Opinion; Subjects: IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF), ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.16-09639 (E) 140616
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its seventy-fifth session, 18-27 April 2016
Opinion No. 2/2016 concerning Bahareh Hedayat (Islamic
Republic of Iran)
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the 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 1/102 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.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work (A/HRC/30/69), on 12 February 2016 the
Working Group transmitted a communication to the Government of the Islamic Republic of
Iran concerning Bahareh Hedayat. The Government replied to the communication on 18
April 2016. The State is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
3.
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 him or her) (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);
(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);
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/2
General Assembly
Distr.: General
13 June 2016
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/2
2
GE.16-09639
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation,
disability or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of
human beings (category V).
Submissions
Communication from the source
4.
Ms. Hedayat is a 35-year-old prominent Iranian human rights and women’s rights
activist. She holds a bachelor’s degree in economics and finance from the University of
Tehran. Ms. Hedayat is a member of the Daftar-e Tahkim Vahdat (Office for Strengthening
Unity), the largest university student union in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
5.
Since 2002, Ms. Hedayat has been in charge of public affairs for the Central
Committee of the Office for Strengthening Unity. Ms. Hedayat has also held the positions
of spokesperson and public relations administrator for the Office. In 2005, as part of her
work for gender equality, Ms. Hedayat founded the Office’s Women’s Commission, which
promotes the participation of women in universities and other educational fields. As head of
that Commission, Ms. Hedayat reported on cases of sexual violence against female students
at various Iranian universities in 2007 and 2008.
6.
Ms. Hedayat was one of the founders of the “One million signatures campaign for
the change of discrimination laws against women”, which called for an end to
institutionalized discrimination against women in the Islamic Republic of Iran. She was
also a member of the Committee for the Prevention of Arbitrary Detention in the Islamic
Republic of Iran, working on cases related to the arrest and expulsion of Iranian students
from universities as a result of their involvement in human rights activism.
7.
Ms. Hedayat maintained a high public profile, giving interviews to domestic and
international media outlets on the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran,
making videos addressing European student unions and delivering speeches on women’s
rights. As a result of her advocacy work, Ms. Hedayat was nominated for various awards,
including the Edelstam Prize for defence of human rights, which she received in 2012 for
“outstanding contributions and exceptional courage in standing up for one’s beliefs in the
defence of human rights”.
8.
According to the source, Ms. Hedayat has been arrested several times by the
authorities since 2006. She was arrested for the first time on 12 June 2006 while
participating in a peaceful protest at Haft-e Tir Square in Tehran to celebrate International
Women’s Day and to call for an end to discrimination against women. The source states
that the arrest was carried out without a warrant. The authorities took Ms. Hedayat, along
with approximately 70 other women’s rights activists, to Evin Prison and informed her that
the charges against her were “acting against national security”, “disturbing public order”
and “propaganda against the State”. The authorities detained Ms. Hedayat for one week at
Evin Prison before releasing her on bail.
9.
The source alleges that the judicial authorities did not allow Ms. Hedayat’s lawyer to
access her case files, which hampered the preparation of her defence. Additionally, during
the trial, which was held between 18 April and 27 May 2007, the judge did not allow Ms.
Hedayat’s lawyer to be present in the courtroom, or to be present when the final verdict was
handed down. On 27 May 2007, Branch 6 of the Revolutionary Court of Tehran issued a
two-year suspended prison sentence against Ms. Hedayat for “acting against national
security by participating in an illegal gathering” under article 610 of the Iranian Penal Code.
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/2
GE.16-09639
3
This suspended sentence was subject to a five-year statute of limitations, which expired in
May 2012.
10.
According to the source, Ms. Hedayat was subsequently arrested on several
occasions. On 9 July 2007, she was arrested while attending a sit-in in front of a university
to denounce the unlawful imprisonment of Iranian students, including five members of the
Central Committee of the Office for Strengthening Unity, for their peaceful activism. The
authorities held her for one month in solitary confinement at Evin Prison before releasing
her on bail. On 13 July 2008, agents from the Ministry of Intelligence raided Ms. Hedayat’s
home, confiscated her laptop, flash drives and books, and arrested her. The Tehran
Prosecutor General charged her with “acting against national security”. After once again
spending one month in solitary confinement, Ms. Hedayat was released on bail.
11.
