HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DISCUSSES HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA AND IN IRAN
Meeting Summaries
The Council has before it the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (A/HRC/34/66).
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea - Report of the group of independent experts on accountability (A/HRC/34/66/Add.1).
Presentation of Reports by the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and by the Group of Independent Experts on Accountability
TOMAS OJEA QUINTANA, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said he was presenting his first report to the Council since his appointment as Special Rapporteur, together with the Group of Independent Experts mandated to prepare a report on accountability for human rights violations in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Although tensions risked turning focus away from human rights, now was the appropriate time to tackle the question of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Although he had not yet been able to visit the country nor meet any representatives of the authorities, he continued to receive first-hand information through a variety of sources. The escalation in hostilities had put the few existing opportunities for cooperation and dialogue on human rights in jeopardy. Underscoring that Security Council resolutions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had pledged that measures to deter nuclear proliferation should protect the civilian population from the adverse consequences of sanctions, he encouraged the sanctions monitoring committee to give the matter due consideration.
Recent political developments gave further cause for concern, in particular, the killing last month of Mr. Kim Jong Un’s brother Kim Jong Nam in Kuala Lumpur, and he urged all parties concerned to cooperate in carrying out a transparent, independent and impartial investigation into that killing. Turning to events within the country, he said that last year the leadership had announced a five-year strategy for economic reform, which seemed to result in the authorities tolerating more private economic activity than before. Last summer’s typhoon had destroyed large swathes of land and affected the livelihoods of around 600,000 people, but it was not clear whether humanitarian aid had reached the most vulnerable communities. The situation of overseas workers was also of deep concern; the scheme was a valuable source of foreign currency for the country, and workers abroad reportedly had to contribute a large portion of their salaries to the authorities in the form of so-called ‘loyalty funds’. The situation in the four prison camps that were known to be still operational remained a grave concern; they were estimated to host at least 80,000 and up to 120,000 inmates. He was encouraged, however, by some positive developments, such as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s submission of some overdue reports to human rights treaty bodies. In closing, the Special Rapporteur invited the Group of Independent Experts to present its findings. The international community’s response to the people in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had to be guided by the pursuit of justice and accountability as a core tenet of the United Nations.
SONJA BISERKO, Member of the Group of Independent Experts on Accountability in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, recalled that the Group of Independent Experts had been mandated by the Human Rights Council to support the work of the Special Rapporteur on issues of accountability for human rights violations in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, in particular where such violations amounted to crimes against humanity, as found by the Commission of Inquiry. Throughout their mandate, the Group had sought to engage with the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but to no avail. They had undertaken missions to Geneva, The Hague, Seoul, Tokyo and New York, during which they met with a wide range of officials, civil society actors and legal experts and practitioners. They had also received written submissions. The report stressed that seeking accountability for gross human rights violations was not simply a legal requirement, but it held potential to restore the position of victims in society as rights holders and to transform society into one based on the rule of law and respect for the dignity of all, thereby contributing to long-term peace and stability. The Group of Independent Experts called for a framework for accountability that was human rights-based, and this could only be achieved through the full participation of victims and affected communities. Given the severity of the human rights situation in the country, a comprehensive and multi-pronged approach was required, which should encompass measures to establish individual criminal responsibility of perpetrators, as well as ensure the right of victims and societies to know the truth about violations, the right to reparation, and guarantees of non-recurrence.
SARA HUSSEIN, Member of the Group of Independent Experts on Accountability in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said that no viable option for accountability existed or had been used in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and that a fundamental reform of the justice system was required. Hybrid justice models involving the Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s justice personnel could not be envisaged, given the lack of impartiality and independence of the judiciary and its alleged implication in the commission of human rights violations. This meant that accountability options outside of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea were required and the Group of Experts urged the international community to continue to pursue a referral of the situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to the International Criminal Court. Other accountability processes should be undertaken as well, in addition to the prosecution of some high-level perpetrators before the International Criminal Court. The groundwork for future criminal trials should be laid now, and it should include the scope for the establishment of an ad hoc tribunal, which should serve as a deterrent for future crimes and a signal that victims would be heard.
Statement by the Concerned Country
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea was not present in the room to respond.
Interactive Discussion on the Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
European Union remained deeply concerned about the human rights situation and the findings of the Commission of Inquiry of serious human rights violations, some of which could amount to crimes against humanity. Reports of torture against political and other prisoners, persecution of religious minorities and harsh treatment of those trying to leave the country, were also of concern. Liechtenstein was appalled by the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the lack of response by the international community and urged urgent action to ensure accountability. Considering the large number of perpetrators, the prosecution of high-level perpetrators by the International Criminal Court would not be sufficient and must be accompanied by other measures.
United Kingdom remained deeply concerned by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s human rights record and nuclear missile programme, as well as by forced labour inflicted on its citizens. The rights to freedom of expression, movement and fair trial had been denied, whereas arbitrary detention, torture, execution and rape had been widely reported. Greece reiterated grave concern for the precarious humanitarian situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the findings of the Commission of Inquiry of grave human rights violations. Greece called on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to engage in an effective and constructive way with all international human rights mechanisms, grant them access in the country, and comply fully with its international obligations. Japan reminded of the escalating provocative actions by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the past three years by its nuclear tests and missile launchers, which not only represented a serious security threat to the international community, but also resulted in the worsening of the country’s already dire human rights and humanitarian situation.
Croatia regretted that the issues such as political prison camps, abductions and separation of families, access to information, rights of overseas workers and the right to food in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea did not show sign of progress. France noted that the prioritization of the development of nuclear capacities had had a negative effect on the economic development of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the wellbeing of its people. Czechia raised concern over the exclusion of the vast population from the conduct of political affairs and about the violations of basic freedoms. It called on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to immediately release political prisoners and to end grave human rights violations, as well as to ensure accountability for those violations. Germany stressed that accountability for human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was not a matter of choice or convenience, but a legal obligation under international law and practice. It urged the authorities to take immediate and effective steps to end those violations, and to resume dialogue with their neighbouring countries and the international community.
Switzerland was deeply worried by the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, deploring the fact that the country continued to reject the Special Rapporteur’s mandate, and asking him how to ensure the implementation of the recommendations of the Group of Independent Experts. Syria rejected the use of human rights as a reason to interfere in the domestic affairs of States, saying it was regrettable that some countries were targeted by the Council, and calling for constructive dialogue in tackling human rights issues in line with the United Nations Charter. Australia said reports of human rights violations were shocking, and supported the Special Rapporteur’s call for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to implement all recommendations it had received under the Universal Periodic Review.
Cuba said politically motivated resolutions and selective mandates ran counter to genuine cooperation in the field of human rights, and rejected the notion of “responsibility to protect”, saying the Universal Periodic Review was the appropriate mechanism to address the situation of human rights within countries. Venezuela said the “North Korean” Government had shown its commitment to United Nations human rights mechanisms through its cooperation with the Universal Periodic Review, adding that highly politicized mandates demonstrated a selective fashion of engagement. China said States should address human rights issues through dialogue and cooperation, noting China’s opposition to the politicization of human rights issues, adding that the present situation on the peninsula was complex and sensitive, and urging all to avoid any situation that would lead to provocation and escalation.
