiftly to give prompt effect to it. 

Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Iran

Documentation

The Council has before it a report (A/HRC/49/75) by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Presentation of Report

JAVAID REHMAN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, said Iran continued to deny the mandate access to the country. The death sentence continued to be imposed for a wide range of acts, including against individuals who had participated in protests.  The report also reiterated the deeply flawed processes that preceded the imposition of the death penalty, including lack of access to a lawyer and the use of forced confessions obtained under torture and without subsequent investigation into such allegations.  In February, the Iranian Parliament had adopted the general part of the “Regulatory System for Online Services Bill”, despite strong opposition to the bill by civil society. The bill constituted a major step towards consolidating a digital wall in Iran, which would in effect separate Iran from the global internet.  Another concerning legislative development during the reporting period was the adoption of the Youthful Population Law, which further imposed restrictions on sexual and reproductive health rights, including access to contraceptives and information, with a particular negative impact on the rights of women and girls. 

The thematic focus of the report was accountability and the legal, structural and policy impediments that for decades had resulted in persistent impunity for human rights violations of the most serious kind.  On this issue, there were many challenges to be addressed.  Acknowledging these challenges was a first step for overcoming them.  Among the first challenges to acknowledge was that the existing constitutional and political structure of the Islamic Republic of Iran was not designed to hold those who governed accountable to those who were governed.  On the one hand, the absence of political pluralism and democratic participation meant that people could not participate in decision-making.  On the other hand, the lack of separation of powers, including independence of the judiciary, meant that people had no recourse to claiming their rights when violated.  Important changes and reforms needed to be made in both these areas.  The report also showed how some of the structures of the system of governance were incompatible with international standards.

Statement by the Country Concerned

Iran, speaking as the country concerned, said that the Islamic Republic of Iran did not recognise this mandate.  This was a fallacious and distorted report, inflicted upon the Council by the United Kingdom, which could not produce a credible outcome.  The main State sponsoring this report did not care about the situation of human rights in Iran and was barring the Council from the possibility of having a meaningful debate.  The targeted State only had five minutes to respond to a broad range of affirmations, which was not fair nor interactive.  The report was not factual, it was one sided and misleading, cherry picking was prevalent and it was endorsing fallacies.  It negated the basic principles of international law and went far beyond the mandate of the Council.  As a responsible State, Iran had studied the report and sent its comments after receiving the draft, but with no surprises, all their comments were ignored.

Discussion

In the ensuing discussion on Iran, some speakers said violations of the right to freedom of expression and dissent continued to take place, and dual-national persons continued to be used as levers against other countries.  Enforced disappearance and summary and arbitrary executions continued to be matters of concern.  The persistence of human rights violations and abuses, and the absence of a system of accountability all required consistent and sweeping reforms, including the independence of the judiciary.  The use of the death penalty, in particular for child offenders, should be immediately brought to an end.  The continuing discrimination against women and girls, including through the persistence of child marriage, should be vigorously fought.  The prevailing culture of impunity for State agents was worrisome - this had been dominating the legal system for decades, with a long-standing system ensuring that it continued.  No person should be harmed when demanding their fundamental human rights.

Some speakers said that the Government should strengthen the principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers, which were essential for accountability, and ensure that perpetrators of human rights violations were held accountable.  The Government continued to oppress its own people, and showed disregard for all human rights, in particular with regard to women and girls and their right to reproductive health.  No progress could be seen in their right to not experience violence.  Ethnic and religious minorities continued to suffer from discrimination and oppression, and the number of executions from minority groups continued.  There was a shocking number of executions for those engaging in consensual same-sex relations.  Strong and resilient societies were based on equal rights, as well as a strong civil society, combined with the vital rights to freedom of expression, dissent and assembly. 

A number of speakers said that respectable dialogue and constructive engagement must be at the core of human rights, and using the United Nations human rights mechanisms to single out a particular country had nothing to do with achieving the promotion and protection of human rights.  Country-specific mechanisms and resolutions tabled without the consent of the country involved ran counter to the promotion and protection of human rights, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Human Rights Council should ensure cooperation in an objective and impartial manner, standing against selectivity, politicisation and double standards in human rights.  Any resolutions and mandates imposed on a country were blatant examples of the politicisation imposed on the Council by Western countries and their partners.  Only through cooperation could the Council be effective in its work to support human rights.  The Universal Periodic Review mechanism was the correct place to ensure that human rights were upheld on an equal footing.  This interactive dialogue lacked credibility and objectivity, and confirmed the insistence of some countries on targeting others, just to serve their political agendas against the Iranian State.

