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.23-18328 (E) 290923 290923
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its ninety-seventh session,
28 August–1 September 2023
Opinion No. 37/2023 concerning Olivier Vandecasteele
(Islamic Republic of Iran)
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and
clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251
and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a
three-year period in its resolution 51/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 19 May 2023 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran a communication concerning
Olivier Vandecasteele. The Government has not replied to the communication. 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 Covenant (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);
(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,
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/37
General Assembly
Distr.: General
2 October 2023
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/37
2
GE.23-18328
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Olivier Vandecasteele is a national of Belgium born on 19 January 1981. His
permanent place of residence is in Belgium.
5.
The source reports that Mr. Vandecasteele studied business management,
international relations and conflict resolution in Belgium and, upon graduation, began
working for non-governmental organizations.
6.
From 2015 until 2020, Mr. Vandecasteele worked in the Islamic Republic of Iran as
a country director for the Norwegian Refugee Council. He was mainly responsible for
facilitating access to water, food, health care and education for members of the Afghan
community living in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
7.
Starting in 2020, Mr. Vandecasteele took up a new position as the country director for
the Islamic Republic of Iran for the non-governmental organization Relief International. That
contract ended in the second quarter of 2021 and Mr. Vandecasteele returned to Belgium. He
then secured a temporary contract with the United Nations Development Programme in the
Islamic Republic of Iran, but he was not granted a visa by the authorities.
8.
Therefore, in December 2021, Mr. Vandecasteele decided to move back to Belgium
permanently. Since he still had a rented appartement in Tehran, he organized a trip to the
Islamic Republic of Iran in order to vacate the apartment and close his bank account. Carrying
out these activities required him to be physically present. The trip was planned to last from
20 to 25 February 2022. The source adds that on that occasion, Mr. Vandecasteele travelled
to the Islamic Republic of Iran on a valid tourist visa.
9.
The source notes that Mr. Vandecasteele exercised his professional duties in the
Islamic Republic of Iran prudently and never voiced any political opinion. Furthermore, his
work was praised on various occasions by the country’s Minister of Health and Education.
10.
The source submits that, on the evening of 24 February 2022, the day before he was
to return for good to Belgium, Mr. Vandecasteele was invited with 10 friends to a farewell
dinner in an apartment located in Tehran’s Qeitarieh district. Mr. Vandecasteele was the only
foreigner present. The group ordered food to be delivered, and at around 11.30 p.m. the
receptionist of the building called the apartment to say that a man was waiting to enter. People
in the apartment thought it was the deliveryman and consequently opened the door.
11.
When the owner of the apartment opened the door, six agents in plain clothes burst
into the apartment. The six individuals did not identify themselves or show a warrant at any
stage during the operation, which lasted for about an hour and a half. Two of the agents wore
mobile cameras on their chests, and another was filming throughout the operation.
12.
According to the source, agents separated the women and the men, placing them in
two different rooms, and asked for their identity cards. The source notes that the agents knew
who would be present, since they named the people before they had presented their identity
cards.
13.
Mr. Vandecasteele was put in a separate room and was placed on his knees. He was
asked to surrender his passport, mobile devices and personal computer along with the
associated passwords. These items were immediately checked by the officials. One hour later,
a higher-ranking officer came in and interrogated Mr. Vandecasteele. When it became clear
to Mr. Vandecasteele that he would be arrested, he did not resist the authorities but insisted
on seeing a warrant. He also asked to call the Embassy of Belgium and his family, however
both requests were denied.
14.
The six agents proceeded to arrest Mr. Vandecasteele, put him in a car, and departed
at 1.20 a.m. on 25 February 2022.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/37
GE.23-18328
3
15.
The source adds that while the department or group that arrested Mr. Vandecasteele
is unknown, given the fact that his detention was politically motivated, it is most likely that
he was arrested either by agents of the Ministry of Intelligence and Security or by the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps. The source links Mr. Vandecasteele’s arrest and detention with
the lengthy prison sentence handed down in Belgium in respect of an agent of the Ministry
of Intelligence and Security.
16.
The source also reports that the agents used force and constantly shouted at the people
present. Given the level of noise, some neighbours called the municipal police, which arrived
after the agents left.
17.
The day after Mr. Vandecasteele’s arrest, the authorities confirmed that he was being
detained in Evin prison in Tehran. However, no further information was provided.
18.
The source reiterates that no warrant was presented either during Mr. Vandecasteele’s
arrest or afterwards, despite Mr. Vandecasteele’s repeated requests. At the time of his arrest
and for nine months, up until his trial in November 2022, Mr. Vandecasteele was not
informed of the legal basis for his arrest and detention. Belgian authorities also reportedly
unsuccessfully requested Iranian authorities to provide such a warrant or at least to disclose
the reasons for Mr. Vandecasteele’s arrest.
19.
On 13 December 2022, it became known that Mr. Vandecasteele had been sentenced
to 28 years of imprisonment. On 3 January 2023, Tasnim, an official Iranian press agency,
announced that Mr. Vandecasteele had been sentenced to 40 years of prison and 74 lashes.
It also reported that the charges against Mr. Vandecasteele were espionage against the Islamic
Republic of Iran, collaborating with the Government of the United States of America,
smuggling foreign currency and money laundering. The source notes, however, that no
official confirmation of the sentence was provided to the Belgian authorities.
20.
The source submits that since his arrest on 24 February 2022, Mr. Vandecasteele was
detained in a cell measuring 3 metres by 2 metres, in full solitary confinement, without any
contact, apart from the contact he may have had with his guards and the people interrogating
him. His cell was reportedly located in the basement, and had no window but a constant
source of artificial light. His diet reportedly lacked fruit and vegetables. Furthermore,
Mr. Vandecasteele had insufficient access to medical care. He suffers from dental,
gastrointestinal and psychological problems. He was allowed to see a dentist on one occasion
but was denied a follow-up visit.