Maldives was concerned about the complete isolation of a Member State of the United Nations and its people from the international community, noting that extremist ideologies posed a threat to international peace and security, as surely as did the threat of the use of arms. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea should move forward with the rest of the world towards an international framework where no one was left behind. New Zealand shared concerns about the severe human rights violations in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and stressed the critical need to ensure access to the country by the Special Rapporteur and to pursue accountability for those responsible for human rights violations. United States remained gravely concerned by the human rights violations in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, including torture, arbitrary detention, enslavement, and forced labour, and strongly supported the efforts and calls for accountability. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea would be judged not by its words but by actions taken.
Estonia deeply regretted that the human rights situation had not improved and recalled the responsibility of the international community to ensure accountability for human rights violations committed in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Estonia supported the referral of the situation to the International Criminal Court by the Security Council. Norway was particularly concerned about the situation in political prison camps and the systematic restriction of access to information and, welcoming the victim-oriented approach of the Group of Independent Experts, asked which should be the first steps towards the implementation of its recommendations. How would the deepened isolation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea affect the human rights situation in the country, including those in need of humanitarian assistance? Hungary remained deeply concerned about the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, one of the most repressive States in the world, and said that serious human rights violations, especially those amounting to crimes against humanity, must be addressed and punished.
Republic of Korea noted that there was still no glimpse of hope for terminating the human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. It was time for the international community to act to end impunity for human rights violators, including the leadership of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Portugal reminded that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s Government continued to commit extrajudicial killings, enforced relocations, arbitrary arrests and detention, forced labour and torture. Estimates indicated that between 80,000 and 120,000 people were detained in political prison camps, including children and family members. Albania echoed the grave concerns about the impact of the policies of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s Government on the country’s internal situation, and on the nuclear threat policies, which worsened the humanitarian and human rights situation in that country. Spain called attention to the particular vulnerability of persons who left the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, many of them women. How could their situation be improved, particularly the situation of women, as well as the rights of overseas workers?
Belarus noted that achieving progress in the promotion and protection of human rights was only possible through cooperation and constructive dialogue. Increasing pressure only restricted the space for dialogue. The Human Rights Council should review its work under agenda item 4 to avoid the politicization of human rights. Myanmar stressed that country-specific mandates in the Council were counter-productive because they did not create a conducive environment for a genuine dialogue and effective cooperation between the mandate holders and the concerned countries. Iran maintained that the practice of selective approaches in the Council was a tool that exploited human rights for political purposes, breached the principles of universality, objectivity and non-selectivity in addressing human rights issues, and undermined cooperation. Ireland asked for Mr. Ojea Quintana’s views on how to progress efforts at spreading awareness of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, in light of the restrictions on access to information in that country.
United Nations Watch, in a joint statement with NK Watch, asked if the Special Rapporteur would investigate the extrajudicial killing of Kim Jong-Nam as well as other “North Koreans” who were reported to have been executed by anti-aircraft guns. Jubilee Campaign, in a joint statement with Christian Solidarity Worldwide, urged the Council to table a strong resolution addressing human rights and impunity in “North Korea”, saying united and persistent international action was the only hope for stalling abuses which had been committed with impunity for decades. Human Rights Watch urged the Human Rights Council to include two prosecution experts based in Seoul to analyse evidence about crimes and those responsible, and to appoint an independent “international criminal justice expert” to oversee the process. Amnesty International called on the Human Rights Council to urge the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to, among other things, ensure full access for humanitarian workers to those in need, including persons in detention facilities and prisons. People for Successful Corean Reunification said children were exploited in numerous areas of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s infrastructure development, noting that recently, several Chinese companies had ordered goods like hair accessories and eye-lash extensions from the “North Korean” government, and that children had been chosen for that work simply because of their small fingers.
Concluding Remarks on the Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
TOMAS OJEA QUINTANA, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, expressed regret that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was not in the room today and said that it was a high time for the country to start to get closer to the Council and the Special Rapporteur. Mr. Ojea Quintana noted that a number of countries – those opposed to the mandate – had stressed the role of the Universal Periodic Review in the improvement of the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and asked those countries to urge the Government to implement the recommendations it had accepted through this process, such as to set up national human rights institutions, become a member of the International Labour Organization, ratify the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and others. On accountability and justice, the Special Rapporteur stressed the obligation of the Council under international law to seek ways to ensure accountability whenever there was proof of serious crimes against humanity. Mr. Ojea Quintana recalled that his report also addressed the issue of corporate social responsibility of companies which were hiring overseas workers from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and reiterated his intention to continue to address the situation of those workers, the commitments of host States towards them, as well as obligations of companies which were hiring them.
With regard to the possibilities for new spaces for dialogue and cooperation with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Mr. Ojea Quintana said that in the absence of the cooperation of the Government with his mandate, there were other bodies, thematic mandates in particular, which could establish dialogue with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. For example, the recent ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea offered a possibility of establishing technical cooperation, assistance and dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation of persons with disabilities. The Special Rapporteur stressed, once again, the crucial issue of access for the mandate and other human rights mechanisms, in order to ensure real impact on all social sectors and everywhere throughout the country. In conclusion, the Special Rapporteur reiterated the utmost importance of dialogue, cooperation and diplomacy at this particular moment, with tensions flying high. The Council had an important role to play in alleviating those tensions, said Mr. Ojea Quintana and urged African and Latin American countries who were members of the Council to take part in the dialogue.
SONJA BISERKO, Member of the Group of Independent Experts on Accountability in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, explained that the Group of Independent Experts had focused on a judicial approach to accountability, noting that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was the primary duty holder in bringing perpetrators to justice. However, neighbouring countries and United Nations Member States also held their own role to play in that process. Awareness raising about collecting relevant documentation was also important. It was recommended that the methodology in collecting documentation should meet international standards. As for civil society, it should continue to broach the issue through engaging with victims’ community.
SARA HOSSAIN, Member of the Group of Independent Experts on Accountability in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said that the Group of Independent Experts had reached out to the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea repeatedly. The specific recommendations to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were to reform its judicial system, to seek assistance from the United Nations, to create conditions for national awareness of justice and accountability, and to reach out to civil society and victims in their demand for justice within regional initiatives.
Documentation
The Council has before it the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (A/HRC/34/65).
Presentation of Report by the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Iran
ASMA JAHANGIR, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, addressed the Council for the first time since taking up her mandate, and presented her report which covered the last six months of 2016. Her report was based on information she had received from Iranians living both inside and outside of Iran and consultations with civil society organizations and various stakeholders. Some promising developments had taken place in Iran, including increased cooperation with the mandate. Challenges included the fact that at least 530 executions took place in 2016, while 156 had been registered since January, the majority of which were for drug-related offences, which were not the most serious crimes under international law. Courts continued to sentence children to death and to execute them once they reached 18 years of age. The use of torture and ill treatment, in many forms, including blinding and flogging, remained legally condoned. The judiciary in the Islamic Republic of Iran was neither independent nor free from influence from the executive. An independent judiciary was the primary guarantee for the respect of the rule of law.
