UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. General Assembly approved a draft resolution Tuesday expressing “deep concern” at the systematic human rights violations in Iran, including torture, flogging, amputations, stoning and public executions.

The 192-member world body adopted the resolution by a vote of 73-53 with 55 abstentions.

The resolution is not legally binding but carries moral weight and reflects the majority view of world opinion.

The resolution was introduced by Canada and backed by the United States and Western nations. It was opposed by many countries whose human rights records have been criticized and who object to the General Assembly targeting specific countries including Cuba, North Korea, Sudan, Syria and Zimbabwe.

The resolution expresses “very serious concern” that despite previous assembly resolutions on human rights in Iran, there have been “confirmed instances” of violations including the use of stoning as a method of execution, “torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including flogging and amputations,” and multiple public executions. The resolution calls on the government “to eliminate, in law and practice, all forms of discrimination and other human rights violations” against minorities.

It also calls on Iran to abolish public executions and stoning and “to end the harassment, intimidation and persecution of political opponents and human rights defenders, including by releasing persons imprisoned arbitrarily or on the basis of their political views.”

UNITED NATIONS, Dec 18 (Reuters) – The U.N. General Assembly passed a nonbinding resolution on Tuesday calling for a moratorium on the death penalty, overcoming protests from a bloc of states that said it undermined their sovereignty.

The resolution, which calls for “a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty,” was passed by a 104 to 54 vote, with 29 abstentions.

“The moratorium is an important opportunity for international debate,” he told reporters. Italy, speaking on behalf of the EU, was a strong proponent of the resolution.

Two similar moves in the 1990s failed in the assembly. The resolution’s text stops short of an outright demand for immediate abolition; it carries no legal force but backers say it has powerful moral authority.

Among nations who voted against were Egypt, Iran, Singapore, the United States and a bloc of Caribbean states.

Eighty-seven countries — including the 27 European Union states, more than a dozen Latin American countries and eight African states — jointly introduced the resolution, though opponents singled out the EU as the driving force.

The resolution picked up several extra votes in the General Assembly since it was passed by a U.N. human rights committee last month by a vote of 99-52 with 33 abstentions.

Barbados, one of the most vocal opponents of the measure, said sponsors were trying to impose their will on other countries and that it had been threatened with the withdrawal of aid over the issue.

“Capital punishment remains legal under international law and Barbados wishes to exercise its sovereign right to use it as a deterrent to the most serious crimes,” Mohammed Degia, first secretary for Barbados, said just prior to the vote.

“Beyond all of this is the simple fact that the question of the death penalty is basically one of criminal justice as enforced and upheld within national legal systems,” he said, noting that Barbados had not carried out an execution in decades but still retained the right to do so.

The United States voted against but kept a low profile throughout the resolution’s progress to a vote.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s spokeswoman Michele Montas said Ban welcomed the vote.

“Today’s vote represents a bold step by the international community,” Montas quoted Ban as saying in a statement. “This is further evidence of a trend towards ultimately abolishing the death penalty.”

According to rights group Amnesty International, 133 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. Opponents of the moratorium, however, said more than 100 countries retained capital punishment on their statutes, even if they did not all use it.

China, Iran, Iraq, the United States, Pakistan and Sudan account for about 90 percent of all executions worldwide, according to Amnesty.

The following is part four of series of articles by D.W. Duke, attorney member of SCE Campaign studying the possibilities of taking action against Islamic Republic of Iran’s practice of child executions which is in direct violation of their obligations under the UN conventions and treaties that they have signed.    

By: D.W. Duke  

The Committee on Civil and Political Rights may consider individual communications brought under the First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. www.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr-one.htm

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women may consider individual communications brought pursuant to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. www.ohchr.org/english/law/cedaw-one.htm

Individual communications may be brought where State Parties have filed the appropriate declaration under Article 22 of the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel and Inhuman or Degrading Punishment. www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm

Individual communications my be brought where State Parties have filed the appropriate declaration under Article 14 of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. www.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm

A complaint process will also be available under the Convention on Migrant Workers once ten State Parties have made the necessary declarations under Article 77. www.ohchr.org/english/law/cmw.htm

The following link provides an overview for bringing complaints by individual communications under the treaty system. www.ohchr.org/english/bod…vidual.htm

Individual Communications under Special Procedures
On March 15, 2006 the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution A/RES/60/251 which established the Human Rights Council (HRC). In June 18, 2007 the Human Rights Council adopted a text entitled “UN Human Rights Council: Institution Building” (Resolution 5/1) by which a new complaint procedure was established to address “consistent patterns of consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of all human rights and fundamental freedoms occurring in any part of the world under any circumstances.” This extremely broad scope may prove to be one of the most effective tools for human rights proponents given that it addresses violations in any part of the world (not just in member States) and in any circumstances (not just in war.)

