Monday, 22 February 2010

IRI Rejects 45 Human Rights Recommendations at the UN

The United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council's Draft Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: the Islamic Republic of Iran, contains a summary of the details of the events that took place during the 7th Session in the Plenary in Palais de Nations, in Geneva on 15th and 17th February, 2010.

IRI delegate Dr Mohammad Javad Larijani rejected forty-five recommendations, arguing that some were rejected because of "the poisonous accusatory tone", and had the language used by the recommending delegates been more appropriate then the IRI might have endorsed their recommendations. This is a very childish approach endorsed by one who has a
PhD in Mathematics from Berkeley, a leading California university; immature and spiteful. Furthermore, what is 'poisonous' and 'accusatory' about presenting the facts - the IRI is responsible for the rape, torture, and the brutal clamp-down on dissent, as well as the undignified public executions of adults and minors? The bitter truth appears to be very hard for the 'academic' IRI delegate to swallow.

Paragraph ninety-two of the report lists the recommendations rejected by the IRI. It is no surprise that the recommendation for the IRI to become signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (
CEDAW) was rejected in sub-section 1, especially given the Guardian Council issued a Fatwa against its ratification. This serves to illustrate the commitment of the IRI towards gender equality. This recommendation was made by Spain, Chile, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Estonia. In any event, it is of no material significance whether the IRI were to become signatory to CEDAW, given their record demonstrates that they do not have any respect whatsoever for the international human rights laws that already bind them, such as the CRC and ICCPRs.

The UK rightfully objected to the IRI's rejection of Canada's recommendation contained in para. 92 (3), which calls for the amendment of the Islamic Penal Code Law on "Offences against the national and international security of the country" to define "national security" and associated breaches in specific terms that do not infringe upon the internationally guaranteed rights of free speech and assembly. The IRI had justified thier rejection on the basis that such a recommendation was incompatible with the Constitution; however, the UK had highlighted that the wording was such that rendered the recommendation "consistent" with both the Islamic Penal Code, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This was the IRI's attempt to maintain a provision of ‘law’ under the banner of 'national security' in order to serve their own heinous agenda of silencing any expression that fails to appease them.

However, serious concern is provoked by the IRI's rejection of the following recommendations:

Para. 92 (20) – “to commute all death sentences, in particular executions of political prisoners, and abolish public executions by hanging and stoning” (Israel). This is a startling rejection; it conveys that the IRI authorities are content with proceeding with barbaric and undignified executions, and murder those who exercise their inherent right to have a political belief or affiliation.

Para. 92 (29) – “to ensure the immediate release of illegally detained persons” (Austria). The rejection of this recommendation conveys that the IRI are openly admitting they detain people illegally, and that they will continue to do so. This demonstrates a blatant lack of honour and respect for due process, fair trials, international law, and is tantamount to state-sanctioned crime of kidnapping; it further illustrates the magnitude of the tyranny that reigns over the people in Iran.

Para. 92 (34) – “to take steps to end the current culture of impunity by ensuring all allegations of abuse are investigated by the judiciary in a timely and transparent manner” (UK). The IRI, thus, are defying all moral, international and national legal obligations by refusing to serve justice. This is indicative that the IRI authorities are a mafia-like government that calls itself a 'republic', and has the audacity to claim to act in God's name. The IRI regime is not an agent of God; it is the enemy of God.

Para. 92 (41) – “to end acts of repression against persons belonging to ethnic or religious minorities” (France). Therefore, the Ahwaz Arabs, the Azeris, Balochis, Lors, Bahais, Sunni Muslims, Jews, Zoroastrians, atheists and Kurds have to endure more relentless persecution without any protection from anyone, anywhere. This fascist evil regime must be brought to an end.