Concluding Remarks
Iran denounced the selfish national interests that various delegations expressed and all those who took the floor to support this mandate.  The politicisation of the Council to serve specific interests was unacceptable.  Iran would continue its valuable engagement with the relevant human rights mechanism such as the Universal Periodic Review as it had recently submitted its mid-term report.  

JAVAID REHMAN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, regretted not having been granted access to the country and reiterated his request for access.  On the subject of sanctions, he recognised the impact of sanctions on the health sector and the economic situation. However, he stated that sanctions did not exempt a State from its obligations that Iran did not respect such as the practice of the death penalty or responding to protest with lethal force.  The respect of human rights laws had no relationship with sanctions.  On allegations of political bias and attacks on Iran’s sovereignty, he said that the sovereignty of Iran was not disputed.  Sovereignty did not give carte blanche to not respect human rights.  The Iranian Government argued that the references of the report were biased and politicised, to which the Special Rapporteur answered that this was highly inaccurate and revealed the ways of the Government when dealing with views they did not agree with.  He hoped for a meaningful dialogue with the Government.  

Mr. Rehman noted positively that some States had used universal jurisdiction to ensure accountability for some crimes which otherwise would not have been possible.  The manifestation of the absence of accountability was evident in the use of the death penalty.  Mr. Rehman said he was concerned about the level of executions.  He was deeply alarmed about the increase of executions for drug use as well as the excessive targeting of minorities and the systematic use of torture and violation of due process.  He was further deeply alarmed as the execution of child offenders who were tortured and forced to confess.  He called on the Council to condemn the execution of child offenders and called on Iranian authorities to immediately abolish the death penalty for all offences.  The impunity and absence of accountability was also established in the excessive use of force against peaceful protesters.  The Special Rapporteur remained concerned about the use of lethal force and urged the Iranian authorities to immediately conduct a transparent enquiry concerning the use of force by security forces during the 2019 protest and other protests in 2021.  He further urged Iran to stop the use of lethal force. 

There were arbitrary detentions and other ill treatment, including torture, of political activists, human right defenders, lawyers and trade unionists.  Mr. Rehman further asked the Iranian authorities to immediately stop the harassment and to release all those arbitrarily detained as well as provide them with medical treatment.  He was extremely concerned about the limitation of freedom of expression and the continuing threats on the staff of the BBC service and other journalists and their families.  He remained further concerned about the continued detention of foreign and dual nationals.  The Special Rapporteur expressed concerns at the situation of minorities as they were facing continuous discrimination, such as the alarming number of deaths in custody of Bahai’s and Christian converts.  He urged the Government to recognise the freedom of religion of all minorities.  The situation of women and girls remained concerning as the legal age of marriage remained at 13 years old and younger girls could get married with the consent of their father and the court.  The Special Rapporteur finally urged the Government to ensure equality between men and women in law and practice.

Interactive Dialogue on the Oral Update of the High Commissioner on the Situation of Human Rights in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Presentation of Oral Update

MICHELLE BACHELET, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, introducing her oral update on the situation of human rights in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, said that since her last update in September 2021, some reform initiatives had opened up new opportunities, including reform of the judicial system and re-structuring of the police, steps to address over-crowding in prisons and others, and had led to significant institutional transformation.  Authorities should thoroughly assess the impartiality, independence and other qualities of candidates for the judiciary.  Efforts should be made to effectively address past human rights violations, and the Office stood by to help with these efforts.  The Government had an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to the fight against impunity through prompt judicial action.  The Office could support national efforts to fight human rights violations, and the Government had provided some access to judicial files - she hoped this would continue and be extended.  These steps were in the right direction, but more needed to be done.

Ms. Bachelet said her Office had been working to help to strengthen the legal and judicial framework against torture, but progress needed to continue.  There were still 12 cases of arbitrary detention, and all should be released and due process upheld - they should have access to adequate medical care.  Since September, there were 93 incidents related to restrictions on Venezuela’s civic and democratic space, including restrictions on the media, civil society, human rights defenders and journalists.  There were 24 cases of stigmatisation of human rights defenders, journalists and other members of civil society by agents of the State on public networks or social media.  The Government should build a safe and inclusive environment for all the people of the country.

