Video – Letters from Iran
While winds of change have been blowing through the Arab world, Iranians have been forced to wait for political reform.
In 2009, in the aftermath of elections that saw Ahmadinejad’s return to power as president, millions of Iranians took to the streets to protest the result. But the demonstrations were brutally repressed and the hopes of the “green revolutionaries” dashed.
Since then Iran has closed itself off to international media, making it difficult to determine what happened to the many thousands of dissidents arrested and imprisoned during the protests, or the current scale of political opposition to the regime.
Yet this film reveals that opposition is still alive and kicking and just as eager for change as before. Letters from Iran paints a fascinating portrait of the aftermath of the Green Revolution and a country holding its breath.
Letters from Iran – YouTube.
Who Are Iran’s Political Prisoners? – Roxana Saberi
Roxana Saberi
Oct. 6, 2011
She was happy I was released but wondered how her case differed from mine and why she had to remain in prison. “What kind of justice system condemned [Roxana] to such punishment,” Ms. Rouhi asked, “and which justice freed her at such speed?”
I asked myself the same question. Why was I released after 100 days, having appealed an eight-year prison sentence for a trumped-up charge of espionage? What is clear is that as a foreign citizen, I was fortunate to receive international support, while the plights of other innocent prisoners were less known outside Iran.
Last month, two American men incarcerated in Iran on accusations of espionage and crossing the border illegally—charges they contested—were freed after being sentenced to eight years in prison. Their release is welcome news and cause for relief.
At least 28 of Iran’s prisoners of conscience are journalists, according to the media rights group Reporters Without Borders, which ranks Iran the third largest jail for journalists in the world after Eritrea and China. In addition, six Iranian filmmakers were recently arrested for allegedly cooperating with BBC Persian. (The station insists no one in Iran works for it.)
Well-known attorneys such as Nasrin Sotoudeh, who has been sentenced to six years in prison, also are locked up in Iran. Last month, Abdolfattah Soltani, who like Ms. Sotoudeh defended many political prisoners, was arrested for the third time. I first heard of his courage from my cellmates in Tehran’s Evin Prison. I requested that he represent me, but the prosecutor threatened me against retaining “a human rights lawyer.”
Mr. Soltani was arrested while he prepared to defend several Baha’is detained for providing higher education to other Baha’is barred from university in Iran because of their religion. He was also an attorney for my two Baha’i cellmates, Fariba Kamalabadi and Mahvash Sabet, who are each serving 20-year prison sentences for various unsubstantiated charges including espionage.
Most recently, the headlines have focused on Youcef Naderkhani, a Christian convert from Islam who faces possible execution after refusing to renounce his faith.
Many of Iran’s prisoners of conscience have suffered torture—both physical and psychological. It is common for them to be held in solitary confinement for months, even years. They often lack adequate access to their families and attorneys and go through sham trials. Some are coerced to give false confessions and inform on their friends.
If detainees are lucky, their captors offer them release on bail, but the amount is typically exorbitant, and prisoners who can post it tend to live in fear that they could be sent back to jail any day. At the same time, a rising number of executions has made Iran the world’s largest executioner on a per capita basis. According to Amnesty International, in 2010, at least 23 Iranian prisoners convicted of politically motivated offenses were executed.
The Iranian regime needs to address human rights violations instead of denying their existence. If Tehran has nothing to hide, it would permit the recently appointed United Nations special rapporteur on human rights to enter the country. Tehran should also grant access to several other U.N. special experts who have been blocked from visiting since 2005.
U.N. officials—particularly Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay—plus member states and other individuals must place constant pressure on Tehran just as they have in cases such as mine. This will bring attention and justice to the real heroes, the everyday Iranians in prison for pursuing universal human rights and demanding respect for human dignity.
Ms. Saberi, an Iranian-American journalist detained in Iran’s Evin Prison in 2009, is the author of “Between Two Worlds: My Life and Captivity in Iran” (HarperCollins, 2010).
Bereaved Relatives Appeal To UN’s Iran Human Rights Expert
Parts of Masih Alinejad’s interview with Mr. Ahmed Shaheed with partial English transcription by Tourang Birani.