Para. 92 (45) – “to prosecute security officials involved in torturing, raping or killing” (Austria). Thus, in full view of the international community and the world's journalists and NGOs, the IRI are promising to continue with the
rape, torture and murder of the people they claim to govern. A government is there for the people; it should be elected by the people, and, thus, fear and respect the people. However, this foolish government is of the warped contention that it is a strong democracy - even though non-Muslims and women cannot run for office, nor can a government come into power if it is not of the Shia school of Islam. 'No election' is more honest than a fraudulent and conditional election, which may serve as some explanation as to why no one can vote out the 'Supreme Leader'.

The thirty minute adoption session came to a close, with twenty recommendations pending the decision of the IRI, to be delivered by no later than the fourteenth session of the Human Rights Council in June, 2010.

The results of the Human Rights Council's seventh session may not be as pessimistic as some would consider it to be. What took place was that the world bore witness to the open rhetoric and propaganda of the IRI and its blatant rejection of fundamental human rights protective measures. Despite the twenty-five bought out governments of the world, the rest of the world now knows exactly who they are dealing with - an extremist government who will attempt to infect the world with its violent radical religious views at all costs, especially through the violations of human rights.

Some have argued that the UN is a sham organization and should be disassembled. In its place a fresh new international organization should be established, one that will honour its dedication to pure ethics in the pursuit for truth and justice in the international arena, without resorting to corrupt ethics in hope for personal/financial gain. As ideal as this may prima facie appear to be, it is a naive assertion. If a new international organization is to be established, who will be member to it? It will still be comprised of the same governments of countries that exist under the UN today. One cannot create a new country, nor can one change corrupt governments over-night. All that will be achieved would be the 'moving house' of the international community from under the banner of one organization to another.

A more practical approach may be to take what already exists today - the UN - and engage in a thorough 'spring-cleaning' of its composition and procedural mandate. For example, the IRI is a
candidate to sit on the Human Rights Council in May, 2010; the UN needs to perform a review of its policy so that the mandate of the Human Rights Council does not permit any state whose government is responsible for mass or persistent violations of human rights, and breaches of its pertinent international laws to be a candidate to sit on the Council. Countries, such as the IRI, have a proven record of gross human rights violations spanning back three decades; would it not be disconcerting and hypocritical to have governments of serious human rights abuses be honoured with the responsibility of monitoring and acting on state violations of human rights? This would be tantamount to the absurdity of having a corrupt police officer on patrol; or a known sex offender provide support for victims of sexual violence.

This is merely one example of the shake up the UN is in dire need of; there are many other areas that require a 'spring-clean', including the powers of UN bodies when it comes to enforcement mechanisms of international human rights law. There are many laws that amount to human rights abuses; however, only four of which are considered 'international crimes'.
These four crimes reflect the abuses of human rights; however, breaches of human rights do not constitute international crimes. Therefore, it is strongly suggested that the other forms of human rights violations, such as juvenile executions; discrimination towards women, ethnic and religious minorities; torture and stoning; violation of the right to freedom of expression; and impunity of state officials should be criminalized and fall within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). For as long as international human rights laws are breached and human rights are annihilated in various states without any criminal implications, there is no course for intervention, enforcement and/or legal deterrence. A positive step would be to broaden the scope of the ICC by criminalizing violations of international human rights law.

Then there is the over-bureaucratic procedures that have plagued the UN, as well as the fact that the UN have allocated a paltry
1.8% of their budget to the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, an illustration of the degree of priority human rights issues have in the UN.

With regards to the fate of the IRI and their endless pursuits to annihilate the human rights of all in their path, the Human Rights Council must call a Special Session on the IRI, and three countries should agree to holding a 'side-event' in evaluating the IRI's record of human rights violations and persistent disobedience of the calls and please of the international community. This will serve to establish IRI culpability, name and shame the government, and place pressure on all governments who consort with the IRI to isolate this lamentable regime.

For as long as human rights issue are placed second on the international community’s agenda, governments will soon have power over nobody, as there will be no one left to govern.