Ms. Jahangir said that all reports indicated a high level of control over citizens and that democratic space was severely limited. National security-related charges still constituted the most powerful tool to silence any dissenting voice in the country. The second half of 2016 had been marked by a new series of arrests and detentions of journalists, writers, social media activists and human rights defenders, in particular women’s rights activists. She was disturbed by the level of fear of those who tried to communicate with her, with several interlocutors living outside and inside the country expressing fear of reprisals against them or their family members living inside the country. Another issue of concern was violations of women’s rights, she said, noting that according to the country’s Penal Code, the value of a woman’s life was equal to half of a man. New legislation restricted women’s labour rights, and women continued to be chased and subjected to violence and harassment for “improper hijab” in accordance with rules established to supposedly protect their “modesty and virtue”, which enabled simple citizens to become guardians of “morality”. Adherents to the Baha’i faith continued to be systematically discriminated against, harassed and targeted. Other religious minorities such as Iranian Christians from Muslim backgrounds and members of various Sufi groups also experienced violations of their fundamental rights. Acknowledging that the Government had faced serious challenges resulting from economic sanctions, she said the people of Iran had faced an even greater challenge and deserved full respect for their human rights by all concerned, and in particular from their own Government.
Statement by the Concerned Country
Iran reiterated that its human rights policy, embodied in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, was always based on interaction and cooperation in the promotion and protection of human rights, to the extent of mutual respect for civil society and divine religions, avoiding confrontation, politicization and double standards. Iran stressed that its experience of democracy was based on Islamic rationality and should not be judged through the eyes of secular-liberal democracy. Iran was a party to more than 22 human rights related documents and instruments, had successfully passed two cycles of the Universal Periodic Review, and regularly presented its periodic reports to human rights treaty bodies. Domestically, Iran had adopted or was in the process of discussing more than 22 laws, bills and plans, it had established seven human rights mechanisms, including the special assistant of the President on citizens’ rights affairs, had incorporated human rights education in the school curriculum, and had provided human rights education to more than 5,000 judges and judicial staff.
Interactive Dialogue on the Situation of Human Rights in Iran
European Union took positive note of Iran’s willingness to explore steps to reduce the number of executions. However, the continued use of the death penalty, including against juveniles, was still of concern, as well as the harassment and widespread arrest and detention of persons exercising their freedom of opinion and expression. United Kingdom remained deeply concerned about the continued and frequent use of the death penalty, and the persecution and discrimination against religious minorities, including the Baha’is, Christians and Sufis, and of human rights defenders. What was the assessment of the recently adopted Charter on Citizens’ Rights? Israel underlined the persecution of minorities and widespread executions in Iran. The Iranian punitive system held a dubious record of executions by hanging juvenile offenders, whereas Holocaust denial was still often promoted by the leaders of Iran.
Denmark said it was disturbed by the ongoing violations of fundamental rights, including the continued discrimination against religious minorities, violation of the freedom of expression, association and assembly, and the arbitrary arrests of dual citizens. Was Iran any closer to changing the current practice and use of the death penalty? France stated that the death penalty was used in Iran for a large number of offences that did not meet the standards of the most serious crime. Would the recent application of the Charter on Citizens’ Rights improve the situation of human rights in Iran? Czechia positively noted the improved engagement of Iran with human rights treaty bodies and the increased contact with the Special Rapporteur. What would the recommendations to Iran be regarding the recent implementation of the Charter on Citizens’ Rights? Germany urged Iran to establish a moratorium on the use of capital punishment, to lift all death verdicts on juvenile offenders, and to grant fair new trials in specialized youth courts. It also called attention to discrimination against women, and ethnic and religious minorities.
Switzerland asked which measures the Special Rapporteur considered might establish a trust-based relationship with the Iranian authorities, enabling her to exercise her mandate, and which measures Switzerland and the international community could take to support her efforts. Japan welcomed initiatives of setting human rights issues as top priorities, but noted that further improvement was needed in areas such as freedom of movement, underscoring Japan’s commitment to constructive dialogue and engagement with Iran in the field of human rights. Syria expressed opposition to the pretext of using human rights to interfere in the internal affairs of States, adding that when a particular country was targeted, that represented double standards.
Belgium said none of the many recommendations made during the Universal Periodic Review had received effective follow-up, urging the Iranian Government to immediately prohibit sentencing children to death. Australia expressed concern about the arbitrary use of solitary confinement, and called on Iran to implement the Citizens’ Charter in law and practice, urging Iran to ensure equality and to impose a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. Cuba said the existence of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran and the interactive dialogue were examples of the discriminatory double standards which had become common in the Human Rights Council. The Universal Periodic Review was the appropriate mechanism to examine the situation of human rights in all countries.
Venezuela said that the proliferation of country-specific mandates did not offer the opportunity for a genuine dialogue and cooperation, which were pillars for the effective promotion and protection of human rights. A constructive attitude must be applied to human rights challenges, which must be addressed with the objectivity and impartiality that sovereign people required. China advocated for dialogue and constructive cooperation between States on the basis of mutual respect and said that human rights were a key part of every country’s development, and they must be promoted in line with the specific situation of each country. Netherlands remained concerned about the high number of executions, including of minors, and urged Iran to limit the use of the death penalty. The restrictions imposed on minorities were very worrying and Iran should put a stop to discrimination against and arrests of members of the Baha’i community. What was the future of Baha’i in Iran and what could the international community do to support this community?
New Zealand was concerned that many human rights indicators in Iran had not improved over the past 12 months. Reiterating its commitment to the abolition of the death penalty worldwide, New Zealand urged Iran to immediately prohibit the execution of juveniles. The situation of religious minorities, particularly Baha’i and Christians, was of grave concern. United States stressed the need to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur given the human rights situation in Iran, given the continued use of torture, execution and arbitrary detentions, and the severe restrictions on religious minorities, with Baha’i singled out for particularly harsh treatment. What could the international community do to protect the rights of political prisoners and religious minorities in light of continuous violations by the Government? The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia welcomed the adoption of the Citizens’ Rights Charter and reiterated concern about the high number of executions, particularly against minors and in cases where offences did not meet the definition of “most serious crimes” under international human rights law. How could the Citizens’ Rights Charter be interpreted to allow for the moratorium and abolition of the death penalty?
Norway remained concerned about the use of the death penalty in Iran, and noted an increase in executions since the beginning of 2017. Norway was worried about the status of freedom of expression and the media, as well as about actions against social media users and human rights defenders. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said it opposed country-specific mandates, including the one on Iran. Genuine dialogue and cooperation should be pursued, and confrontational approach with accusations based on unsubstantiated and fabricated information should be rejected. Spain appreciated some advances in the human rights situation in Iran, such as the adoption of the Charter of Citizens’ Rights. However, it regretted that the death penalty was applied to juveniles, as well as the discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities.
Belarus reminded that Iran had implemented recommendations of two Universal Periodic Review cycles, and that it had adopted substantive measures to improve human rights. It was unfortunate that the Special Rapporteur’s report ignored those measures. The establishment of country-specific mandates undermined the credibility of the Council. Myanmar stated that cooperation in a non-politicized manner was the best way to achieve the common goal of promoting human rights. Country-specific mandates in the Council were counter-productive and did not create a conducive environment for a genuine dialogue. Ireland was extremely concerned about the continued use of the death penalty for juvenile offenders. The situation of ethnic and religious minorities continued to be of concern, and Ireland called on Iran to cease the persecution of the Bahai’s. The state of women’s rights, freedom of media, expression and assembly were also worrying.