Masih: “Hello Mr. Shahid. I have studied your report and as a reporter who has interviewed the families of the slain in the past two years, I believe that real reporters were those who were sending out information from inside Iran; people like Parvin Fahimi, the mother of Sohrab Arabi who was killed on June 15, 2009 during a peaceful demonstration. She was the first woman who transmitted the news about the killing of her son from inside Iran. I would like to ask your permission to call her so that she can ask the first question from you as a real reporter.
Parvin Fahimi: “I am the mother of Sohrab Arabi, one of the people killed in the aftermath of the presidential election in Iran in June 2009. My son along with many other children of this land participated in a peaceful civil protest. They were killed by the Basij and Revolutionary Guards forces.
After many inquiries, I was finally able to receive the body of my son after 26 days! I would like to ask regime officials what crime did my son commit to deserve being killed? and why is it that Mr. Larijani who is the head of judiciary in Iran claims that only one person was killed in the aftermath of the presidential election? And the president, Mr. Ahmadinejad says that only a few were killed and they were from the Basij and security forces!
But the pictures, films and documents printed all point to the fact that our youngsters were being murdered. Why does the judiciary refrain from holding a public hearing? and why do they always stop us from mourning the death of our children? Dear Mr. Ahmad Shahid, my expectations are that you pay closer attention to those who died after the election. And when you come to Tehran, please pay a visit to us and the families of the dead.
When our voices do not get anywhere in our own country, we are forced to take refuge with the United Nations and shout about seeking justice for our children. This is to prevent the repeat of this type of irresponsible actions both in Iran and in other places around the world; and no injustice is done against innocent people. Mr. Shahid, I have promised to forgive my son’s blood if all political prisoners and Mr. Mousavi, Mrs. Rahnavard and Mr. Karoubi are freed.
I shall let God to carry out justice for the crimes committed against me and my son. I wish peace for all people around the world.
Ahmad Shahid: “I thank you very much for the opportunity to hear a question directly from Tehran. Yes if I get to travel to Tehran, I would be very interested to meet with families of those who lost their lives after the June 2009 election. I would like to find out more about their condition in Iran.
Of course there are other people I would like to meet as well but I would definitely want to meet with the families of those who lost their lives after the presidential election in 2009. Regarding the other part of her question, I must say that yes there are problems and challenges regarding Iran’s judiciary. My report has also pointed out that there are many issues with Iran’s judiciary.
Iran must act transparently regarding this matter. My report is not a complete document. This report is only a sample of issues of concern. This report is not all encompassing. The report is a tool to force Iran to open the doors to the United Nations so we can do more investigation regarding the human rights situation in Iran.
So my response to her is yes I would very much like to meet the families of those who lost their lives and to hear first hand information from these families. Their worries are also my worries.
Masih: “I would like you to hear the second question from another family member of someone who was killed after the presidential election”
Second Witness: “Hello, I am very happy that finally at least one person is willing to listen to our stories. I am the spouse of Ali Hassanpour who was killed on June 15, 2009. They did not return the body of my husband for 105 days! I would like to ask you now that we cannot meet you in Tehran, is it possible that we could talk to you on the phone directly so that we can present to you all the documents we have? These are documents that have been certified by judges in my own country. They have testified that my husband has been shot by a gun belonging to the Basij. Is it possible for us to make a trip to the U.N. to meet you in person; can you guarantee our safety; or is there another way for us to present our documents to you?
Ahmad Shahid: “My response to her is yes. There are ways for her to present details of her situation to me using email, skype and other means. But what I cannot guarantee is her safety because I am outside the country and of course we are in a situation where most regime officials are threatening, harassing, intimidating and in some instances injuring those who spread the news. These are problems. But there are ways to contact me. But I would be happy to create the avenues for these families to contact me.
They can contact me through email. My offices are in Geneva and New York. It’s correct that I will not have the opportunity to travel to Iran in the near future. But I am very interested to gather more information to do more research and to shine a light on the truth. I will report to the council and when I report to them they might decide to do more investigations on certain subjects.
That’s their choice. I must say that I am very open to the idea of families of the slain to travel to Europe. I would be happy to meet them in Geneva or any other country. But I really cannot guarantee their safety. Unfortunately none of the special rapporteurs are able to guarantee that.
They cannot protect people of Iran inside their own country. We can take their information anonymously. Also it would be great to get the coroner’s office reports. I need such documents to include in my report and to give to member countries of the U.N.