Access to the websites of at least seven media outlets had been blocked - the people had a right to access all sources of information.  There was a lack of access to public information, and no national budget had been published since 2018.  The access that was granted to international election observation missions was appreciated, as were the steps towards improving the gender balance and the access to the right to vote.  The independence of electoral institutions should be enhanced.  The presence of armed non-State actors and criminal groups had increased violence, including on the border with Colombia, and the authorities should investigate all allegations of human rights violations, especially with regard to the rights of indigenous people.  She looked forward to the creation of a national mechanism for follow-up to Universal Periodic Review recommendations.

Statement by Country Concerned

Venezuela, speaking as the country concerned, said the oral update was mandated two years ago, under the sponsorship of a reduced number of States, and rejected by those who rejected politicisation of the work of the Council, despite those who wished to portray themselves erroneously as shining lights.  Those that were condemned were always countries of the South.  The Council should work without bias, selectivity, politicisation and double standards.  The concerns of the High Commissioner were noted and would be responded to in due time.  However, negative statements did not take into account the concerns of the State.  All were used for the media distortion of any information, and anything that recognised human rights progress in Venezuela would be counter to the hegemonic trend to not see anything positive in the country.  The instrumentalisation of human rights should be avoided. 

Venezuela regretted the allegations of human rights violations and other discourse which generated doubts as to the State’s activities, and said they were not in line with reality.  However, the urging of the High Commissioner to remove the sanctions was appreciated, as they had a terrible impact, violated international law, and constituted a crime against humanity, whilst being unilaterally imposed with the goal of putting an end to the unique economic and social model in the country.  The Council should unilaterally condemn these measures, which unjustly condemned countries of the South and impinged on the lives of Venezuelans.  Venezuela had issued an invitation to four Special Rapporteurs, including on the right to food and the right to housing.  Venezuela was continuing along the path of democratic strengthening, in a context where human rights were supported, as was the rule of law.

Discussion 

In the ensuing discussion on Venezuela, some speakers expressed concern for the continued practice of extrajudicial executions, and that the dynamics of cruel, inhuman treatment and torture continued: accountability remained key in removing these violations and strengthening the rule of law.  The efforts of the Government to strengthen cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner were appreciated. There was deep concern for the irregularities that continued, including the erosion of human rights guarantees, shrinking of press freedom, and harassment of political opponents.  The systematic violation of human rights had caused a massive refugee crisis in the country, given the prevailing economic, social and cultural context. The proper conditions should be put in place to ensure free, fair and independent elections, along with freedom of assembly and association.

The Venezuelan authorities should promote broad democratic participation in the affairs of the country and find a solution to the multi-dimensional crisis.  Venezuela should fully cooperate with the Special Procedure mandates, the treaty bodies, and the Office of the High Commissioner.  There should be an end to arbitrary detention, executions and torture, and the International Criminal Court could help in this regard.  There should be a guarantee of safe, rapid humanitarian access to the country in order to provide aid in an equitable manner to those suffering.  Despite recent progress, there had been no significant progress, and this needed to be remedied - Venezuela should further cooperate with the human rights mechanisms of the United Nations in order to continue to move forward in areas that limited human rights, and this would only be effective in the context of a civil society that could express itself through democratic terms, channelled through participation and dialogue.

Some speakers said that it was important to continue constructive dialogue and cooperation with the concerned State, as it was the one that bore primary responsibility for human rights on its territory, whilst avoiding politicisation in addressing human rights issues and relying on information from credible and objective sources.  Genuine dialogue and cooperation with the State should be maintained, whilst avoiding selectivity, double standards and politicisation.  There could be no justification for supporting a coup d’état in the country: people who were ready to defend their right to sovereignty would always see their rights prevail.  The Bolivarian revolution had showed its value and its endurance.  The Office should continue to promote in its work with Venezuela both dialogue and cooperation.  Politicised approaches failed to bring any positive elements to the promotion and protection of human rights.  The Government of Venezuela was promoting human rights at a national level and was working to eliminate the dreadful results of the unilateral sanctions which seriously impacted the rights of its people.

Link: https://www.ungeneva.org/en/news-media/meeting-summary/2022/03/afternoon-human-rights-council-holds-interactive-dialogue-iran