Hazrat Javad-al-Aemeh spoke about early marriages, and said that it was more practical to pay attention to the consequences of child marriage, such as early pregnancy, social isolation, school dropouts, and domestic violence. Imam Ali’s Popular Students Relief Society said that its research showed that most juvenile offenders came from poor families and had been victims of violence at least once. In recent years, the non-governmental organization had saved 25 juveniles from imminent execution. Association for Defending Victims of Terrorism stressed that Iran was one of the main victims of terrorism and said that today, terrorism had gone beyond an ideological form of extremism and turned into a hegemonic instrument to impose the will of some tyrannical States on oppressed nations.
Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ecuador
GUILLAUME LONG, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ecuador, reiterated Ecuador’s firm commitment to human rights, as proven by its ratification of all relevant international and Latin American conventions. One of the most significant challenges in the world was the protection of persons on the move, i.e. migrants and refugees. They were increasingly rejected and stigmatized, amidst growing intolerance and xenophobia. In Ecuador, the National Assembly had recently adopted a law on human mobility, guaranteeing rights for all migrants in the country. Ecuador had been internationally recognized for the efforts made in the field, with over 60,000 persons with a refugee status in the country. Due to the implementation of the neo-liberal recipe, hundreds of thousands of Ecuadorians had historically been forced to leave their families and ancestral lands. Power and wealth ought to be re-distributed more fairly, stressed Mr. Long. Ecuador was now among global leaders in reducing poverty and inequality. Despite the hegemonic speeches trying to decouple human rights from socio-economic aspects, Ecuador was working hard to ensure that the human rights agenda kept at its core the development of peoples of the world. The eight richest people in the world had as much money as the bottom half of humanity, which was appalling. The Group of 77 wanted to see an intergovernmental body dealing with tax issues in order to put a stop to the ongoing “race to the bottom”. Tax revenues were the most predictable sources of income for States to finance their human rights schemes. An ethical compact had been adopted in Ecuador so that civil servants would remain consistent and ethical. By refusing to pay taxes, the wealthiest corporations and individuals were participating in the denial of human rights to everyone else, said Mr. Long. A legally binding international instrument on transnational corporations and human rights was necessary.
Interactive Dialogue on the Situation of Human Rights in Iran
Child Foundation said because of European and American excessive limitations for international activities of Iranian bodies, Child Foundation had been unable to have adequate access and provide sufficient assistance to children under its coverage in Iran. Unilateral coercive measures should not target civilians, innocent people, civil society and non-governmental organizations. Baha’i International Community noted that scrutiny by the international community of the gross human rights violations in Iran was vital. It drew attention to the exclusion of Baha’is from higher education, and social and economic life. Ensemble Contre la Peine de Mort reminded of the execution of a large number of Kurdish prisoners in Iran. Kurdish prisoners counted for almost half of all political prisoners in the country. United Nations Watch highlighted the fact that the oppressive regime of Iran intimidated and harassed women. Iranian women removed their hijabs on social networks in an act of resistance. Women’s Human Rights International Association reminded of the cases of political prisoners who had been sentenced to death based on a religious decree and after a trial lasting only two minutes. Testimonies had shown that those executed had been buried in mass graves.
Concluding Remarks
Iran, speaking as the concerned country, believed that the appointment of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran was the result of an unfair, selective and political process. The report under consideration had ignored the human rights achievements and progress made in Iran. Iran had suffered huge life and property losses to protect its citizens. The report tried to whitewash criminals, armed drug dealers, terrorists and spies. The Special Rapporteur had not been able to acquire genuine information from reliable sources.
ASMA JAHANGIR, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, believed that the Government of Iran had to recognize that there were human rights problems in Iran, and that they needed attention. It was difficult to have a dialogue if one party did not even recognize the mandate. It was essential that the mandate be given access to the country, so that the Rapporteur could interact, first-hand, with various actors in Iran. While Iran had recently invited a number of Special Procedure mandate holders, the Government should also consider inviting Ms. Jahangir to visit the country. According to a possible new law, those who were imprisoned for carrying only small quantities of narcotics could be spared the death penalty. For any change to come to Iran, there had to be a lifting of the climate of fear, which very much still existed in the country. The death penalty for juveniles should be abolished; the independence of lawyers needed to be respected; political prisoners ought to be released; and the Government should not allow impunity to those who had committed crimes in the name of religion. More and more religious minorities were now speaking up and identifying their problems. The Citizens’ Rights Charter was a fine document, but on the ground the substance of the Charter had not been translated into reality. Arbitrary detention and torture could not be justified under any circumstances. Among the media, there was a climate of self-censorship, noted Ms. Jahangir.
Ms. Jahangir stated that she had received substantive input from Iran; factual corrections were included in her report, but the input contained a lot of repetition. The Citizens’ Rights Charter included every Iranian’s wish list, but mechanisms for its implementation had to be in place. It was hoped that bridges could be formed between Iran and the international community; the international community stood ready to provide support to Iran in the field of human rights. The report focused on the question of human dignity; while social and economic rights were important, they could never take precedence over basic human dignity.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC17/033E
Hears Statement by Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador
The Human Rights Council today held an interactive dialogue with Tomás Ojea Quintana, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and with two members of the Group of Independent Experts on accountability in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It then held an interactive dialogue with Asma Jahangir, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran. Guillaume Long, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador, also addressed the Council.
In his statement, Mr. Long reiterated Ecuador’s firm commitment to human rights, as proven by its ratification of all relevant international and Latin American conventions. One of the most significant challenges in the world was the protection of persons on the move. Migrants and refugees were increasingly rejected and stigmatized, amidst growing intolerance and xenophobia. Mr. Long stressed the need for the redistribution of global power and wealth, in light of the fact that the eight richest people in the world had as much money as the bottom half of humanity. A legally binding international instrument on transnational corporations and human rights was necessary.
During his presentation, Mr. Ojea Quintana underscored that although tensions risked turning focus away from human rights, now was the appropriate time to tackle the question of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Recent political developments gave further cause for concern, in particular, the killing of Kim Jong Un’s brother Kim Jong Nam in Kuala Lumpur. Mr. Ojea Quintana urged all parties concerned to cooperate in carrying out a transparent, independent and impartial investigation into that killing. The situation in the four prison camps that were known to be still operational remained a grave concern; they were estimated to host at least 80,000 and up to 120,000 inmates.
Sonja Biserko, Member of the Group of Independent Experts on Accountability in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, stressed that seeking accountability for gross human rights violations was not simply a legal requirement, but it held potential to restore the position of victims in society as rights holders and to transform society into one based on the rule of law and respect for the dignity of all, thereby contributing to long-term peace and stability.
Sara Hussein, Member of the Group of Independent Experts on Accountability in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said that accountability options outside of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea were required. The Group of Experts urged the international community to continue to pursue a referral of the situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to the International Criminal Court.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea was not present to take the floor as the concerned country.
During the interactive dialogue, speakers expressed deep concern about the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Several delegations expressed support for the idea of referring the situation to the International Criminal Court. They said accountability for human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was not a matter of choice or convenience, but a legal obligation under international law and practice. Many also called on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to engage in an effective and constructive way with all international human rights mechanisms, grant them access in the country and comply fully with its international obligations. Others rejected the Council’s use of human rights as a means to interfere in the domestic affairs of States, saying the topic was appropriately handled by the Universal Periodic Review mechanism.