Iran denies UN report on increasing human rights violations
 |
 |
Iran’s deputy ambassador to the UN, Eshagh al-Habib, on Thursday denied allegations in a recent UN report that human rights violations in Iran are on the rise. Al-Habib criticized the report for being poorly sourced, non-neutral and simply untrue. The report cited an increase in persecutions among political activists and journalists, detention conditions for opposition leaders and their wives, the torture and mistreatment of detainees, the significant administration of the death penalty to people under 18 years of age and “exorbitant bail requirements” for human rights defenders and religious practitioners. However, UN Special Rapporteur on Iran Ahmed Shaheed, the author of the report, stated that he was encouraged by Iran’s willingness to cooperate with him and that Iran “needs to be seen in a better light.” He further focused on the need to maintain dialogue with Iran’s political leaders in order to improve conditions in the country. The US issued a statement on Tuesday denouncing Iran’s “‘intensified’ campaign of abuse” : “Under international law and its own constitution, Iran has committed to protect and defend the rights of its people, but officials continue to stifle all forms of dissent, persecute religious and ethnic minorities, harass and intimidate human rights defenders, and engage in the torture of detainees.”
Iran has been heavily criticized for its alleged human rights abuses. Jailed Iranian journalist Isa Saharkhiz in July urged Shaheed to investigate prison conditions in Iran. In May, rights groups decried [JURIST report] Iran’s persecution of lawyers. In January, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran [official website] claimed that Iran is on an “execution binge” , killing one prisoner every eight hours. In January, prominent Iranian human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh was sentenced to 11 years in prison. Sotoudeh was found guilty of “acting against national security” and “making propaganda against the system” for which she will serve five and one years, respectively. She was the lawyer for Arash Rahmanipour, who was arrested for his role in the post-election protests on charges of moharebeh, or being an enemy of God. Rahmanipour was executed in January 2010. Also in January, Iranian chief prosecutor Abbas Jafari-Dolatabadi delivered a speech at Tehran University indicating that he would prosecute opposition leaders for political unrest that took place after the country’s 2009 presidential election.
via JURIST – Paper Chase: Iran denies UN report on increasing human rights violations.
UN Human Rights Expert Delivers Interim Report
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran Ahmed Shaheed
19 October 2011 –
There were also reports of capital punishment in juvenile cases, and the use of the death penalty for cases that do not meet the level of serious crimes by international standards, he said.
“In some cases, elements of Iran’s penal code and legal practices amount to contravention of those international laws it acceded to,” said Mr. Shaheed.
He said Iran’s record seems to have gained particular attention because of the country’s “lack of substantive cooperation with the UN human rights system and because of the existence of frequent reports of suppression of those self-correcting mechanisms that deprive Iranians from freely seeking redress or reform within the parameters of their human rights.”
The “self-correction mechanisms” that are suppressed include free and fair elections, denial of freedom of expression and assembly, allegations of depravation of the right to education, harassment and intimidation of religious and ethnic minorities, human rights defenders and civil society and religious actors.
He urged Iranian authorities to provide adequate medical access to the well-known cleric Ayatollah Kazemeini-Boroujerdi, and to consider his immediate release.
He also called upon Tehran to consider releasing all individuals listed in his report, including political leaders Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, who consider themselves detainees of the Government, human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh, student and women’s rights activist Bahareh Hedayat, student activist Abdollah Momeni, and Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani.
He also urged Iran to cooperate with him as he carries out his mandate. “In the absence of this, however, my course of action will be to continue to obtain information through interaction with Iranians both in the region and in other parts of the world, as well as with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other parts of the UN system.”
Mr. Shaheed said he had been informed of the arrests and prosecution of at least 42 lawyers for their attempts to provide legal counsel. Charges brought against the majority of them include acting against national security; participating in illegal gatherings; insulting the Supreme Leader; and spreading propaganda against the regime.
He took notice of the positive steps taken by the Iranian authorities, including the Government’s recent decision to release between 60 and 100 prisoners, many of whom had been arrested as a result of their participation in events related to the 2009 presidential elections.
via UN
Human Rights Watch – Issues Regarding IRI
Submitted by Human Rights Watch to the UN Human Rights Committee on the occasion of its Pre-Sessional Review of Iran
-
Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addresses the United Nations General Assembly in New York on September 22, 2011.© 2011 Reuters
This memorandum provides an overview of Human Rights Watch’s main concerns with respect to the human rights crisis in Iran, submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Committee (“the Committee”) in advance of its pre-sessional review of Iran in 2011. We hope it will inform the Committee’s preparation for its review of the Iranian government’s compliance with its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“the Covenant”).
