Examination of Witnesses (Questions 85
- 99)
TUESDAY 11 FEBRUARY 2003
MR STEVE
CRAWSHAW AND
MS ELAHE
SHARIFPOUR-HICKS
Chairman
85. Mr Crawshaw, you are Director of Human Rights
Watch. Ms Elahe Sharifpour-Hicks, you are a researcher on Iran
for the same organisation, Human Rights Watch. May I welcome you
both. Mr Crawshaw is an old hand and has helped the Committee
quite recently on general human rights matters. Having welcomed
you, would you set the platform for the Committee by saying what
are your most serious concerns on human rights in respect of Iran?
(Mr Crawshaw) We would echo many of the
points which we have just heard. Perhaps the most important thing
is to say that one needs to realise that there are indeed the
two parallel processes going on in Iran and that commitments that
may have been made—or partially made—on one side are
being either ignored or simply trampled on the other side. I think
it is important to constantly press. On the one hand one is pressing
on the conservatives, but those with whom the dialogue is most
direct is clearly with the reformers and they, too, must take
an active role in ensuring that the whole range of really quite
terrible incidences that are going on at the moment need to be
taken in hand.
86. What are the most awful?
(Mr Crawshaw) To take one obvious thing which has
knock on effects in other contexts is the closure of a large number
of newspapers and magazines, which is simply freedom of expression.
But it goes beyond that. People associated with that have then
been jailed, forced to make confessions—confessions of absurd
alleged crimes of wishing to overthrow the government - under
the force of torture. People then tried to withdraw those again.
But the whole issue of people being held, held without trial,
tortured while in jail and disappearing on some occasions into
a kind of black hole of justice. There was the notorious prison
59, but in broader terms people are being jailed and that is happening
quite outside all forms of legality. That is an extraordinary
important issue. The positive signs that we are seeing of wishes
for change have often not been implemented fully and on the other
hand things have been strongly blocked.
Mr Pope
87. We were told recently by a senior figure
in the Iranian government that Iran did not have the worst human
rights record in the region, which I did not find terribly reassuring.
We have evidence of people being executed after an unfair trial.
We have evidence of students being detained, religious minorities
persecuted, critics of the government harassed, underground shadowy
military organisations linked to hard-line clerical movements.
This really is a terrible situation. It seems to me that it really
is not getting any better. What is your assessment?
(Mr Crawshaw) You are right that in many
respects things do not seem to be getting better. On the other
hand—and I think this is what one really needs to clutch
for—there was a commitment made last year on allowing in
United Nations rapporteurs into the country. On the debit side,
that commitment has still not been made in writing and that is
where it really needs to be so that can measure it. On the credit
side, we have an UN official going in as chairman of the working
group on arbitrary detentions. He is going to go into the country
probably within the next few days and he will be back from his
visit by the time that you get there. This is the kind of thing
which does imply at least the possibility of movement. I think
what is terribly important is to realise those possibilities are
there. President Khatami as you also know has made a stand—which
was perhaps not strong enough—saying that power needs to
lie with the presidency. You cannot have all these other forces
moving in and taking the power away from the presidency. He has
not been powerful enough. We feel he needs support on that. All
of these things indicate that there is movement whereas there
are systems where there is simply no movement at all.
88. Sometimes in the West we look at human rights
as being an absolute freestanding proposition that human rights
is a good thing and abuses of human rights are a bad thing. I
am sure we would all sign up to that. I am interested in what
the political effect of these abuses of human rights is. In terms
of the authorities is it actually working in holding down opposition
to the system or is it having the obverse effect of that in which
the more you repress people the more they aspire to freedom?
(Mr Crawshaw) It is absolutely not working. I think
it is one of the great fantasies that one still hears sometimes—not
in this room—how human rights are a western invention and
being imposed. Certainly in my travels around the world and Human
Rights Watch's experience over the years is that you never hear
it from the people themselves whose human rights are being abused.