Speaking were European Union, Liechtenstein, United Kingdom, Greece Japan, Croatia, France, Czechia, Germany, Switzerland, Syria, Australia, Cuba, Venezuela, China, Maldives, New Zealand, United States, Estonia, Norway, Hungary, Republic of Korea, Portugal, Albania, Spain, Belarus, Myanmar, Iran and Ireland.
The following civil society organizations also took the floor: United Nations Watch, Jubilee Campaign, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and People for Successful Corean Reunification.
On the situation in Iran, Asma Jahangir, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, said some promising developments had taken place in Iran, including increased cooperation with the mandate, but noted that remaining challenges included the fact that at least 530 executions took place in 2016. The second half of 2016 had been marked by a new series of arrests and detentions of journalists, writers, social media activists and human rights defenders, in particular women’s rights activists. New legislation restricted women’s labour rights. Members of religious minorities continued to be systematically discriminated against, harassed and targeted.
Iran, speaking as the concerned country, reiterated that its human rights policy, embodied in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, was always based on interaction and cooperation in the promotion and protection of human rights, to the extent of mutual respect for civil society and divine religions, avoiding confrontation, politicization and double standards. Iran stressed that its experience of democracy was based on Islamic rationality and should not be judged through the eyes of secular-liberal democracy. Iran was a party to more than 22 human rights related documents and instruments, had successfully passed two cycles of the Universal Periodic Review, and regularly presented its periodic reports to human rights treaty bodies.
During the interactive dialogue, speakers took positive note of Iran’s willingness to explore steps to reduce the number of executions. However, the continued use of the death penalty, including against juveniles, was still of concern, as well as the harassment and widespread arrest of human rights defenders. They also deplored the situation of women’s rights, and the persecution and discrimination of ethnic and religious minorities. Some speakers opposed country-specific mandates, including the one on Iran. Genuine dialogue and cooperation should be pursued in the Human Rights Council, and a confrontational approach with accusations based on unsubstantiated and fabricated information should be rejected.
Speaking were European Union, United Kingdom, Israel, Denmark, France, Czechia, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Syria, Belgium, Australia, Cuba, Venezuela, China, Netherlands, New Zealand, United States, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Norway, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Spain, Belarus, Myanmar and Ireland.
The following civil society organizations also took the floor: Hazrat Javad-al-Aemeh, Imam Ali’s Popular Students Relief Society, Association for Defending Victims of Terrorism, Child Foundation, Baha’i International Community, Ensemble Contre la Peine de Mort, United Nations Watch, and Women’s Human Rights International Association.
The Council has a full day of meetings scheduled today. At 1 p.m., it will hold an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar.
Documentation
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea - Report of the group of independent experts on accountability (A/HRC/34/66/Add.1).
Presentation of Reports by the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and by the Group of Independent Experts on Accountability
TOMAS OJEA QUINTANA, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said he was presenting his first report to the Council since his appointment as Special Rapporteur, together with the Group of Independent Experts mandated to prepare a report on accountability for human rights violations in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Although tensions risked turning focus away from human rights, now was the appropriate time to tackle the question of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Although he had not yet been able to visit the country nor meet any representatives of the authorities, he continued to receive first-hand information through a variety of sources. The escalation in hostilities had put the few existing opportunities for cooperation and dialogue on human rights in jeopardy. Underscoring that Security Council resolutions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had pledged that measures to deter nuclear proliferation should protect the civilian population from the adverse consequences of sanctions, he encouraged the sanctions monitoring committee to give the matter due consideration.
Recent political developments gave further cause for concern, in particular, the killing last month of Mr. Kim Jong Un’s brother Kim Jong Nam in Kuala Lumpur, and he urged all parties concerned to cooperate in carrying out a transparent, independent and impartial investigation into that killing. Turning to events within the country, he said that last year the leadership had announced a five-year strategy for economic reform, which seemed to result in the authorities tolerating more private economic activity than before. Last summer’s typhoon had destroyed large swathes of land and affected the livelihoods of around 600,000 people, but it was not clear whether humanitarian aid had reached the most vulnerable communities. The situation of overseas workers was also of deep concern; the scheme was a valuable source of foreign currency for the country, and workers abroad reportedly had to contribute a large portion of their salaries to the authorities in the form of so-called ‘loyalty funds’. The situation in the four prison camps that were known to be still operational remained a grave concern; they were estimated to host at least 80,000 and up to 120,000 inmates. He was encouraged, however, by some positive developments, such as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s submission of some overdue reports to human rights treaty bodies. In closing, the Special Rapporteur invited the Group of Independent Experts to present its findings. The international community’s response to the people in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had to be guided by the pursuit of justice and accountability as a core tenet of the United Nations.
SONJA BISERKO, Member of the Group of Independent Experts on Accountability in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, recalled that the Group of Independent Experts had been mandated by the Human Rights Council to support the work of the Special Rapporteur on issues of accountability for human rights violations in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, in particular where such violations amounted to crimes against humanity, as found by the Commission of Inquiry. Throughout their mandate, the Group had sought to engage with the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but to no avail. They had undertaken missions to Geneva, The Hague, Seoul, Tokyo and New York, during which they met with a wide range of officials, civil society actors and legal experts and practitioners. They had also received written submissions. The report stressed that seeking accountability for gross human rights violations was not simply a legal requirement, but it held potential to restore the position of victims in society as rights holders and to transform society into one based on the rule of law and respect for the dignity of all, thereby contributing to long-term peace and stability. The Group of Independent Experts called for a framework for accountability that was human rights-based, and this could only be achieved through the full participation of victims and affected communities. Given the severity of the human rights situation in the country, a comprehensive and multi-pronged approach was required, which should encompass measures to establish individual criminal responsibility of perpetrators, as well as ensure the right of victims and societies to know the truth about violations, the right to reparation, and guarantees of non-recurrence.
SARA HUSSEIN, Member of the Group of Independent Experts on Accountability in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said that no viable option for accountability existed or had been used in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and that a fundamental reform of the justice system was required. Hybrid justice models involving the Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s justice personnel could not be envisaged, given the lack of impartiality and independence of the judiciary and its alleged implication in the commission of human rights violations. This meant that accountability options outside of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea were required and the Group of Experts urged the international community to continue to pursue a referral of the situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to the International Criminal Court. Other accountability processes should be undertaken as well, in addition to the prosecution of some high-level perpetrators before the International Criminal Court. The groundwork for future criminal trials should be laid now, and it should include the scope for the establishment of an ad hoc tribunal, which should serve as a deterrent for future crimes and a signal that victims would be heard.
Statement by the Concerned Country
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea was not present in the room to respond.
Interactive Discussion on the Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
European Union remained deeply concerned about the human rights situation and the findings of the Commission of Inquiry of serious human rights violations, some of which could amount to crimes against humanity. Reports of torture against political and other prisoners, persecution of religious minorities and harsh treatment of those trying to leave the country, were also of concern. Liechtenstein was appalled by the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the lack of response by the international community and urged urgent action to ensure accountability. Considering the large number of perpetrators, the prosecution of high-level perpetrators by the International Criminal Court would not be sufficient and must be accompanied by other measures.