It has been 17 years since Iran last submitted its State Report to the Committee. During this time, the government has engaged in systematic violations of the Covenant, including extensive restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association, and the widespread use torture, ill-treatment, and unfair trials of political detainees. The number of executions, including those of juvenile offenders, has steadily risen in recent years. The government intensified its targeting of human rights defenders following the disputed presidential election of June 2009. Pressures on civil society groups have increased sharply during President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s administration, and Iran continues to discriminate against religious, ethnic, and other minorities both in law and practice.
Iransubmitted its latest report to the Committee a few months after the June 2009 presidential election and the ensuing violent crackdown against largely peaceful demonstrators and opposition activists. Violence initiated by security forces, including the basij militia affiliated with official security forces, led to the killings of dozens of demonstrators. Authorities arbitrarily arrested and detained thousands of demonstrators and opposition figures in the months after the election. Several detainees died at Kahrizak detention facility in Tehran after being subjected to torture and ill-treatment. Public street protests all but ceased by early 2010 as a consequence of the government’s crackdown, but resumed in February and March 2011 when thousands of demonstrators took to the streets to show their support for pro-democracy protests in neighboring countries and protest the arrest and detention of opposition leaders. The authorities’ violent response led to at least three deaths and hundreds of arrests. The Ministry of Interior continues to refuse to issue permits for peaceful rallies and demonstrations.
As in years past, the government, including the judiciary, has failed to hold accountable officials responsible for committing serious human rights violations. There have been no comprehensive or transparent investigations into government repression, including the killings of demonstrators and custodial deaths of detainees. Although several security personnel were tried in closed military courts for the deaths of detainees at Kahrizak, no high-level authority has yet been charged, let alone convicted, for these crimes. At the same time, the judiciary prosecuted hundreds of demonstrators, civil society activists, and members of opposition parties, some of whom were paraded on national television during several show trials on vague national security-related charges (including “propaganda against the regime”), and sentenced many to lengthy prison terms and, in some cases, to death.
Notwithstanding the numerous and serious abuses committed by state officials, Iran’s State Report does not begin to adequately address allegations concerning violation of core civil and political rights under the Covenant. There are frequently references to legal provisions in Iran’s Constitution and criminal and civil codes but no discussion of how the authorities are implementing or complying with these provisions. Rulings that may or may not address the specific issue in question are simply listed. And the portions of the report that address specific articles of the Covenant contain glaring omissions and inaccuracies, such as providing no information on Iran’s abusive revolutionary courts, which seriously distorts the current situation of human rights in the country.
Among the most serious problems with Iran’s 2009 State Report are the following:
- The report devotes little attention to the death penalty under Article 6 (right to life), even though Iran is believed to have executed 388 people in 2008, and is second only to China in the number of executions carried out annually;
- The section on torture and ill-treatment (Article 7) recounts provisions in Iranian law that prohibit the use of torture and references several cases where government officials were apparently convicted of torture, but nowhere addressing credible reports regarding the authorities’ systematic use of torture in Iran’s detention facilities;
- The section on Iran’s compliance with the prohibition on arbitrary arrest and detention (Article 9) provides some references to rulings presumably related to convictions of government officials who violated these rights, but it contains no discussion of arbitrary arrest and incommunicado detention carried out by Iran’s security and intelligence forces;
- There is significant discussion on the treatment of detainees and prisoners (Article 10), but it largely describes the systems and programs that ostensibly have been put into place. The report does not address serious problems incurred by detainees and prisoners, particularly those accused of national security-related crimes or convicted by revolutionary courts;
- The section on due process and fair trials (Article 14) fails to provide any relevant information regarding the workings of the revolutionary courts, where the state prosecutes most political dissidents and commits systematic and gross violations of the right to a fair trial;
- The report’s discussion of the right to freedom of expression (Article 19) does not address the government’s severe restrictions on peaceful dissent by using both criminal law and repressive practices;
- Regarding the rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of association (Articles 21 and 22), the report fails to acknowledge the ways in which the government systematically prevents civil society organizations – including student, women’s, labor, journalist, legal, and human rights groups – from meeting or conducting their activities.