  1. "A positive step would be to broaden the scope of the ICC by criminalizing violations of international human rights law" and the IRI would ratify that, I'm sure, and the prosecutor would be keen to prosecute not to mention the SC, while State cooperation would be maximum. lol. Just face it Mehrtash - we've picked a dead branch to study. Should have gone for physics. (don't think I'm not on your side - just thought a little black humor would fit perfectly under this post)

  2. The way its going with UN. I think soon in every country the people would and SHOULD get rid of the UN in total... we all had enough.

  3. Anonymous - thank you for your comment. If people get rid of the UN, what do you propose takes its place? If we have nothing to take its place then there will not be an official forum to voice the collective states' views and ideas.

    Furthermore, if one was to get rid of the UN, all the international human rights laws would go with it, as it was the UN that drafted the great human rights instruments that call for the protection and promotion of fundamental human rights.

    To get rid of the UN is to act impulsively and based on irrational emotion. There is far more good to lose by doing so, than by working to improve what already exists.

  4. I wasn't able to access the draft report using the link in Mehrtash's most interesting report, above, but I found a link that seems to work work, at
    I was thinking, reading Mehrtash's two reports, and the draft report itself, that it certainly appears that the world is divided between the enlightened West and the backward East, most shockingly, perhaps, the Central Asian republics and India, all of them victims of Islamism, promoted by Iran. And yet, kissing the boot of Iran! But two things I think should be kept in mind: 1) the Iranian people have paid in blood and the labor (and risk) of citizen journalists (not to mention the lucky help of the IRI having silenced Western reporters, who would have given a much-different picture, I am sure, had they not been forced to use citizen-reports!) -- we can thank this blood-and-sweat for the relatively immense recent education of Western opinion, which in turn has pressured Western governments to make these statements, at least in the relatively unreported venue of a UN meeting. Western governments -- even human rights groups, such as Amnesty International, whose duplicity about the IRI I am now studying -- have consistently downplayed IRI repression. 2) The most powerful Western states, and the Vatican, have aggressively promoted the IRI as a leader for Central and Western Asia -- e.g., including it in the prestigious meeting preparatory to writing the Afghan constitution -- see
    (this with the approval of the Bush administration!) -- and, following the occupation of Afghanistan, encouraging Iran's full inolvement within Afghanistan (see especially footnote #2, which footnote links to a video of an Iranain foreign ministry official waxing poetic over the Western Satans' invasion of Afghanistan. Along the same lines, the obvious and indeed only regional gainer from the US-led invasion of Iraq is, and had to be, the IRI. Israel lost; Saudi Arabia of course lost; but the IRI leaders lost their deadliest enemy and gained a client state (or pretty close to that!) of great potential wealth and much immediate significance. (No wonder Kuwait is fawning!) Since the invasion of Iraq was carried out under the political guidance of Brzezinski's star protege, Zalmay Khalilzad, the very shrewd top strategist during the latter half of the 1980s war in Afghanistan, who taught geopolitical game theory at Columbia and specialized in that at Rand Corp., of course this was the intention. So we have a two-faced policy; not necessarily on the part of each individual diplomat, or even of all Western states, but certainly of the leading Western states -- of promoting IRI power, and then expressing shock that gambling is going on there. (Apologies to the film, Casablanca.)

  5. Let me add a point, which I didn't notice I didn't make clear. In massively promoting IRI power, both through the first and second Gulf wars (which boosted IRI power, immensely and solely), the support for Iranian intervention in Yugoslavia, the tolerance/support for Iranian intervention in the Middle East, and the promotion of IRI power in Afghanistan, along with open calls (e.g. by Italy) for Iran to lead regionally -- in doing all these things, and more, all the while praising Sharia as sufficient for human rights, the US-Euro powers (US, Italy, Germany, France, UK, Vatican) have made clear -- super clear -- to the 'third world' states that Iran was to be their leader. Israel, which it is my impression made the strongest statements at the UN, is undoubtedly sincere - after all, Israel is directly threatened by Iran. But the US, UK & Germany, France and Italy? Pure hypocrisy. Just like the big politician who rants against impiety in the daylight, though he has reclined, the night before, in the whorehouse.