On 21 March 2009, the police arrested Ms. Hedayat without a warrant while she was
participating in a peaceful protest with family members of political prisoners detained in
Evin Prison. She was released on bail after three days of detention. On 15 June 2009, and
again in September 2009, the authorities attempted to arrest Ms. Hedayat by raiding her
home.
Current situation of Ms. Hedayat
12.
According to the source, late in the night of 30 December 2009, Ministry of
Intelligence agents came to Ms. Hedayat’s home. After searching it for three hours and
confiscating some of her personal belongings, including her computer and books, the agents
took Ms. Hedayat with them in the early hours of 31 December 2009. The source states that
the agents were in plain clothes and did not present an arrest warrant. They did not provide
any information on the relevant legislation that justified Ms. Hedayat’s arrest.
13.
The source alleges that, immediately after her arrest, the authorities at Evin Prison
placed Ms. Hedayat in solitary confinement, and interrogated her for two months. In March
2010, the authorities relocated her to the general ward of Evin Prison. Ms. Hedayat was
informed of the charges against her in the absence of her lawyers. Ms. Hedayat’s lawyers
were not able to access her files and prepare a statement of defence until one day before her
trial began.
14.
On 5 May 2010, Branch 28 of the Revolutionary Court of Tehran sentenced Ms.
Hedayat to seven-and-a-half years of imprisonment, consisting of:
(a)
Six months of imprisonment for “insulting the President”;
(b)
Two years of imprisonment for “insulting the Leader”;
(c)
Five years of imprisonment for “acting against national security and
publishing falsehoods”.
15.
Ms. Hedayat’s lawyers were not provided with a copy of the ruling. On 25 July 2010,
the Appeals Court of Tehran upheld the verdict in the absence of Ms. Hedayat and her
lawyers.
16.
In December 2010, Ms. Hedayat received an additional six-month prison sentence
on charges of “propaganda against the State” for writing a letter from prison addressing
Iranian activists on International Student Day in November 2010.
17.
According to the source, Ms. Hedayat had served her five-year imprisonment as of
May 2015 and should have been released by June 2015 at the latest. The source points to
article 134 of the Iranian Penal Code, which provides that in cases involving multiple
sentences, a person must serve no more than the maximum sentence for the charge carrying
the heaviest penalty (in this case, five years for the offence of “acting against national
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/2
4
GE.16-09639
security and publishing falsehoods”). On 12 August 2015, the Appeals Court issued a
release order for Ms. Hedayat.
18.
On 17 August 2015, while Ms. Hedayat was still in prison and at the request of the
Tehran Prosecutor General, Branch 28 of the Revolutionary Court of Tehran ordered the
enforcement of the two-year suspended prison sentence issued on 27 May 2007 by Branch
6 of the Court. This order was made despite the expiry of the five-year statute of limitations
for this sentence in 2012.
19.
In addition, the source alleges that neither Ms. Hedayat nor her lawyers were at any
point involved in the legal proceedings related to enforcing her suspended sentence. Branch
28 of the Revolutionary Court of Tehran rendered its decision in the absence of Ms.
Hedayat and her lawyers. The source claims that no reasons were given to justify
enforcement of the sentence.
20.
Ms. Hedayat remains in detention in the women’s section of Evin Prison. She filed a
complaint with the head of the Evin Prison Sentence Enforcement Unit concerning her
unlawful detention between 12 and 17 August 2015. The authorities have not responded to
her complaint. Ms. Hedayat has been detained for over six years and is completing the
two-year sentence that was enforced on 17 August 2015. By the time of her anticipated
release on 17 August 2017, she will have served almost eight years in prison.
21.
According to the source, Ms. Hedayat’s continuing detention poses a serious risk to
her health. Ms. Hedayat suffers from a chronic reproductive disease which, if left untreated,
may cause irreversible damage to her health and leave her permanently sterile. The source
states that prison authorities have not provided Ms. Hedayat with adequate medical care
and have rejected most of her requests for medical furlough, including requests by prison
doctors to allow Ms. Hedayat to be treated after she was diagnosed with gallstones in 2010.
Three years later, and after posting a large bail amount, Ms. Hedayat was allowed to
undergo treatment but was ordered to refrain from visits and interviews. She later had
surgery, but this did not remove all her gallstones and she remains at risk of needing further
surgery. Against the advice of doctors and without post-operative care, the authorities
returned Ms. Hedayat to prison shortly after her surgery.
22.