Whichever country you are in those people actually mind very deeply
about basic rights being removed, which may be as basic as being
able to say what you think when you walk into the greengrocers
in the morning without fear of being picked up by the secret police.
The danger of putting a lid on things undoubtedly creates the
danger of greater instability rather than greater stability. I
think people who introduce repressive mechanisms sometimes do
persuade themselves that repression is a way of keeping stability.
That is quite wrong. I think the student unrest is something which
one can see is a small element of that. It has been mentioned
earlier that there is a very large, young, educated population
and to try to repress the very clear desire for changes within
society could backfire very badly indeed.
89. You mentioned that newspapers were being
repressed on a more widespread basis. I noticed in the briefing
note that one paper was closed down on the charge of insulting
the authorities. This idea of repressing newspapers, is what happens
that it is like capping a volcano, that the pressure for freedom
of expression will just find another way out? So while it may
be relatively easy to close down a newspaper, that will find another
way of expressing opposition to the system. You mentioned the
student protest. Is that really what is happening?
(Mr Crawshaw) Yes, the pattern you have described
is a very clear pattern. If you push something down in one place,
it pops up somewhere else. What is particularly alarming is that
it has not just been the closures of the papers, but also the
jailing and horrific treatment of the managing editors, the editors
themselves. Even by the standards of media suppression in many
parts of the world, this is very strong. There is that sense that
society has not come to a standstill; this is not a repressive
regime where it can simply put down and you do, of course, have
part of the ruling structure which has popular legitimacy and
the difficulty is to reconcile those two things, the part that
has popular legitimacy and broadly wishes to give the kind of
things which a great proportion of society wish to see and others
who take on to themselves a given legitimacy but which society
has perhaps not given to them. That is clearly an explosive combination.
(Ms Sharifpour-Hicks) I would add to Steve's comments
that they closed more than 90 newspapers in the last two years.
They are using a criminal law—an instrument of a crime for
the hands of criminals—and using that law to close newspapers.
Recently the remaining reformists that did not get sent to jail
have opened web sites and they have their own web sites now. In
the last few months the judiciary is thinking of a way of closing
web sites and jailing those who are running them. In the past
newspapers worked as a political party and a reform agenda was
put in those newspapers and that is why they have become a target.
The Iranian leader said there should be no amendment to the press
law. President Khatami, to his credit, at the beginning promised
freedom of expression but unfortunately even though it was prepared
by the cabinet, by the President, it has not been introduced to
the Parliament to amend the press law.
Sir Patrick Cormack
90. You heard the exchange I had with our previous
witness. When I asked him if he thought that our attitude in Britain
should be frank and friendly he agreed emphatically. Do you also
agree with that?
(Mr Crawshaw) We do, yes. We do not believe
that the EU dialogue—or indeed between Britain and Iran—should
be halted. It is extremely positive and can play a very, very
positive role. That, if you like, is the "friendly"
bit of your phrase. Beyond that there is the possibility of a
resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Sometimes
there is a danger that people think that they have such a good
dialogue going on that they should not do the rude thing of making
a critical resolution. Our feeling is that these things can work
in symmetry together and that if improvements are not there then
a resolution is needed to reflect that fact. The dialogue should
be seen to be taking things forward. Can I also put on record
on behalf of Elahe Hicks personally but also on behalf of Human
Rights Watch that during a mission when she was in Tehran last
year there were a number of very complicated security concerns.
Diplomats at the British Embassy were extraordinarily helpful
and went to some lengths to be extraordinarily helpful. It was,
for us, a very nice signal that the British Foreign Office takes
the issues of human rights very seriously.
91. I am sure we are all appreciate that going
on the record. I had a lot of dealings in the early 1970s as chairman
of the campaign for the release of soviet Germany with those who
were persecuted for their religious beliefs behind the former
iron curtain. I came across some pretty horrific examples as you
would well know. Would you like to say a word or two about religious
persecution and can you compare it with the sort of persecution
that did exist in the Soviet Union at its most repressive? Is
it worse than that or is it on a par with that?
