Posts
A note from DL : Who was behinde the resoltuion on Iran?
Our Groups along side with WAFE and NCRI were present at the UN Human Right council throughout the session. We followed with the developments on the resolution to allocate a special rapporteur on Iran. One member of WAFE, who has been an active member of the opposition in the UN for the past 23 years, was also present.The NCRI , Human Right division which was responsible for maintainig a flow of documents of HR violations through out the years was also there. The ordeal of having this resolution was a mixture of pain and joy. The balance of power in the UN at Geneva has been considerably outweighed by the change in procedure put into action a couple of years back, when the Human Right Commission was replaced by the Human Right Council. This change is viewed in a cloud of controversy. Some say that with the change of procedure, “smaller third world countries” are not “bullied” by “bigger industrial” ones any more since major group decisions when voting is concerned comprise the majority of the vote and therefore it would be extremely difficult for any European Country or the US to bring a unilateral resolution with political motivation against a smaller country. Others say the group divisions give the third world countries more authority in words and deeds and therefore those very much involved in Human Right violations would not back any resolution on smaller countries since it would later effect their own conduct.
For this reason, from the start of this resolution for Iran, it was a big challenge to earn legitimacy of your intentions. Despite unprecedented human right violations by the mullahs in Iran, the Iranian regime had managed to establish an “Anti-Imperialist” , “anti-bullying” face among third world countries and brought much sympathy with it . Some would even go further than that and vote in favor of the mullahs with respect to the balance of investment the Iranian regime had put into their countries.
One Mission actually told us that the weight of trade with Iran did not permit any other choice other than vote against the resolution!
We shall not go into details of this but, as to inform our readers of the “behind the scene” developments we will publish an interview with those who were actually on the spot for the past 3 weeks covering the resolution.
Reuters
Our Groups along side with WAFE and NCRI were present at the UN Human Right council throughout the session. We followed with the developments on the resolution to allocate a special rapporteur on Iran. One member of WAFE, who has been an active member of the opposition in the UN for the past 23 years, was also present.The NCRI , Human Right division which was responsible for maintainig a flow of documents of HR violations through out the years was also there. The ordeal of having this resolution was a mixture of pain and joy. The balance of power in the UN at Geneva has been considerably outweighed by the change in procedure put into action a couple of years back, when the Human Right Commission was replaced by the Human Right Council. This change is viewed in a cloud of controversy. Some say that with the change of procedure, “smaller third world countries” are not “bullied” by “bigger industrial” ones any more since major group decisions when voting is concerned comprise the majority of the vote and therefore it would be extremely difficult for any European Country or the US to bring a unilateral resolution with political motivation against a smaller country. Others say the group divisions give the third world countries more authority in words and deeds and therefore those very much involved in Human Right violations would not back any resolution on smaller countries since it would later effect their own conduct.
For this reason, from the start of this resolution for Iran, it was a big challenge to earn legitimacy of your intentions. Despite unprecedented human right violations by the mullahs in Iran, the Iranian regime had managed to establish an “Anti-Imperialist” , “anti-bullying” face among third world countries and brought much sympathy with it . Some would even go further than that and vote in favor of the mullahs with respect to the balance of investment the Iranian regime had put into their countries.
One Mission actually told us that the weight of trade with Iran did not permit any other choice other than vote against the resolution!
We shall not go into details of this but, as to inform our readers of the “behind the scene” developments we will publish an interview with those who were actually on the spot for the past 3 weeks covering the resolution.
Reuters
U.N. human rights body approves investigator on Iran
By Stephanie Nebehay
GENEVA (Reuters) - The U.N. Human Rights Council agreed on Thursday to a U.S.-backed proposal to establish a U.N. human rights investigator for Iran, the first in a decade.
The 47-member Geneva forum approved the resolution by 22 votes in favor, 7 against and 14 abstentions, its president, Thai Ambassador Sihasak Phuangketkeow, announced.
The council voiced concern at Iran's crackdown on opposition figures and increased use of the death penalty, and called on the Islamic Republic to cooperate with the U.N. envoy to be named to the independent post.
"The United States and other partners are gravely concerned at the situation in Iran where respect for human rights has deteriorated dramatically in recent years," U.S. human rights ambassador Eileen Donahoe said in a speech before the vote.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said earlier this month that Iran had intensified its crackdown on opponents and executions of drug traffickers, political prisoners and juvenile criminals.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in a speech to the Council last month -- a few days after Washington slapped new sanctions on Iran for its nuclear activities -- called for the creation of the U.N. rights post.