During her detention, Ms. Hedayat was held for approximately eight months
alongside inmates charged with serious criminal offences. According to the source, like
other inmates in this section, Ms. Hedayat had limited access to fresh air and prison
facilities. Ms. Hedayat also had additional restrictions on visitation rights because of the
publicity surrounding her imprisonment. The source indicates that Ms. Hedayat was
allowed a short furlough from 24 to 29 December 2015, but was then returned to prison.
She currently has no access to legal counsel, as her family does not have the means to hire a
lawyer.
23.
Ms. Hedayat was the subject of a joint urgent appeal dated 22 January 2016 and
addressed to the Islamic Republic of Iran by seven Human Rights Council special
procedure mandate holders.1 The Government has not responded to that appeal.
1 The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Special
Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical
and mental health, 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 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 and the Special Rapporteur on violence against
women, its causes and consequences.
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/2
GE.16-09639
5
Submissions regarding arbitrary detention
24.
The source submits that the detention of Ms. Hedayat is arbitrary in accordance with
categories I, II and III of the categories applied by the Working Group.
25.
In relation to category I, the source argues that there is no legal basis for Ms.
Hedayat’s detention based on the following facts:
(a)
Ms. Hedayat completed her most severe sentence of five years of
imprisonment in May 2015 and should have been released at that time in accordance with
article 134 of the Penal Code. The authorities did not provide any relevant legal basis to
justify her continued detention after May 2015. The source refers to the Working Group’s
Deliberation No. 9, which states that: “Any extension of the period of deprivation of liberty
must be based on adequate reasons setting out a detailed justification, which must not be
abstract or general in character”;2
(b)
Ms. Hedayat continued to be detained for five days between 12 August 2015
(when a judicial order for her release was issued) and 17 August 2015 (when her suspended
sentence was enforced). The source notes that the Human Rights Committee, in its general
comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, stated that detention in such
circumstances was both arbitrary and unlawful;3
(c)
Branch 6 of the Revolutionary Court imposed a five-year statute of
limitations when it handed down a two-year suspended sentence to Ms. Hedayat in May
2007. That statute of limitations expired in May 2012. The decision to enforce the two-year
suspended sentence in August 2015 did not respect the five-year statute of limitations
defined by the Court in 2007 and therefore has no legitimate legal basis.
26.
In relation to category II, the source submits that the arrest, detention and sentencing
of Ms. Hedayat to an additional two years of imprisonment from August 2015 was the
direct result of the exercise of her rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly
under articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The
source points to the multiple arrests of Ms. Hedayat between 2006 and 2009. According to
the source, this sequence of events demonstrates that Ms. Hedayat’s detention after
completing a five-year sentence was intended to prevent her from continuing her peaceful
activism.
27.
The source submits that the actions taken by the authorities against Ms. Hedayat
should be considered within the broader context of a crackdown on human rights activists
in the Islamic Republic of Iran. For example, the source states that, in 2005, the Office for
Strengthening Unity was one of the many student unions officially banned from conducting
its activities and forbidden to hold meetings and elections because of its criticism of
government policy and its pro-democracy stance. Furthermore, in 2009, the Ministry of
Science, Technology and Research declared the Office “illegal”, as it had “engaged in
activities that endangered national security”.
28.
In addition, the source notes that Ms. Hedayat’s arrest on 31 December 2009
occurred in the context of peaceful protests following the 2009 presidential election in the
Islamic Republic of Iran. Ms. Hedayat took part in these protests, including two large
protests that were held on 18 September 2009 and 27 December 2009. Ms. Hedayat also
2 Deliberation No. 9 concerning the definition and scope of arbitrary deprivation of liberty under
customary international law (see A/HRC/22/44, para. 67).
3 See CCPR/C/GC/35, para. 11, in which the Human Rights Committee stated that: “Continued
confinement of detainees in defiance of a judicial order for their release is arbitrary as well as
unlawful”.
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/2
6
GE.16-09639
recorded two video messages on International Student Day (17 November 2009) and
Iranian Student Day (7 December 2009), in which she spoke out against violations of the
rights of student activists in the Islamic Republic of Iran and welcomed the expression of
solidarity by international students.
29.
The source recognizes that the fundamental rights to freedom of expression and
peaceful assembly in the Covenant are not absolute, but submits that they can only be
subject to restrictions that are necessary to the pursuit of an aim by the State party, such as
the protection of national security. The State party must demonstrate the proportionality of
any restriction by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression
and the threat. The source argues that the Government offered no credible evidence in its
prosecution of Ms. Hedayat of any direct link between her peaceful activism and the vague
pretext of national security.