Under this procedure two working groups, the Working Group on Communications and the Working Group on Situations were established to review communications and to bring to the attention of the Council consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Council then makes a determination of whether the alleged violation is sufficient to warrant action.

Communications under Resolution 5/1 are to be submitted to:
Treaties and Human Rights Council Branch
OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Fax (41 22) 917 90 11
Email: CP@ohchr.org

The following link provides more detailed information concerning the complaint procedure under the HRC. www.ohchr.org/english/bod…laints.htm

From UN website:

How does the complaint procedure work?

Pursuant to Council resolution 5/1, the Complaint Procedure is being established to address consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of all human rights and all fundamental freedoms occurring in any part of the world and under any circumstances.

It retains its confidential nature, with a view to enhancing cooperation with the State concerned. The procedure, inter alia, is to be victims-oriented and conducted in a timely manner.

Two distinct working groups – the Working Group on Communications and the Working Group on Situations – are established with the mandate to examine the communications and to bring to the attention of the Council consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Manifestly ill-founded and anonymous communications are screened out by the Chairperson of the Working Group on Communications, together with the Secretariat, based on the admissibility criteria. Communications not rejected in the initial screening are transmitted to the State concerned to obtain its views on the allegations of violations.

The Working Group on Communications (WGC) is designated by the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee from among its members for a period of three years (mandate renewable once). It consists of five independent and highly qualified experts and is geographically representative of the five regional groups. The Working Group meets twice a year for a period of five working days to assess the admissibility and the merits of a communication, including whether the communication alone or in combination with other communications, appears to reveal a consistent pattern of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. All admissible communications and recommendations thereon are transmitted to the Working Group on Situations.

The Working Group on Situations (WGS) comprises five members appointed by the regional groups from among the States member of the Council for the period of one year (mandate renewable once). It meets twice a year for a period of five working days in order to examine the communications transferred to it by the Working Group on Communications, including the replies of States thereon, as well as the situations which the Council is already seized of under the complaint procedure. The Working Group on Situations, on the basis of the information and recommendations provided by the Working Group on Communications, presents the Council with a report on consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and makes recommendations to the Council on the course of action to take.

Subsequently, it is the turn of the Council to take a decision concerning each situation thus brought to its attention.

What are the criteria for a communication to be accepted for examination?

A communication related to a violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms is admissible, unless:

•  It has manifestly political motivations and its object is not consistent with the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other applicable instruments in the field of human rights law; or

•  It does not contain a factual description of the alleged violations, including the rights which are alleged to be violated; or

•  Its language is abusive. However, such communication may be considered if it meets the other criteria for admissibility after deletion of the abusive language; or

•  It is not submitted by a person or a group of persons claiming to be the victim of violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms or by any person or group of persons, including NGOs acting in good faith in accordance with the principles of human rights, not resorting to politically motivated stands contrary to the provisions of the UN Charter and claiming to have direct and reliable knowledge of those violations. Nonetheless, reliably attested communications shall not be inadmissible solely because the knowledge of the individual author is second hand, provided they are accompanied by clear evidence; or

•  It is exclusively based on reports disseminated by mass media; or

•  It refers to a case that appears to reveal a consistent pattern of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights already being dealt with by a special procedure, a treaty body or other United Nations or similar regional complaints procedure in the field of human rights; or

•  The domestic remedies have not been exhausted, unless it appears that such remedies would be ineffective or unreasonably prolonged.

The National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), when they are established and work under the guidelines of the Principles Relating to Status of National Institutions (the Paris Principles) including in regard to quasi-judicial competence, can serve as effective means in addressing individual human rights violations.

to be continued