The Council's predecessor body, the Human Rights Commission, had special rapporteurs on Iran from 1984 to 2002. But Iran has failed to cooperate with the U.N. human rights office in a meaningful way since then, U.N. officials and diplomats say.
(Reporting by Stephanie Nebehay; Editing by Andrew Callus and Mark Heinrich)
TEXT of the RESOLTUION :
United Nations A/HRC/16/L.25
Distr.: Limited 21 March 2011
Original: English
General Assembly
Human Rights Council Sixteenth session
Agenda item 4
By Stephanie Nebehay
GENEVA (Reuters) - The U.N. Human Rights Council agreed on Thursday to a U.S.-backed proposal to establish a U.N. human rights investigator for Iran, the first in a decade.
The 47-member Geneva forum approved the resolution by 22 votes in favor, 7 against and 14 abstentions, its president, Thai Ambassador Sihasak Phuangketkeow, announced.
The council voiced concern at Iran's crackdown on opposition figures and increased use of the death penalty, and called on the Islamic Republic to cooperate with the U.N. envoy to be named to the independent post.
"The United States and other partners are gravely concerned at the situation in Iran where respect for human rights has deteriorated dramatically in recent years," U.S. human rights ambassador Eileen Donahoe said in a speech before the vote.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said earlier this month that Iran had intensified its crackdown on opponents and executions of drug traffickers, political prisoners and juvenile criminals.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in a speech to the Council last month -- a few days after Washington slapped new sanctions on Iran for its nuclear activities -- called for the creation of the U.N. rights post.
The Council's predecessor body, the Human Rights Commission, had special rapporteurs on Iran from 1984 to 2002. But Iran has failed to cooperate with the U.N. human rights office in a meaningful way since then, U.N. officials and diplomats say.
(Reporting by Stephanie Nebehay; Editing by Andrew Callus and Mark Heinrich)
TEXT of the RESOLTUION :
United Nations A/HRC/16/L.25
Distr.: Limited 21 March 2011
Original: English
General Assembly
Human Rights Council Sixteenth session
Agenda item 4
Human rights situations that require the Council’s attention
Albania*, Australia*, Austria*, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina*, Bulgaria*, Canada* , Chile, Colombia*, Costa Rica*, Croatia*, Cyprus*, Czech Republic*, Denmark* , Estonia*, Finland*, France, Georgia*, Germany*, Greece*, Honduras*, Hungary, Iceland*, Ireland*, Italy*, Latvia*, Liberia*, Liechtenstein*, Lithuania*, Luxembourg* , Maldives, Malta*, Monaco*, Montenegro*, Netherlands*, New Zealand*, Norway, Panama*, Peru*, Poland, Portugal*, Republic of Moldova, Slovakia, Slovenia*, Spain, Sweden*, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia*, United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland, United States of America, Zambia: draft resolution
16/… Situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran
Albania*, Australia*, Austria*, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina*, Bulgaria*, Canada* , Chile, Colombia*, Costa Rica*, Croatia*, Cyprus*, Czech Republic*, Denmark* , Estonia*, Finland*, France, Georgia*, Germany*, Greece*, Honduras*, Hungary, Iceland*, Ireland*, Italy*, Latvia*, Liberia*, Liechtenstein*, Lithuania*, Luxembourg* , Maldives, Malta*, Monaco*, Montenegro*, Netherlands*, New Zealand*, Norway, Panama*, Peru*, Poland, Portugal*, Republic of Moldova, Slovakia, Slovenia*, Spain, Sweden*, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia*, United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland, United States of America, Zambia: draft resolution
16/… Situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran
The Human Rights Council,
Guided by the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights and other relevant international
human rights instruments,
Guided by the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights and other relevant international
human rights instruments,
Recalling General Assembly resolution 65/226 of 21 December 2010, and regretting
the lack of cooperation on the part of the Islamic Republic of Iran with the requests of the
Assembly made in that resolution,
the lack of cooperation on the part of the Islamic Republic of Iran with the requests of the
Assembly made in that resolution,
Welcoming the interim report of the Secretary-General on the situation of human
rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran1 submitted to the Human Rights Council, and
expressing serious concern at the developments noted in that report,
rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran1 submitted to the Human Rights Council, and
expressing serious concern at the developments noted in that report,
Recalling its resolutions 5/1, on the institution-building of the Council, and 5/2, on the code of conduct for special procedures mandate holders of the Council, of 18 June 2007, and stressing that mandate holders are to discharge their duties in accordance with those resolutions and the
annexes thereto,
1. Decides to appoint a special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, to report to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, to present an interim report to the Assembly at its sixty-sixth session and to submit a report to the Council for its consideration at its nineteenth session;
* Non-Member State of the Human Rights Council. 1 A/HRC/16/75.
