A/HRC/WGAD/2013/52

GE.14-13050

*1413050*

Human Rights Council

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary

Detention at its sixty-eighth session, 13–22 November 2013

No. 52/2013 (Islamic Republic of Iran)

Communication addressed to the Government on 12 September 2013

Concerning Khosro Kordpour and Massoud Kordpour

The Government has not replied to the communication.

The State is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

1.

The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of

the former Commission on Human Rights, which extended and clarified the Working

Group’s mandate in its resolution 1997/50. The Human Rights Council assumed the

mandate in its decision 2006/102 and extended it for a three-year period in its resolution

15/18 of 30 September 2010. The mandate was extended for a further three years in

resolution 24/7 of 26 September 2013. In accordance with its methods of work

(A/HRC/16/47, annex, and Corr.1), the Working Group transmitted the above-mentioned

communication to the Government.

2.

The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following

cases:

(a)

When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the

deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or

her sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to the detainee) (category I);

(b)

When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or

freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22,

25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (category II);

(c)

When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating

to the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in

the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity

as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);

United Nations

A/HRC/WGAD/2013/52

General Assembly

Distr.: General

2 April 2014

Original: English

A/HRC/WGAD/2013/52

2

(d)

When asylum seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged

administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or

remedy (category IV);

(e)

When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law for

reasons of discrimination based on birth; national, ethnic or social origin; language;

religion; economic condition; political or other opinion; gender; sexual orientation; or

disability or other status, and which aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of

human rights (category V).

Submissions

Communication from the source

3.

The case summarized below was reported to the Working Group on Arbitrary

Detention.

4.

Khosro Kordpour and Massoud Kordpour, who are brothers, are Iranian nationals

from the Kurdish ethnic community. They work as an editor and a correspondent,

respectively, for the Mokerian News Agency and report on human rights issues, including

the arrests and prosecutions of Kurdish activists. Massoud Kordpour reported on human

rights issues in the Kurdistan province for Radio France Internationale (RFI) Persian,

Deutsche Welle Persian, Voice of America Persian, and local Kurdish-language websites.

5.

On 7 March 2013, Khosro Kordpour was arrested in the Kurdish-inhabited city of

Mahabad, in western Iran, by Iranian Intelligence Ministry agents on an arrest warrant

issued by Branch 2 of the Revolutionary Court of Mahabad. He was allegedly transferred to

the Mahabad Intelligence Office. The authorities, meanwhile, reportedly searched his home

and confiscated his computer. On 9 March 2013, Massoud Kordpour went to the Boukan

Intelligence Office to inquire about his brother’s imprisonment. The source reports that he

was subsequently arrested. The authorities allegedly searched his home and confiscated

some personal items.

6.

Approximately 10 days later, both brothers were taken to the detention centre of the

Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) in Oroumiyeh, the capital of West Azerbaijan

province, where they were kept for four months in solitary confinement. Their family

members were able to visit them separately for the first time on 25 April 2013 for 10

minutes. Khosro and Massoud Kordpour told their relatives that they had not even been

interrogated during those 45 days, and demanded to have access to lawyers. The second

visit took place on 27 May 2013.

7.

Khosro Kordpour allegedly went on a hunger strike from 19 April to 13 May 2013

to protest his lack of access to a lawyer, at which point he was transferred to a cell with

other detainees. On 14 May 2013, the investigative judge reportedly extended the

temporary detention order for an additional two months and informed the brothers’ family

that he would not be able to issue bail until after the presidential election.

8.

Both brothers were transferred to Mahabad prison on 26 June 2013, where it was

revealed that Khosro and Massoud Kordpour had lost 12 and 20 kilos in weight

respectively. Khosro Kordpour was thereafter charged with moharebeh (fighting God);

corruption on earth through assembly and collusion to commit crimes against the national

security; insulting the Leader; propaganda activities against the State and spreading lies

with intent to disturb the public minds, while Massoud Kordpour was charged with

assembly and collusion to commit crimes against the national security; insulting the Leader;

propaganda activities against the State and spreading lies with intent to disturb the public

minds.

A/HRC/WGAD/2013/52

3

9.

On 5 July 2013, a joint urgent appeal addressed to the Government of the Islamic

Republic of Iran concerning Khosro and Massoud Kordpour, among others, was issued by

the Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention; the Special Rapporteur

on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the

Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; the

Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders; the Special Rapporteur on

the independence of judges and lawyers; the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human

rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran; and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel,

inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

10.

On 5 August 2013, Branch 1 of the Islamic Revolutionary Court in Mahabad held

the first session of the brothers’ trial, during which the judge read out the charges against

them. Their lawyers objected to the competence of the court on the ground that the

defendants were journalists and should be tried at a Press Court in the presence of a jury, as

their charges were related to press activities. They also objected to the absence of the

prosecutor’s representative at the hearing. The judge rejected the objection about his

competence, but accepted the second objection.

11.

Khosro Kordpour stated to the Court that he was there simply for being a journalist,

and that all the news agency’s articles had been published within the terms of the law.