United Kingdom remained deeply concerned by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s human rights record and nuclear missile programme, as well as by forced labour inflicted on its citizens. The rights to freedom of expression, movement and fair trial had been denied, whereas arbitrary detention, torture, execution and rape had been widely reported. Greece reiterated grave concern for the precarious humanitarian situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the findings of the Commission of Inquiry of grave human rights violations. Greece called on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to engage in an effective and constructive way with all international human rights mechanisms, grant them access in the country, and comply fully with its international obligations. Japan reminded of the escalating provocative actions by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the past three years by its nuclear tests and missile launchers, which not only represented a serious security threat to the international community, but also resulted in the worsening of the country’s already dire human rights and humanitarian situation.
Croatia regretted that the issues such as political prison camps, abductions and separation of families, access to information, rights of overseas workers and the right to food in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea did not show sign of progress. France noted that the prioritization of the development of nuclear capacities had had a negative effect on the economic development of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the wellbeing of its people. Czechia raised concern over the exclusion of the vast population from the conduct of political affairs and about the violations of basic freedoms. It called on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to immediately release political prisoners and to end grave human rights violations, as well as to ensure accountability for those violations. Germany stressed that accountability for human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was not a matter of choice or convenience, but a legal obligation under international law and practice. It urged the authorities to take immediate and effective steps to end those violations, and to resume dialogue with their neighbouring countries and the international community.
Switzerland was deeply worried by the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, deploring the fact that the country continued to reject the Special Rapporteur’s mandate, and asking him how to ensure the implementation of the recommendations of the Group of Independent Experts. Syria rejected the use of human rights as a reason to interfere in the domestic affairs of States, saying it was regrettable that some countries were targeted by the Council, and calling for constructive dialogue in tackling human rights issues in line with the United Nations Charter. Australia said reports of human rights violations were shocking, and supported the Special Rapporteur’s call for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to implement all recommendations it had received under the Universal Periodic Review.
Cuba said politically motivated resolutions and selective mandates ran counter to genuine cooperation in the field of human rights, and rejected the notion of “responsibility to protect”, saying the Universal Periodic Review was the appropriate mechanism to address the situation of human rights within countries. Venezuela said the “North Korean” Government had shown its commitment to United Nations human rights mechanisms through its cooperation with the Universal Periodic Review, adding that highly politicized mandates demonstrated a selective fashion of engagement. China said States should address human rights issues through dialogue and cooperation, noting China’s opposition to the politicization of human rights issues, adding that the present situation on the peninsula was complex and sensitive, and urging all to avoid any situation that would lead to provocation and escalation.
Maldives was concerned about the complete isolation of a Member State of the United Nations and its people from the international community, noting that extremist ideologies posed a threat to international peace and security, as surely as did the threat of the use of arms. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea should move forward with the rest of the world towards an international framework where no one was left behind. New Zealand shared concerns about the severe human rights violations in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and stressed the critical need to ensure access to the country by the Special Rapporteur and to pursue accountability for those responsible for human rights violations. United States remained gravely concerned by the human rights violations in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, including torture, arbitrary detention, enslavement, and forced labour, and strongly supported the efforts and calls for accountability. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea would be judged not by its words but by actions taken.
Estonia deeply regretted that the human rights situation had not improved and recalled the responsibility of the international community to ensure accountability for human rights violations committed in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Estonia supported the referral of the situation to the International Criminal Court by the Security Council. Norway was particularly concerned about the situation in political prison camps and the systematic restriction of access to information and, welcoming the victim-oriented approach of the Group of Independent Experts, asked which should be the first steps towards the implementation of its recommendations. How would the deepened isolation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea affect the human rights situation in the country, including those in need of humanitarian assistance? Hungary remained deeply concerned about the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, one of the most repressive States in the world, and said that serious human rights violations, especially those amounting to crimes against humanity, must be addressed and punished.
Republic of Korea noted that there was still no glimpse of hope for terminating the human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. It was time for the international community to act to end impunity for human rights violators, including the leadership of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Portugal reminded that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s Government continued to commit extrajudicial killings, enforced relocations, arbitrary arrests and detention, forced labour and torture. Estimates indicated that between 80,000 and 120,000 people were detained in political prison camps, including children and family members. Albania echoed the grave concerns about the impact of the policies of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s Government on the country’s internal situation, and on the nuclear threat policies, which worsened the humanitarian and human rights situation in that country. Spain called attention to the particular vulnerability of persons who left the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, many of them women. How could their situation be improved, particularly the situation of women, as well as the rights of overseas workers?
Belarus noted that achieving progress in the promotion and protection of human rights was only possible through cooperation and constructive dialogue. Increasing pressure only restricted the space for dialogue. The Human Rights Council should review its work under agenda item 4 to avoid the politicization of human rights. Myanmar stressed that country-specific mandates in the Council were counter-productive because they did not create a conducive environment for a genuine dialogue and effective cooperation between the mandate holders and the concerned countries. Iran maintained that the practice of selective approaches in the Council was a tool that exploited human rights for political purposes, breached the principles of universality, objectivity and non-selectivity in addressing human rights issues, and undermined cooperation. Ireland asked for Mr. Ojea Quintana’s views on how to progress efforts at spreading awareness of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, in light of the restrictions on access to information in that country.
United Nations Watch, in a joint statement with NK Watch, asked if the Special Rapporteur would investigate the extrajudicial killing of Kim Jong-Nam as well as other “North Koreans” who were reported to have been executed by anti-aircraft guns. Jubilee Campaign, in a joint statement with Christian Solidarity Worldwide, urged the Council to table a strong resolution addressing human rights and impunity in “North Korea”, saying united and persistent international action was the only hope for stalling abuses which had been committed with impunity for decades. Human Rights Watch urged the Human Rights Council to include two prosecution experts based in Seoul to analyse evidence about crimes and those responsible, and to appoint an independent “international criminal justice expert” to oversee the process. Amnesty International called on the Human Rights Council to urge the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to, among other things, ensure full access for humanitarian workers to those in need, including persons in detention facilities and prisons. People for Successful Corean Reunification said children were exploited in numerous areas of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea’s infrastructure development, noting that recently, several Chinese companies had ordered goods like hair accessories and eye-lash extensions from the “North Korean” government, and that children had been chosen for that work simply because of their small fingers.
Concluding Remarks on the Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
TOMAS OJEA QUINTANA, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, expressed regret that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was not in the room today and said that it was a high time for the country to start to get closer to the Council and the Special Rapporteur. Mr. Ojea Quintana noted that a number of countries – those opposed to the mandate – had stressed the role of the Universal Periodic Review in the improvement of the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and asked those countries to urge the Government to implement the recommendations it had accepted through this process, such as to set up national human rights institutions, become a member of the International Labour Organization, ratify the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and others. On accountability and justice, the Special Rapporteur stressed the obligation of the Council under international law to seek ways to ensure accountability whenever there was proof of serious crimes against humanity. Mr. Ojea Quintana recalled that his report also addressed the issue of corporate social responsibility of companies which were hiring overseas workers from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and reiterated his intention to continue to address the situation of those workers, the commitments of host States towards them, as well as obligations of companies which were hiring them.
With regard to the possibilities for new spaces for dialogue and cooperation with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Mr. Ojea Quintana said that in the absence of the cooperation of the Government with his mandate, there were other bodies, thematic mandates in particular, which could establish dialogue with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. For example, the recent ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea offered a possibility of establishing technical cooperation, assistance and dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation of persons with disabilities. The Special Rapporteur stressed, once again, the crucial issue of access for the mandate and other human rights mechanisms, in order to ensure real impact on all social sectors and everywhere throughout the country. In conclusion, the Special Rapporteur reiterated the utmost importance of dialogue, cooperation and diplomacy at this particular moment, with tensions flying high. The Council had an important role to play in alleviating those tensions, said Mr. Ojea Quintana and urged African and Latin American countries who were members of the Council to take part in the dialogue.