30.
In relation to category III, the source submits that the judicial process that led to Ms.
Hedayat’s sentencing in May 2007 and continued detention in August 2015 was not in
accordance with the right to a fair trial in articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant. The source
maintains that Ms. Hedayat’s lawyer in 2007 was not allowed to access Ms. Hedayat’s case
files, or to be present during the trial or when the verdict was handed down, in violation of
article 14 (1) and article 14 (3) (b) and (d) of the Covenant. Furthermore, by keeping Ms.
Hedayat in prison after a judicial order for her release was issued on 12 August 2015, the
Government has violated article 9 (1) of the Covenant. Finally, the source points out that
Ms. Hedayat and her lawyers were not involved in the process of enforcing her two-year
suspended sentence, and that the decision to do so was rendered in their absence, contrary
to articles 9 (3), 14 (1) and 14 (3) (a), (b) and (d) of the Covenant.
Response from the Government
31.
On 12 February 2016, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the
source to the Government under its regular communication procedure. The Working Group
requested the Government to provide detailed information by 13 April 2016 about the
current situation of Ms. Hedayat, noting that it would welcome any comment that the
Government might wish to make on the allegations by the source. The Working Group also
requested the Government to clarify the factual and legal grounds invoked by the
authorities to justify Ms. Hedayat’s continued detention, and to provide details regarding
the conformity of her deprivation of liberty with domestic legislation and international
human rights norms, including under treaties that the Islamic Republic of Iran had ratified.
32.
On 18 April 2016, the Government requested an extension by one month of the
deadline for replying to the communication in order to allow for the relevant institutions to
follow up on the matter. However, this request was not submitted within the time frame of
60 days established under paragraph 15 of the methods of work of the Working Group. The
Working Group has therefore decided not to grant the extension.
Discussion
33.
In the absence of a response from the Government within the time frame established
in its methods of work, the Working Group has decided to render this opinion in conformity
with paragraph 15 of its methods of work.
34.
The Working Group has in its jurisprudence established the ways in which it deals
with evidentiary issues. If the source has established a prima facie case that a breach of
international requirements that constitutes arbitrary detention has occurred, the burden of
proof should be understood to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/2
GE.16-09639
7
allegations. 4 In this case, the Government has not challenged the prima facie credible
allegations made by the source.
35.
In the absence of information from the Government to the contrary, the Working
Group considers that there was no legal basis for the detention of Ms. Hedayat. This finding
applies from the time of her initial detention in June 2006 (including other periods of
detention in July 2007, July 2008 and March 2009) through to May 2015 because she was
detained during these periods solely as a result of her peaceful advocacy activities. There
was also no legal basis for the continued detention of Ms. Hedayat after she had completed
her five-year sentence in May 2015.5 The continuation of her detention after May 2015
appears to have been ordered in violation of article 134 of the new Iranian Penal Code6 and
contrary to the five-year statute of limitations that expired in 2012. Ms. Hedayat was also
held for five days after a judicial order for her release was issued, which amounts to an
arbitrary deprivation of liberty under article 9 (1) of the Covenant.
36.
In addition, when Ms. Hedayat’s two-year suspended sentence was enforced on 17
August 2015, she was not brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by
law to exercise judicial power, in violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant. Neither Ms.
Hedayat nor her lawyers were involved in these proceedings, and Ms. Hedayat was simply
informed on 22 August 2015 that the Court had decided to enforce the sentence. The
Human Rights Committee has stated that the right to be brought before a judge under article
9 (3) applies even if, as in Ms. Hedayat’s case, a person already detained on one criminal
charge is also ordered to be detained on an unrelated criminal charge. In that case, the
person must be promptly brought before a judge in order to bring the second detention
under judicial control.7 Although it was not raised by the source in this case, there may also
have been a violation of article 9 (4) of the Covenant in Ms. Hedayat’s case, as it appears
that she is now without legal counsel and is effectively unable to challenge the lawfulness
of her deprivation of liberty.8
37.
Thus, the deprivation of liberty of Ms. Hedayat falls within category I of the
arbitrary detention categories referred to by the Working Group when considering cases
submitted to it.
38.