In short, the Committee’s concluding observations with regard to Iran’s report 17 years ago unfortunately remain equally applicable today: Iran’s report provides “virtually no information about factors and difficulties impeding the application of the Covenant.”
Interview with Ali Hasan-Pour’s wife
Scene: In the Behesht-e-Zahra Cemerery in Tehran, where Mrs Hasan-pour’s husband Ali is buried, having been killed by the Iranian regime.
Mrs. Hasan-Pour: I was approached by a security agent who asked me if this was block #44. I responded: “How may I help you sir?”
Agent: “We have received information about someone holding Ahya (1) ceremonies at this location!”
That made me extremely angry. I got up to go… Imagine me, a woman…alone…at Ali’s gravesite, at 11 o’clock at night…saying prayers…holding a private Ahya ceremony.
Irate and disturbed, I asked the man: “You can’t even leave us alone in the graveyard?!”
Agent: “You are holding a ceremony for Mr. Hasan-Pour.”
Me: “No absolutely not, but assuming that it was for him; is that against the law? Is it a sin, to hold Ahya or cite Ashura prayers at his gravesite??”
There was a huge crowd swarming Behesht Zahra cemetery that night. You couldn’t find an empty spot anywhere. My children and I were part of the crowd.
“So, you have only found me to harass in this huge crowd??” I asked him.
Agent: “No, but the Security police has notified us that you have displayed Mr. Hasan Pour’s photo in the back of your car, as a propaganda picture.
Me: Hello! For god’s sake, his picture has been in the back of my car for TWO years now!
Host: Mrs. Hasan-Pour, how did they respond to you?
Mrs. Hasan-Pour: Well, in the end, they gave me a back-handed apology and said I could go back and sit with my husband… But I continued: “This is Ahya night and the cemetery is open all night. I am going to sit here by his site, till tomorrow morning… You know, it is in fact YOU and your people who have dragged me here. I had no reason for visiting Behesht Zahra up until my husband’s death. But now, my days and nights are spent here! YOU have brought us here!”
My child is trying to persuade me to just get up and leave. I tell her, NO, I must try to at least figure out what in the world do they want from me! We can’t even sit at his gravesite, in peace!! (strained voice)
Host: Mrs. Hasan-Pour even Mr. Larijani has stated recently that only one person was killed during post-election protests and by American and Israeli elements. Such a claim by the Head of Judiciary, coupled with the authorities’ mistreatment of victims’ families, makes you wonder about…
Mrs. Hasan-Pour – Yes, if you recall, Mr. Larijani had previously made similar remarks as to Neda being the only protester who was killed and by British operatives! I had said in response: “Well then, tell us, who killed Ali, who killed Shohrab, who killed Maryam, Ramin, Mostafa, Mohammad Mokhtari? My own husband was killed on day 1 of the protests. I know very well that no amount of pursuing his case is going to return him to life, but I wonder just how much longer is the violence going to carry on?!
When that man who blindly and without a moment of hesitation pulled the trigger and opened fire at my husband on that day of 25 Khordad (June 15th)…if he was arrested; if he was tried in court at that time, then on Ashura Day, Mostafa Karim-Baigi would not have been killed, Shabnam Sohrabi would not have been run over by a truck. On 25 Bahman (Feb 14th), Mohammad Mokhtari wouldn’t get killed… I am fed up. I feel saddened for our youth who are getting killed, as many as 4 or 5 every day, and there is no one to answer for their deaths!
They have orphaned my children. They have turned our lives into a grave yard [broken voice] to what end … until when … for how long are they going to carry on their actions?
Long pause…
They have offered me a Dieh. I don’t want it. What is that going to solve for me? Believe me … I’m sick…for days now; I haven’t been able to eat, I don’t know if I’m coming or going, I don’t know what to do… I took 20 pills yesterday – believe it or not – just to be able to stand up. [crying] They have destroyed us. They have destroyed me. Enshallah, god will do….[crying]…I only hope for, what they have put us through, to happen to them! I pray to god that one day they watch their…slowly die before their eyes without being able to do anything about it…
I swear on Ali’s soul that I don’t live even for a moment. I exist only on the hope for the day when we can have our day in court. The day when ALL the perpetrators of such crimes can be dragged to court, to answer, to answer: Why? What were the people guilty of? What was their sin??