SONJA BISERKO, Member of the Group of Independent Experts on Accountability in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, explained that the Group of Independent Experts had focused on a judicial approach to accountability, noting that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was the primary duty holder in bringing perpetrators to justice. However, neighbouring countries and United Nations Member States also held their own role to play in that process. Awareness raising about collecting relevant documentation was also important. It was recommended that the methodology in collecting documentation should meet international standards. As for civil society, it should continue to broach the issue through engaging with victims’ community.
SARA HOSSAIN, Member of the Group of Independent Experts on Accountability in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said that the Group of Independent Experts had reached out to the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea repeatedly. The specific recommendations to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were to reform its judicial system, to seek assistance from the United Nations, to create conditions for national awareness of justice and accountability, and to reach out to civil society and victims in their demand for justice within regional initiatives.
Documentation
The Council has before it the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (A/HRC/34/65).
Presentation of Report by the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Iran
ASMA JAHANGIR, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, addressed the Council for the first time since taking up her mandate, and presented her report which covered the last six months of 2016. Her report was based on information she had received from Iranians living both inside and outside of Iran and consultations with civil society organizations and various stakeholders. Some promising developments had taken place in Iran, including increased cooperation with the mandate. Challenges included the fact that at least 530 executions took place in 2016, while 156 had been registered since January, the majority of which were for drug-related offences, which were not the most serious crimes under international law. Courts continued to sentence children to death and to execute them once they reached 18 years of age. The use of torture and ill treatment, in many forms, including blinding and flogging, remained legally condoned. The judiciary in the Islamic Republic of Iran was neither independent nor free from influence from the executive. An independent judiciary was the primary guarantee for the respect of the rule of law.
Ms. Jahangir said that all reports indicated a high level of control over citizens and that democratic space was severely limited. National security-related charges still constituted the most powerful tool to silence any dissenting voice in the country. The second half of 2016 had been marked by a new series of arrests and detentions of journalists, writers, social media activists and human rights defenders, in particular women’s rights activists. She was disturbed by the level of fear of those who tried to communicate with her, with several interlocutors living outside and inside the country expressing fear of reprisals against them or their family members living inside the country. Another issue of concern was violations of women’s rights, she said, noting that according to the country’s Penal Code, the value of a woman’s life was equal to half of a man. New legislation restricted women’s labour rights, and women continued to be chased and subjected to violence and harassment for “improper hijab” in accordance with rules established to supposedly protect their “modesty and virtue”, which enabled simple citizens to become guardians of “morality”. Adherents to the Baha’i faith continued to be systematically discriminated against, harassed and targeted. Other religious minorities such as Iranian Christians from Muslim backgrounds and members of various Sufi groups also experienced violations of their fundamental rights. Acknowledging that the Government had faced serious challenges resulting from economic sanctions, she said the people of Iran had faced an even greater challenge and deserved full respect for their human rights by all concerned, and in particular from their own Government.
Statement by the Concerned Country
Iran reiterated that its human rights policy, embodied in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, was always based on interaction and cooperation in the promotion and protection of human rights, to the extent of mutual respect for civil society and divine religions, avoiding confrontation, politicization and double standards. Iran stressed that its experience of democracy was based on Islamic rationality and should not be judged through the eyes of secular-liberal democracy. Iran was a party to more than 22 human rights related documents and instruments, had successfully passed two cycles of the Universal Periodic Review, and regularly presented its periodic reports to human rights treaty bodies. Domestically, Iran had adopted or was in the process of discussing more than 22 laws, bills and plans, it had established seven human rights mechanisms, including the special assistant of the President on citizens’ rights affairs, had incorporated human rights education in the school curriculum, and had provided human rights education to more than 5,000 judges and judicial staff.
Interactive Dialogue on the Situation of Human Rights in Iran
European Union took positive note of Iran’s willingness to explore steps to reduce the number of executions. However, the continued use of the death penalty, including against juveniles, was still of concern, as well as the harassment and widespread arrest and detention of persons exercising their freedom of opinion and expression. United Kingdom remained deeply concerned about the continued and frequent use of the death penalty, and the persecution and discrimination against religious minorities, including the Baha’is, Christians and Sufis, and of human rights defenders. What was the assessment of the recently adopted Charter on Citizens’ Rights? Israel underlined the persecution of minorities and widespread executions in Iran. The Iranian punitive system held a dubious record of executions by hanging juvenile offenders, whereas Holocaust denial was still often promoted by the leaders of Iran.
Denmark said it was disturbed by the ongoing violations of fundamental rights, including the continued discrimination against religious minorities, violation of the freedom of expression, association and assembly, and the arbitrary arrests of dual citizens. Was Iran any closer to changing the current practice and use of the death penalty? France stated that the death penalty was used in Iran for a large number of offences that did not meet the standards of the most serious crime. Would the recent application of the Charter on Citizens’ Rights improve the situation of human rights in Iran? Czechia positively noted the improved engagement of Iran with human rights treaty bodies and the increased contact with the Special Rapporteur. What would the recommendations to Iran be regarding the recent implementation of the Charter on Citizens’ Rights? Germany urged Iran to establish a moratorium on the use of capital punishment, to lift all death verdicts on juvenile offenders, and to grant fair new trials in specialized youth courts. It also called attention to discrimination against women, and ethnic and religious minorities.
Switzerland asked which measures the Special Rapporteur considered might establish a trust-based relationship with the Iranian authorities, enabling her to exercise her mandate, and which measures Switzerland and the international community could take to support her efforts. Japan welcomed initiatives of setting human rights issues as top priorities, but noted that further improvement was needed in areas such as freedom of movement, underscoring Japan’s commitment to constructive dialogue and engagement with Iran in the field of human rights. Syria expressed opposition to the pretext of using human rights to interfere in the internal affairs of States, adding that when a particular country was targeted, that represented double standards.
Belgium said none of the many recommendations made during the Universal Periodic Review had received effective follow-up, urging the Iranian Government to immediately prohibit sentencing children to death. Australia expressed concern about the arbitrary use of solitary confinement, and called on Iran to implement the Citizens’ Charter in law and practice, urging Iran to ensure equality and to impose a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. Cuba said the existence of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran and the interactive dialogue were examples of the discriminatory double standards which had become common in the Human Rights Council. The Universal Periodic Review was the appropriate mechanism to examine the situation of human rights in all countries.
Venezuela said that the proliferation of country-specific mandates did not offer the opportunity for a genuine dialogue and cooperation, which were pillars for the effective promotion and protection of human rights. A constructive attitude must be applied to human rights challenges, which must be addressed with the objectivity and impartiality that sovereign people required. China advocated for dialogue and constructive cooperation between States on the basis of mutual respect and said that human rights were a key part of every country’s development, and they must be promoted in line with the specific situation of each country. Netherlands remained concerned about the high number of executions, including of minors, and urged Iran to limit the use of the death penalty. The restrictions imposed on minorities were very worrying and Iran should put a stop to discrimination against and arrests of members of the Baha’i community. What was the future of Baha’i in Iran and what could the international community do to support this community?