Massoud Kordpour also stated to the Court that he had merely fulfilled his duty to report on

issues, as stipulated in the Constitution. Their lawyers requested the judge to release them

on bail, but the judge did not issue a decision in court, saying that he would notify them of

his decision at a later stage. The second hearing was scheduled to take place in late August

2013 or in September 2013.

12.

The source submits that the detention of Khosro and Massoud Kordpour is arbitrary,

being contrary to articles 9, 10 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 9,

14 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, since it is aimed

solely at sanctioning their human rights activities. This is also in violation of the

Declaration on human rights defenders, in particular article 1, which states that “everyone

has the right, individually or in association with others, to promote … the protection and

realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international

levels”, and article 12, paragraph 2, which provides that “the State shall take all necessary

measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of everyone, individually

and in association with others, against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure

adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her

legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the present Declaration”.

Response from the Government

13.

The Working Group communicated the above allegations from the source to the

Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, requesting the Government to provide the

Working Group with detailed information about the current situation of Khosro and

Massoud Kordpour and to clarify the legal provisions authorizing their continued detention.

It is regretted that the Government did not respond to this request.

Discussion

14.

Despite the absence of a response from the Government of the Islamic Republic of

Iran and on the basis of information available to it, the Working Group considers that it is

in a position to render an opinion in the present case.

15.

The case in hand relates to the arrest and detention of two journalists of Kurdish

ethnic origin, brothers Khosro and Massoud Kordpour. Their main area of analysis and

media engagement is the situation of the Kurdish communities, as addressed to the

A/HRC/WGAD/2013/52

4

domestic and international audience. In the view of the Working Group, this is in line with

their rights under international human rights law. They have in effect been arrested and

detained for exercising their freedom of opinion and expression.

16.

In his report to the General Assembly in October 2013, the Special Rapporteur on

the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran specifically mentioned the

arrest and detention of Khosro and Massoud Kordpour and the fact that they were charged

with moharebeh (enmity against God),1 mofsid-fil-arz (corruption on earth), propaganda

against the system, insulting the Supreme Leader and propagating falsehoods.2 The Special

Rapporteur noted that Massoud Kordpour had asserted his innocence and maintained that

providing analysis or stating opinions about the problems in Kurdistan was not a criminal

act, during the first session of his trial in August 2013. The Special Rapporteur reported that

in its commentary, the Government accused the journalists of cooperating with terrorist

groups but stopped short of specifying charges related to terrorism.

17.

A number of Iranian laws and policies, including the 1986 Press Law, the 2009

Computer Crimes Law and the 2010 Cybercrime Law, are not in conformity with the right

to freedom of expression and access to information under international law. It is reported

that the Government considers 600 Iranian journalists to be part of an anti-State network,

and that it has stated that journalists are arrested to prevent them from engaging in

“seditious activities”. Restrictions on the freedom of expression must be unambiguous,

narrow and accompanied by adequate safeguards against abuse. Charges against the

Kordpour brothers are general, vague and ambiguous and therefore difficult to substantiate,

both in their meaning and scope and for rebuttal. Finally, these laws are contrary to the

rights guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the touchstone by

which the Working Group tests these rights.

18.

The trial of Khosro Kordpour and Massoud Kordpour is flawed in a number of

respects from an international human rights law perspective. Some of the violations noted

are: the inordinate delay in according them access to a lawyer, the 45-day delay in

commencing interrogation and the jurisdiction of the court before which they are being

tried.

Disposition

19.

In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention renders the

following opinion:

The deprivation of liberty of Khosro Kordpour and Massoud Kordpour is arbitrary,

being in contravention of articles 9, 10 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights and falling within category II of the arbitrary detention categories

defined by the Working Group. It is also in contravention of articles 9, 14 and 19 of

the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, falling within category III

of the arbitrary detention categories defined by the Working Group.

20.

Consequent upon the opinion rendered, the Working Group requests the

Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to release Khosro Kordpour and Massoud

Kordpour forthwith and bring their situation into conformity with the requirements of

international human rights instruments. If the case merits it, the Working Group requests

the Government to, in particular, ensure a fair, impartial trial respecting all the guarantees

1 The Working Group notes that the term moharebeh refers to the crime of using arms to terrorize

people, although it is translated as “enmity against God” in the Special Rapporteur’s report.

2 A/68/503, para. 10.

A/HRC/WGAD/2013/52

5

thereof, as enshrined in the domestic law of the Islamic Republic of Iran and international

human rights law.

21.

In view of the adverse effect of this wrongful arrest and detention on Messrs.

Kordpour and their family, the Working Group also requests the Government of the Islamic

Republic of Iran to provide Khosro Kordpour and Massoud Kordpour with appropriate

reparation.

22.

The Working Group recalls the Human Rights Council’s call for all States to

cooperate with the Working Group, to take account of its views and, where necessary, to

take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily deprived of their liberty,

and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.3

[Adopted on 20 November 2013]

3 Human Rights Council resolution 24/7, paras. 3, 7 and 9.