Source:
Sorkh-e-Sabz
http://sorkhesabz.com/
Video clip
.
(1) In Shia Islam, 19th, 21st, and 23rd of Ramadan are considered precious nights of Qadr (the time when holly Quran was bestowed on Prophet Mohammad) and Moslems observe these nights by holding special ceremonies on ‘Ahya night’ (Shab-e-Ahya), such as praying, reciting supplications (Du’a), staying awake at night and praying till dawn.
How the International Court of Justice Works
The Court may entertain two types of cases: legal disputes between States submitted to it by them (contentious cases) and requests for advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by United Nations organs and specialized agencies (advisory proceedings).
Contentious cases
Only States (States Members of the United Nations and other States which have become parties to the Statute of the Court or which have accepted its jurisdiction under certain conditions) may be parties to contentious cases.
The Court is competent to entertain a dispute only if the States concerned have accepted its jurisdiction in one or more of the following ways:
- by entering into a special agreement to submit the dispute to the Court;
- by virtue of a jurisdictional clause, i.e., typically, when they are parties to a treaty containing a provision whereby, in the event of a dispute of a given type or disagreement over the interpretation or application of the treaty, one of them may refer the dispute to the Court;
- through the reciprocal effect of declarations made by them under the Statute whereby each has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory in the event of a dispute with another State having made a similar declaration. A number of these declarations, which must be deposited with the United Nations Secretary-General, contain reservations excluding certain categories of dispute.
States have no permanent representatives accredited to the Court. They normally communicate with the Registrar through the medium of their Minister for Foreign Affairs or their ambassador accredited to the Netherlands. Where they are parties to a case before the Court they are represented by an agent. An agent plays the same role, and has the same rights and obligations, as a solicitor or avoué with respect to a national court. But we are dealing here with international relations, and the agent is also as it were the head of a special diplomatic mission with powers to commit a sovereign State. He/she receives communications from the Registrar concerning the case and forwards to the Registrar all correspondence and pleadings duly signed or certified. In public hearings the agent opens the argument on behalf of the government he/she represents and lodges the submissions. In general, whenever a formal act is to be done by the government represented, it is done by the agent. Agents are sometimes assisted by co-agents, deputy agents or assistant agents and always have counsel or advocates, whose work they co-ordinate, to assist them in the preparation of the pleadings and the delivery of oral argument. Since there is no special International Court of Justice Bar, there are no conditions that have to be fulfilled for counsel or advocates to enjoy the right of arguing before it except only that they must have been appointed by a government to do so.
Proceedings may be instituted in one of two ways:
- through the notification of a special agreement: this document, which is of a bilateral nature, can be lodged with the Court by either of the States parties to the proceedings or by both of them. A special agreement must indicate the subject of the dispute and the parties thereto. Since there is neither an “applicant” State nor a “respondent” State, in the Court’s publications their names are separated by an oblique stroke at the end of the official title of the case, e.g., Benin/Niger;
- by means of an application: the application, which is of a unilateral nature, is submitted by an applicant State against a respondent State. It is intended for communication to the latter State and the Rules of Court contain stricter requirements with respect to its content. In addition to the name of the party against which the claim is brought and the subject of the dispute, the applicant State must, as far as possible, indicate briefly on what basis – a treaty or a declaration of acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction – it claims the Court has jurisdiction, and must succinctly state the facts and grounds on which it bases its claim. At the end of the official title of the case the names of the two parties are separated by the abbreviation “v.” (for the Latin versus), e.g., Nicaragua v. Colombia.
The date of the institution of proceedings, which is that of the receipt by the Registrar of the special agreement or application, marks the opening of proceedings before the Court. C ontentious proceedings include a written phase, in which the parties file and exchange pleadings containing a detailed statement of the points of fact and of law on which each party relies, and an oral phase consisting of public hearings at which agents and counsel address the Court. As the Court has two official languages (English and French), everything written or said in one language is translated into the other. The written pleadings are not made available to the press and public until the opening of the oral proceedings, and then only if the parties have no objection.