New Zealand was concerned that many human rights indicators in Iran had not improved over the past 12 months. Reiterating its commitment to the abolition of the death penalty worldwide, New Zealand urged Iran to immediately prohibit the execution of juveniles. The situation of religious minorities, particularly Baha’i and Christians, was of grave concern. United States stressed the need to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur given the human rights situation in Iran, given the continued use of torture, execution and arbitrary detentions, and the severe restrictions on religious minorities, with Baha’i singled out for particularly harsh treatment. What could the international community do to protect the rights of political prisoners and religious minorities in light of continuous violations by the Government? The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia welcomed the adoption of the Citizens’ Rights Charter and reiterated concern about the high number of executions, particularly against minors and in cases where offences did not meet the definition of “most serious crimes” under international human rights law. How could the Citizens’ Rights Charter be interpreted to allow for the moratorium and abolition of the death penalty?
Norway remained concerned about the use of the death penalty in Iran, and noted an increase in executions since the beginning of 2017. Norway was worried about the status of freedom of expression and the media, as well as about actions against social media users and human rights defenders. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said it opposed country-specific mandates, including the one on Iran. Genuine dialogue and cooperation should be pursued, and confrontational approach with accusations based on unsubstantiated and fabricated information should be rejected. Spain appreciated some advances in the human rights situation in Iran, such as the adoption of the Charter of Citizens’ Rights. However, it regretted that the death penalty was applied to juveniles, as well as the discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities.
Belarus reminded that Iran had implemented recommendations of two Universal Periodic Review cycles, and that it had adopted substantive measures to improve human rights. It was unfortunate that the Special Rapporteur’s report ignored those measures. The establishment of country-specific mandates undermined the credibility of the Council. Myanmar stated that cooperation in a non-politicized manner was the best way to achieve the common goal of promoting human rights. Country-specific mandates in the Council were counter-productive and did not create a conducive environment for a genuine dialogue. Ireland was extremely concerned about the continued use of the death penalty for juvenile offenders. The situation of ethnic and religious minorities continued to be of concern, and Ireland called on Iran to cease the persecution of the Bahai’s. The state of women’s rights, freedom of media, expression and assembly were also worrying.
Hazrat Javad-al-Aemeh spoke about early marriages, and said that it was more practical to pay attention to the consequences of child marriage, such as early pregnancy, social isolation, school dropouts, and domestic violence. Imam Ali’s Popular Students Relief Society said that its research showed that most juvenile offenders came from poor families and had been victims of violence at least once. In recent years, the non-governmental organization had saved 25 juveniles from imminent execution. Association for Defending Victims of Terrorism stressed that Iran was one of the main victims of terrorism and said that today, terrorism had gone beyond an ideological form of extremism and turned into a hegemonic instrument to impose the will of some tyrannical States on oppressed nations.
Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ecuador
GUILLAUME LONG, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ecuador, reiterated Ecuador’s firm commitment to human rights, as proven by its ratification of all relevant international and Latin American conventions. One of the most significant challenges in the world was the protection of persons on the move, i.e. migrants and refugees. They were increasingly rejected and stigmatized, amidst growing intolerance and xenophobia. In Ecuador, the National Assembly had recently adopted a law on human mobility, guaranteeing rights for all migrants in the country. Ecuador had been internationally recognized for the efforts made in the field, with over 60,000 persons with a refugee status in the country. Due to the implementation of the neo-liberal recipe, hundreds of thousands of Ecuadorians had historically been forced to leave their families and ancestral lands. Power and wealth ought to be re-distributed more fairly, stressed Mr. Long. Ecuador was now among global leaders in reducing poverty and inequality. Despite the hegemonic speeches trying to decouple human rights from socio-economic aspects, Ecuador was working hard to ensure that the human rights agenda kept at its core the development of peoples of the world. The eight richest people in the world had as much money as the bottom half of humanity, which was appalling. The Group of 77 wanted to see an intergovernmental body dealing with tax issues in order to put a stop to the ongoing “race to the bottom”. Tax revenues were the most predictable sources of income for States to finance their human rights schemes. An ethical compact had been adopted in Ecuador so that civil servants would remain consistent and ethical. By refusing to pay taxes, the wealthiest corporations and individuals were participating in the denial of human rights to everyone else, said Mr. Long. A legally binding international instrument on transnational corporations and human rights was necessary.
Interactive Dialogue on the Situation of Human Rights in Iran
Child Foundation said because of European and American excessive limitations for international activities of Iranian bodies, Child Foundation had been unable to have adequate access and provide sufficient assistance to children under its coverage in Iran. Unilateral coercive measures should not target civilians, innocent people, civil society and non-governmental organizations. Baha’i International Community noted that scrutiny by the international community of the gross human rights violations in Iran was vital. It drew attention to the exclusion of Baha’is from higher education, and social and economic life. Ensemble Contre la Peine de Mort reminded of the execution of a large number of Kurdish prisoners in Iran. Kurdish prisoners counted for almost half of all political prisoners in the country. United Nations Watch highlighted the fact that the oppressive regime of Iran intimidated and harassed women. Iranian women removed their hijabs on social networks in an act of resistance. Women’s Human Rights International Association reminded of the cases of political prisoners who had been sentenced to death based on a religious decree and after a trial lasting only two minutes. Testimonies had shown that those executed had been buried in mass graves.
Concluding Remarks
Iran, speaking as the concerned country, believed that the appointment of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran was the result of an unfair, selective and political process. The report under consideration had ignored the human rights achievements and progress made in Iran. Iran had suffered huge life and property losses to protect its citizens. The report tried to whitewash criminals, armed drug dealers, terrorists and spies. The Special Rapporteur had not been able to acquire genuine information from reliable sources.
ASMA JAHANGIR, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, believed that the Government of Iran had to recognize that there were human rights problems in Iran, and that they needed attention. It was difficult to have a dialogue if one party did not even recognize the mandate. It was essential that the mandate be given access to the country, so that the Rapporteur could interact, first-hand, with various actors in Iran. While Iran had recently invited a number of Special Procedure mandate holders, the Government should also consider inviting Ms. Jahangir to visit the country. According to a possible new law, those who were imprisoned for carrying only small quantities of narcotics could be spared the death penalty. For any change to come to Iran, there had to be a lifting of the climate of fear, which very much still existed in the country. The death penalty for juveniles should be abolished; the independence of lawyers needed to be respected; political prisoners ought to be released; and the Government should not allow impunity to those who had committed crimes in the name of religion. More and more religious minorities were now speaking up and identifying their problems. The Citizens’ Rights Charter was a fine document, but on the ground the substance of the Charter had not been translated into reality. Arbitrary detention and torture could not be justified under any circumstances. Among the media, there was a climate of self-censorship, noted Ms. Jahangir.
Ms. Jahangir stated that she had received substantive input from Iran; factual corrections were included in her report, but the input contained a lot of repetition. The Citizens’ Rights Charter included every Iranian’s wish list, but mechanisms for its implementation had to be in place. It was hoped that bridges could be formed between Iran and the international community; the international community stood ready to provide support to Iran in the field of human rights. The report focused on the question of human dignity; while social and economic rights were important, they could never take precedence over basic human dignity.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC17/033E