GE.11-12050
A/HRC/16/L.25
* Non-Member State of the Human Rights Council. 1 A/HRC/16/75.
GE.11-12050
A/HRC/16/L.25
1. Calls upon the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur and to permit access to visit the country as well as all necessary information to enable the fulfilment of the mandate;
2. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the Special Rapporteur with the resources necessary to fulfil the mandate, within existi
شوراي حقوق بشر, اجلاس شانزدهم
21 مارس 2011
اوضاع حقوق بشر كه نيازمند توجه شورا ميباشد:
نام كشورهاي آورنده به ترتيب حروف الفبا: آلباني, استراليا, اتريش, بلژيك, بوسني و هرزه گوين, بلغارستان, كانادا, شيلي, كلمبيا, كستاريكا, كرواسي, قبرس, جمهوري چك, دانمارك, استوني, فنلاند, فرانسه, گرجستان, آلمان, يونان, هندوراس, مجارستان, ايسلند, ايرلند, ايتاليا, لاتويا, ليبريا, ليختن اشتاين, ليتواني, لوكزامبورگ, مالديو, مالت, موناكو, مونته نگرو, هلند, نيوزلند, نروژ, پاناما, پرو, لهستان, پرتغال, جمهوري مولداوي, اسلواكي, اسلواني, اسپانيا, سوئد, جمهوري سابق يوگسلاوي و مقدونيه, بريتانيا و ايرلند شمالي, ايالات متحده آمريكا, زامبيا
وضعيت حقوق بشر در جمهوري اسلامي ايران
شوراي حقوق بشر
براساس هدايت منشور سازمان ملل، اعلاميه جهاني حقوق بشر, ميثاق بين المللي حقوق بشر و ديگر ابزار مربوطه جهاني حقوق بشر,
با يادآوري قطعنامه مجمع عمومي شماره 65/226 بتاريخ 21 دسامبر 2010 و با ابراز تاسف از بابت فقدان همكاري از سوي جمهوري اسلامي ايران با درخواستهاي اين مجمع كه در قطعنامه ذكر شده است,
با استقبال از گزارش دوره اي دبيركل در مورد وضعيت حقوق بشر در جمهوري اسلامي ايران كه به شوراي حقوق بشر ارائه گرديده است و با ابراز نگراني جدي در مورد تحولاتي كه در آن گزارش به آنها اشاره شده است,
با فراخواندن قطعنامه 5/1 حول پايه ريزي نهادهاي شورا و قطعنامه 5/2 پيرامون ضوابط اجراي عمل براي دارندگان منديت طبق پروسدورهاي ويژه در شورا مورخ 18 ژوئن 2007 و با تاكيد بر اينكه دارندگان منديت مقررند وظايف خود را بر اساس اين قطعنامه ها و ضمايم آنها به پايان برند:
1 – تصميم به انتخاب يك گزارشگر ويژه براي وضعيت حقوق بشر در جمهوري اسلامي ايران ميگيرد كه گزارش خود را به شوراي حقوق بشر و مجمع عمومي بدهد, يك گزارش دوره اي به مجمع عمومي در شصت و ششمين اجلاس خود و يك گزارش به شوراي حقوق بشر براي بررسي در نوزدهمين اجلاس خود ارائه كند.
2 – از دولت جمهوري اسلامي ايران ميخواهد كه با اين گزارشگر ويژه همكاري كامل كند و به او اجازه ديدار از كشور و همچنين امكان دسترسي به اطلاعات لازم براي قادر سازي وي به انجام ماموريت اش را بدهد.
3 – از دبيركل درخواست ميكند تا منابع مورد نياز را براي گزارشگر ويژه فراهم سازد تا وي ماموريتش را براساس منابع موجود برآورد كند.
0 comments:
Post a Comment