After the oral proceedings the Court deliberates in camera and then delivers its judgment at a public sitting. The judgment is final, binding on the parties to a case and without appeal (at most it may be subject to interpretation or revision). Any judge wishing to do so may append an opinion to the judgment.
By signing the Charter, a State Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with any decision of the Court in a case to which it is a party. Since, furthermore, a case can only be submitted to the Court and decided by it if the parties have in one way or another consented to its jurisdiction over the case, it is rare for a decision not to be implemented. A State which contends that the other side has failed to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court may lay the matter before the Security Council, which is empowered to recommend or decide upon the measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.
The procedure described above is the normal procedure. Certain matters can however affect the proceedings. The most common case is that of preliminary objections raised in order to prevent the Court from delivering judgment on the merits of the case (the respondent State may contend, for example, that the Court lacks jurisdiction or that the application is inadmissible). The matter is one for the Court itself to decide. Then, there are provisional measures, which can be requested as interim measures by the applicant State if the latter considers that the rights which form the subject of its application are in immediate danger. It may further occur that a State seeks to intervene in a dispute involving other States because it considers that it has an interest of a legal nature which may be affected by the decision to be taken in the dispute between those States. The Statute also makes provision for cases where the respondent State does not appear before the Court, either because it totally rejects the Court’s jurisdiction or for any other reason. Hence failure by one party to appear does not prevent proceedings in a case from taking their course. But in such a case the Court must first satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction. Finally, should the Court find that parties to separate proceedings are submitting the same arguments and submissions against a common opponent in relation to the same issue, it may order joinder of the proceedings.
The Court discharges its duties as a full court but, at the request of the parties, it may also establish ad hoc chambers to examine specific cases. A Chamber of Summary Procedure is elected every year by the Court in accordance with its Statute.
The sources of law that the Court must apply are: international treaties and conventions in force; international custom; the general principles of law; and judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists. Moreover, if the parties agree, the Court can decide a case ex aequo et bono, i.e., without limiting itself to existing rules of international law.
A case may be brought to a conclusion at any stage of the proceedings by a settlement between the parties or by discontinuance. In the latter case, an applicant State may at any time inform the Court that it is not going on with the proceedings, or the two parties may declare that they have agreed to withdraw the case. The Court then removes the case from its List.
Advisory proceedings
Advisory proceedings before the Court are open solely to five organs of the United Nations and to 16 specialized agencies of the United Nations family.
The United Nations General Assembly and Security Council may request advisory opinions on “any legal question”. Other United Nations organs and specialized agencies which have been authorized to seek advisory opinions can only do so with respect to “legal questions arising within the scope of their activities”.
When it receives a request for an advisory opinion, the Court, in order that it may give its opinion with full knowledge of the facts, is empowered to hold written and oral proceedings, certain aspects of which recall the proceedings in contentious cases. In theory, the Court may do without such proceedings, but it has never dispensed with them entirely.
A few days after the request is filed, the Court draws up a list of those States and international organizations that will be able to furnish information on the question before the Court. Those States are not in the same position as parties to contentious proceedings: their representatives before the Court are not known as agents and their participation, if any, in the advisory proceedings does not render the Court’s opinion binding upon them. In general, the States listed are the Member States of the organization requesting the opinion. Any State not consulted by the Court may ask to be.
It is rare, however, for the ICJ to allow international organizations other than the one having requested the opinion to participate in advisory proceedings. With respect to non-governmental international organizations, the only one ever authorized by the ICJ to furnish information did not in the end do so (International Status of South West Africa). The Court has rejected all such requests by private parties.
The written proceedings are shorter but as flexible as in contentious proceedings between States. Participants may file written statements, which sometimes form the object of written comments by other participants. The written statements and comments are regarded as confidential, but are generally made available to the public at the beginning of the oral proceedings. States are then usually invited to present oral statements at public sittings.
Advisory proceedings are concluded by the delivery of the advisory opinion at a public sitting.
It is of the essence of such opinions that they are advisory, i.e., that, unlike the Court’s judgments, they have no binding effect. The requesting organ, agency or organization remains free to give effect to the opinion by any means open to it, or not to do so. Certain instruments or regulations can, however, provide beforehand that an advisory opinion by the Court shall have binding force (e.g., conventions on the privileges and immunities of the United Nations).
