برای خواندن این مطلب به فارسی اینجا را کلیک کنید
At a special session convened to address the deteriorating human rights situation in Iran, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution with 25 votes in favor. The session and adoption of the resolution signaled heightened international alarm over the scale and gravity of Iranian government violations committed during recent nationwide protests.
Seven states—China, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Pakistan, and Vietnam—voted against the resolution, while 14 members abstained, reflecting continued geopolitical divisions but not diminishing the resolution’s legal and normative significance.
With the adoption of the resolution, the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran is extended for one year, and the mandate of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Iran is renewed for an additional two years. From a legal and institutional perspective, these extensions reflect the Council’s assessment that existing domestic mechanisms in Iran remain unable or unwilling to ensure accountability for serious human rights violations. Under international human rights law, the continuation of these mandates signals concern that alleged abuses may be systematic and widespread, necessitating sustained international monitoring and documentation.
The resolution identifies patterns of conduct that, if substantiated, constitute violations of Iran’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Iran is a state party. It calls on Iranian authorities to immediately cease the unlawful use of force, including lethal force, against peaceful demonstrators; end arbitrary arrests, detentions, and enforced disappearances; release individuals detained solely for exercising their rights to peaceful assembly and expression; halt the use of the death penalty against protesters, particularly where convictions follow trials lacking basic due process guarantees; ensure accountability through prompt, independent, and impartial investigations; lift restrictions on freedom of expression and access to information, including internet shutdowns; and fully cooperate with United Nations human rights mechanisms.
Addressing the Council in Geneva, Mai Sato, the UN Special Rapporteur on Iran, warned that the dangerous and inflammatory language used by Iranian officials—labeling peaceful protesters as “terrorists,” “rioters,” and “foreign agents”—functions to legitimize violent repression and obscures the domestic and interconnected nature of the protests. She notes that calls for harsher measures originate not only from operational authorities but also from Iran’s highest political leadership, including the Supreme Leader and the heads of all three branches of government.
Sato stresses that under international law, lethal force may only be used as a last resort to protect life, and only when it is lawful, necessary, and proportionate. She states that the extensive video evidence received by her mandate demonstrates that the use of lethal force against unarmed protesters constitutes a clear violation of these principles. She further underscores that the excessive use of force and the issuance of death sentences against peaceful protesters represent a blatant disregard for the rights to life, freedom of expression, and peaceful assembly. Even where executions are not carried out, she emphasizes, sentencing protesters to death is itself unlawful and is designed to silence dissent through fear.
Iran’s Permanent Representative to the UN Office in Geneva, Ali Bahreini, rejected the resolution and accused its sponsors of political motivations. He argued that states supporting the special session impose sanctions that harm Iranian civilians and alleged hypocrisy in their responses to regional violence. He further claimed that participants and speakers at the session are externally funded and disconnected from the Iranian population, portraying the resolution as a tool of political pressure rather than a response to documented human rights violations. From a legal standpoint, however, such objections do not negate Iran’s binding treaty obligations, nor do they absolve the state of its duty to prevent, investigate, and remedy violations committed by its agents.
The Council’s decision reflects the severity and persistence of Iran’s human rights crisis. NIAC condemns the Iranian government’s use of lethal force against peaceful protesters, mass arrests, and the imposition of death sentences following fundamentally unfair judicial processes, emphasizing that these practices constitute clear and grave violations of international human rights law. Iran’s claims of violent actors among the protesters, which appear to be partially supported by visual evidence, do not represent a blank check to unleash indiscriminate violence on anyone involved in the demonstrations and kill thousands of people in a compressed time period.
NIAC calls on Iranian authorities to immediately end the violent crackdown, halt executions related to protest activity, and fully cooperate with the United Nations, including by granting unhindered access to the Special Rapporteur and the Fact-Finding Mission. The organization stresses that cooperation with UN mechanisms is not a political concession, but a legal obligation arising from Iran’s international commitments.