(Mr Crawshaw) Religious persecution and restrictions
are serious. I think my view in terms of your comparative question—and
I studied in the Soviet Union and Communist Russia is something
I knew well—I do think we are talking of a different level
here because it was so ideologically driven that you were simply
not allowed at any level to have that set of beliefs, a situation
which does exist elsewhere in the Middle East. As you say, there
are a number of restrictions.
(Ms Sharifpour-Hicks) In Iranian law, penal code,
civil code, discrimination against religious minorities is legalised.
There are three recognised religions: Jewish, Christians and Zoroastrians.
They are recognised and have MPs in parliament. But they have
problems. Issues such as access to higher education, access to
a job cause problems. The largest religious minority with 300,000
are the Baha'is. They have right now four Baha'is who were committed
to death row but now are sentenced to life imprisonment purely
because they are Baha'i. They do not have access to higher education.
If a student graduates from high school and says he or she is
Baha'i they cannot go to university because they are Baha'i. They
do not have a job. They do not have the right to worship publicly.
92. As far as the Christians and the Jews are
concerned, we did talk to a fairly high placed Iranian official
not very long ago who suggested that there are Christian members
of the Majalis and Jewish members and so on, and that all was
really exaggerated here in the west. Would you like to just say
a word about that, particularly in the context of the Christians
and the Jews.
(Ms Sharifpour-Hicks) Last year a Jewish MP addressed
the Parliament and complained about the issues they are facing
like employment and better life, access to better life inside
the country. They have a Sunni MP in the Parliament who complained
about problems. The most backward place in the country is the
Sunni, the system in Baluchistan and the education and other issues
they are facing. They do not have any mosques in Tehran, the capital.
Sunni are Muslim. The majority of Iranians are Shi'ai and the
official religion in the country is Shi'ai. The Sunni had the
same problems addressed by their MP in the Parliament.
93. Much of what you have said one could say
was deprivation rather than active persecution. Is there a lot
of active persecution?
(Ms Sharifpour-Hicks) Active persecution against largest
minority Baha'i, yes.
94. And active persecution against Christians
and Jews? Yes or no?
(Mr Crawshaw) No. Evangelical Christians. They allow
Muslims to go to their churches; they can no longer do that. They
have three bishops that have been killed in 1996 and the government
have never found out who was behind the killing. They belonged
to evangelical churches.
Mr Hamilton
95. On 3 February Human Rights Watch wrote to
the Foreign Secretary in advance of his meeting with the Iranian
Foreign Minister and said, "We welcome your government's
efforts to develop better ties with Iran and to encourage the
country's closer integration with the norms and standards of the
international community. We hope that your government uses this
relationship to ensure better compliance with human rights standards
by the Iranian government and to remind the Iranian Foreign Minister
of the promises made hy the government of President Khatami to
pursue an agenda of reform in the human rights field. Such reforms
have yielded very little concrete progress as yet." At what
point do you think that you would advocate an end to the process
of engagement with Iran currently pursued by the British Government?
(Mr Crawshaw) I am not sure that we would
wish to put the question that way round. I am sorry to be evasive.
I try not to be in this context because in a sense that implies
the acceptance of a kind of defeat which I do not think we would
wish to. I am sorry if that seems cowardly that I am not going
there. I would turn it around to a version of what we were saying
in the letter which is that I think the temptation sometimes is
to be so pleased that a dialogue is going on that one ignores
terribly important things which are not being done. To flip it
around, if you like, one very basic thing would be on the issues
of the rapporteurs. There are a number of rapporteurs who have
not been able to go in yet; they have been blocked. There are
people who are locked up without trial. Those kind of thing need
to be pressed forward. I think it would be unwise for us to say
the point at which one just gives up.
(Ms Sharifpour-Hicks) Doors are closed to international
human rights organisations. My colleague cannot go to Iran. A
colleague from other human rights organisations cannot have access
to Iran. I go as a human rights representative because I have
an Iranian passport and I take lots of risks when going there.