It remains nevertheless that the authority and prestige of the Court attach to its advisory opinions and that where the organ or agency concerned endorses that opinion, that decision is as it were sanctioned by international law.
Human Rights Day 2010 Arts Showcase for Iran
This Human Rights Day, we will highlight the human rights crisis in Iran by showcasing the work of artists, film makers, musicians, photographers and poets with appropriately-themed works. We cordially invite contributions from all members of the global arts community. Join us as we celebrate Human Rights Day 2010 on 10 December with art, music, poetry, film and photography for Iran. Aritsts please register on Eventbrite
About One Million Voices:
One Million Voices for Iran seeks to raise one million voices for human rights in Iran. The world’s attention was focused on the millions who peacefully protested in the wake of the fraudulent June 12, 2009 presidential elections and the subsequent crackdown on students, women, religious and ethnic minorities, and those with any political leanings contrary to the hard-line government. This brutal crackdown continues, and the situation in Iran deserves continued global attention.
We are collecting one million signatures on a petition to demand global action against human rights violations in Iran. Our petition calls for world governments to target individual officials of the regime by banning their travel to and freezing all assets held in their respective countries, targeting them specifically in protest of their documented human rights abuses and demanding the release of all political prisoners.
Additionally, it will demand from all potential sources of help the creation of a special court of human rights to prosecute the Islamic Republic’s leaders for their abuse of human rights, as described here by the Green Lawyers Movement.
We echo the demands of those in Iran working tirelessly for civil and political rights, and we are inspired by the many other human rights based intiatives that pursue goals in line with the One Million Voices for Iran campaign. We are open to the idea of affiliating with any like-minded individuals or complementary causes.
Submissions:
Artists, film makers, photographers, musicians and poets are invited to present works that exemplify the concept of Human Rights Day, specifically as it relates to the human rights crisis in Iran. Original works are preferred, but we will accept submissions that include a classic or inspirational piece with an explanation of how it inspires you and relates to human rights. Videos, such as reading a poem or performing a song are encouraged but not mandatory.
After you book a ticket, we will assume you are dedicated to participating in the event. We will accept submissions until December 9, 2010. Submissions may be sent to events [at ] speak4iran.org. Please include the artist’s name and title of the work.
By booking a ticket, you are agreeing to contribute content that you have created or own under copyright to the event and granting us permission to display your work in our showcase. One Million Voices will not hold copyright on submissions unless they are gifted to the campaign.
If you have any questions, please contact us at events [at] speak4iran.org.
Your Endorsement is Valuable
One Million Voices for Iran calls on all members of the international community who support and defend human rights and justice to endorse our new campaign.
The purpose of the campaign is to collect one million signatures and support for a petition demanding united global action against the human rights abuses perpetrated by the government of the Islamic Republic against its own people. Individuals and groups representing women, workers, lawyers, rights advocates, children, and ethnic and religious minorities are constant victims of repression at the hands of this government. This independent, non-political campaign echoes the demands of those seeking freedom and justice inside Iran.
We, the international community, must ensure the voice of the Iranian people is heard:
Our petition calls for European and other governments to restrict freedom of movement and freeze overseas assets of individuals in the Islamic Republic of Iran, targeting them specifically in protest of their documented human rights abuses and demanding the release of all political prisoners.
Additionally, it will demand from all potential sources of help the creation of a special court of human rights to prosecute the Islamic Republic’s leaders for their abuse of human rights, as described here by the Green Lawyers Movement.
We echo the demands of those in Iran working tirelessly for civil and political rights, and we are inspired by the many other human rights based initiatives that pursue goals in line with the One Million Voices for Iran campaign. We are open to the idea of affiliating with any like-minded individuals or complementary causes.
By focusing on human rights, and echoing the demands of those inside Iran, this is a campaign that transcends political or religious boundaries, and relies on recognition from prominent human rights organizations and activists.
As part of our activitives, we are actively seeking statements of support or endorsement from individuals and organizations that we can publish. We also appreciate your help in sharing or publicising this campaign with humanitarian and media contacts, and any assistance in gathering support for our cause.
Please send your message of support using the contact page, or add a Comment here on the website.
We are happy to receive feedback, comments, and suggestions on any aspect of this campaign, as our only goal is to make it a success.