Furthermore, in the absence of information from the Government, the Working
Group has given regard to other reliable information which supports the source’s claims in
relation to category II. In particular, the Working Group refers to its previous opinions
4 See, for example, A/HRC/19/57, para. 68; and opinion No. 52/2014.
5 Continued detention in these circumstances falls clearly within the definition of category I of the
arbitrary detention categories referred to by the Working Group when considering cases submitted to
it: “When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis to justify the deprivation of liberty (as
when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her sentence …)” (see para. 3 (a)
above).
6 The Working Group understands that provisions of the new Iranian Penal Code came into force in
May 2013. There was nothing in the source’s submission, and no information from the Government,
to indicate any restriction in applying article 134 to sentences imposed before May 2013, as is the
case for Ms. Hedayat. Recent reports from United Nations special procedure mandate holders accept
that article 134 applies to detainees convicted of crimes following the 2009 Iranian presidential
election. This is consistent with article 15 (1) of the Covenant, which states: “If, subsequent to the
commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of the lighter penalty, the
offender shall benefit thereby”.
7 See general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, para. 32, which cites
communications No. 635/1995, Morrison v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 27 July 1998, paras. 22.2 and
22.3; and No. 762/1997, Jensen v. Australia, Decision adopted on 22 March 2001, para. 6.3.
8 United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone
Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court (A/HRC/30/37), principles 3, 8 and 9.
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/2
8
GE.16-09639
concerning individual communications received from various sources on arbitrary arrests
and detention in the Islamic Republic of Iran.9 In these cases, findings have been made
about the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of human rights defenders who had peacefully
exercised their rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, demonstrating that this is a systemic
problem in the administration of criminal justice in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The
Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of
human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran have also expressed concern about the
detention of human rights defenders in the Islamic Republic of Iran for exercising their
rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, including with
reference to the specific situation of Ms. Hedayat.10
39.
The Working Group concludes that Ms. Hedayat has been deprived of liberty in
violation of her rights to freedom of expression and assembly under articles 19 and 20 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 19 and 21 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Working Group considers that Ms. Hedayat
was deprived of her liberty for exercising her rights from the time of her initial detention in
June 2006 (including other periods of detention in July 2007, July 2008 and March 2009)
through to the present. The deprivation of liberty of Ms. Hedayat therefore falls within
category II of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by the Working Group when
considering cases submitted to it.
40.
The Working Group considers that the source’s allegations disclose violations of Ms.
Hedayat’s right to a fair trial. Specifically, Ms. Hedayat has been deprived of the right to
equality of arms, the right to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence, and the right
to defend herself through counsel of her choosing under article 14 (1) and 14 (3) (b) and (d)
of the Covenant. The Working Group concludes that the breaches of articles 10 and 11 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 of the Covenant are of such
gravity as to give Ms. Hedayat’s deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character, falling within
category III of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by the Working Group when
considering cases submitted to it.
41.
Finally, the Working Group wishes to record its grave concern about Ms. Hedayat’s
deteriorating health since her detention in December 2009, particularly the allegations made
by the source that she has not been provided with adequate medical care and that this may
result in irreparable harm to her health and leave her permanently sterile. The Working
Group considers that the treatment of Ms. Hedayat violates her right under article 10 (1) of
the Covenant to be treated with humanity and with respect for her inherent dignity.
Disposition
42.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Bahareh Hedayat was arbitrary, being in contravention
of articles 9, 10, 11, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
articles 9, 10, 14, 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, and falls within categories I, II and III of the arbitrary detention categories
referred to by the Working Group when considering cases submitted to it.
43.
Consequent upon the opinion rendered, the Working Group requests the
Government to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Ms. Hedayat without
9 See, for example, opinions No. 54/2012, No. 48/2012, No. 21/2011 and No. 26/2006.
10 See, inter alia, A/HRC/31/26, paras. 4, 30 and 32.
A/HRC/WGAD/2016/2
GE.16-09639
9
delay and bring it into conformity with the standards and principles in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant.
44.
Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, especially the risk of
irreparable harm to Ms. Hedayat’s health and physical integrity, the Working Group
considers that the adequate remedy would be to release Ms. Hedayat immediately, and
accord her an enforceable right to compensation in accordance with article 9 (5) of the
Covenant.
45.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, and given that the
arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Ms. Hedayat appears to have been intended to prevent her
from carrying out her work as a human rights defender, the Working Group refers the case
to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders for appropriate action.
[Adopted on 19 April 2016]