We would like the Iranian government to open doors to human rights
agents and organisation. There is not an independent human rights
organisation in the country; the government would not tolerate
it. I had the opportunity to raise a question directly with President
Khatami asking why he did not set up any human rights office within
his office because all his agenda was about human rights. President
Khatami told me that no-one in Iran takes human rights seriously.
That was his answer. I responded that human rights is all about
the president's agenda and policies. No-one in Iran takes human
rights seriously. There is a need to encourage the government
to help international and local human rights groups and open the
door to them.
96. You also say that the Iranian government
as a whole should be judged upon its human rights record. Do you
not think it is better to distinguish between the so called reformist
elements and the more conservative elements? In other words, if
we condemn everybody, are we not being unhelpful to the reformists?
(Mr Crawshaw) I think one might perhaps again flip
that around. If one constantly allows the conservatives to be
the alibi of things not happening, then one does not do the cause
of reform any good. Again, there have been a number of countries
throughout the world where we have seen this pattern, but the
encouragement and pressures one could almost say are for their
own good in the sense that things need to change. Merely saying
that there is a little bit of difficulty with your conservatives
and we understand why you do not do any of the things you promised
to do, does not help either side. When we said that, talking about
the whole government, that is what we meant. When you are there
it is enormously important that there is at least one lot who
will be speaking the same language and others who are really terribly
important to be able to talk to directly which will unblock all
the other suff. It does not do the reformer's cause any good simply
to go soft on them because of the undoubted difficulties which
they face.
Sir John Stanley
97. Can you give us the Human Rights Watch perspective
on whether progress is being made in Iran for civil rights for
women? Can you tell us in your view what are the main areas of
lack of civil rights for women at the present time in Iran?
(Ms Sharifpour-Hicks) Every law, penal
code and civil code regarding women have not been changed. They
have not been tackled and still remain the same. We have women
in parliament; we have a woman as deputy president in charge of
the environment, but the ordinary Iranian women face the same
problems since the beginning of the revolution. Twenty-four years.
Yes, there is amendment to the law that women can seek divorce,
but there is still a problem. Divorce is allowed with many conditions.
It is the law that they cannot ask for divorce in terms of issues
that are very difficult to prove for a woman. The custody of the
children; women do not have that. Very recently, before this parliament
introduced a bill to increase the age of marriage from nine to
fifteen and it was rejected by the Council of Guardians. Then
the law went back again and they increased it to thirteen. Those
are the kind of changes referred to. Children in Iran can vote.
The age of vote is 16. But the age of marriage for a woman is
thirteen. A woman cannot be a judge. They can only be a judge
in the lower court. A woman cannot be a president, simply because
they are a woman. We do have women in parliament and they are
raising issues like laws of retribution. A woman is qualified
as half of a man but they are fighting that. The Iranian government
and the parliament is seeking and asking to join the Convention
for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and it was
rejected by the Council of Guardians. Women have problems with
a lot of issues with the law in the country, the civil and the
penal code.
98. You have made it clear that you have concerns
in the family law area. Are you saying that there is still a lot
to be desired as far as basic civil rights for women are concerned
in terms of right to take part in the political system, right
to vote, age of voting and so on? How does the political system
treat women?
(Ms Sharifpour-Hicks) Fortunately women can vote.
They had this right and the revolution could not take this law.
Women were very, very active. During the eight year war with Iraq
the Iranian movement sacrificed many, many things. Iranian women
can drive, they can vote and they can go to parliament. But basic
things for a woman like custody are issues. There are children's
rights as well. Recently the Council of Guardians vetoed a law
banning domestic violence against children. Father has a right
to do whatever they can to kill a child because it is like a property.
The law cannot do anything. The mother cannot even file a lawsuit
against the father. These days they have many, many cases about
domestic violence against children; the father is entitled to
do that because this is based on Islamic principle.
99. Is the criteria of voting for women identical
for men and is the age of voting for women identical to men?
(Ms Sharifpour-Hicks) Sixteen years for girls and
boys.
| 