21.
From 24 February 2022 to the beginning of August 2022, Mr. Vandecasteele was
detained in Evin prison in Tehran Province. In August 2022, he was transferred to another
place, the location of which has not been communicated. He was held there until April 2023.
During that time, Mr. Vandecasteele was brought to Evin prison for meetings with the
Ambassador of Belgium. He was also given the opportunity to make phone calls to his family.
However, the lawyers chosen by Mr. Vandecasteele’s family were able neither to have any
contact with him nor to have any information about his case. It is reported that
Mr. Vandecasteele has not met with a lawyer since his trial in November 2022.
22.
In April 2023, Mr. Vandecasteele was moved back to Evin prison. Though he is no
longer being held in solitary confinement, the conditions of his detention have reportedly
deteriorated. He is detained in a cell for four people, measuring about 12 square metres. The
cell is located in a basement, with the light constantly on, and there are no windows. There
is no mattress. The quality of the food continues to be inadequate.
23.
Apart from his aforementioned health issues, Mr. Vandecasteele suffers from
significant leg and back problems, making it difficult for him to remain in an upright position.
To date, he has been able to see a doctor twice, who was of the view that Mr. Vandecasteele
may need back surgery and who provided him with painkillers. The painkillers are reportedly
not sufficient. Moreover, Mr. Vandecasteele’s psychological state has significantly
deteriorated.
24.
It is reported by the source that Mr. Vandecasteele has stated on several occasions that
he does not accept the charges against him and his detention. However, no measures have
been taken to enable him to protect his rights. According to the source, Mr. Vandecasteele
has never had the possibility to challenge his detention.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/37
4
GE.23-18328
25.
The source submits that Mr. Vandecasteele is being used for diplomatic leverage to
facilitate the return to the Islamic Republic of Iran of an agent of the Ministry of Intelligence
and Security. It is therefore argued that his case falls into a pattern of targeting and arbitrary
detention of foreign nationals and constitutes an international crime, as described in the
International Convention against the Taking of Hostages. Mr. Vandecasteele’s arrest and
detention are also allegedly in violation of article 9 (1) and (2) of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, which has been ratified by the Islamic Republic of Iran. On this
basis, the source argues that Mr. Vandecasteele’s detention is arbitrary and falls under the
Working Group’s categories I, III and V.
26.
In relation to category I, the source argues that Mr. Vandecasteele’s arrest on 24
February 2022 took place outside the established legal processes, in violation of international
norms, and in contravention of article 9 (1) of the Covenant, which provides that no one is to
be deprived of liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are
established by law.
27.
The source submits that Mr. Vandecasteele was arrested without an arrest warrant and
that there were no circumstances to give reasonable cause for arrest in flagrante delicto. The
source recalls that the right to be presented with an arrest warrant (to ensure the exercise of
effective control by a competent, independent and impartial judiciary authority) is
procedurally inherent in the right to liberty and security of person and the prohibition of
arbitrary deprivation under articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and article 9 (1) of the Covenant, as well as principles 2, 4 and 10 of the Body of Principles
for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
28.
Moreover, the source recalls that Mr. Vandecasteele was arrested without being
informed of the reasons for his arrest at the time of arrest, and of the charges against him
promptly (these were only indicated to him during his trial held in November 2022). The
failure of the authorities to do so violates article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and articles 9 (2) and 14 (3) (a) of the Covenant, as well as principle 10 of the Body
of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
29.
Furthermore, Mr. Vandecasteele was only brought before a judge nine months after
his arrest. The source recalls that according to article 9 (3) of the Covenant, anyone arrested
or detained on a criminal charge is to be brought promptly before a judge. The Human Rights
Committee considers that 48 hours is ordinarily sufficient to satisfy the requirement of
bringing a detainee “promptly” before a judge or other officer authorized by law following
his or her arrest; any longer delay must remain absolutely exceptional and be justified under
the circumstances. The source concludes that there has been a clear breach of article 9 (3) of
the Covenant, as well as of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and principles 11 and 37 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under
Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
30.
The source also submits that Mr. Vandecasteele was not afforded the right to challenge
the legality of his detention before a court, as is provided by article 9 (4) of the Covenant,
article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principle 32 of the Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
The source also recalls that according to the 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, the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before a court
is a self-standing human right, which is essential to preserve legality in a democratic society.
This right was denied to Mr. Vandecasteele.
31.
Moreover, the source recalls that Mr. Vandecasteele did not have access to a lawyer
from the moment of his arrest, contrary to the stipulation in the 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. This access has been denied to
Mr. Vandecasteele, which has seriously affected his ability to bring proceedings before a
court, in violation of article 9 (4) of the Covenant. Given that Mr. Vandecasteele was unable
to contact a lawyer and was not allowed to consult his case file, which are essential safeguards
to ensure the ability of any detainee to personally challenge his or her detention, his right to
an effective remedy under article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/37
GE.23-18328
5
2 (3) of the Covenant was also violated. Mr. Vandecasteele’s trusted Iranian lawyers were
never able to meet him or to defend him effectively.
32.
The source recalls that Mr. Vandecasteele was convicted of cooperating with a hostile
State against the Islamic Republic of Iran and spying. It submits that these crimes are so
vague that it is impossible to invoke a legal basis for Mr. Vandecasteele’s detention. In this
context, the source also recalls that the Working Group has previously raised with the
Government the issue of prosecution under vague penal laws, noting that the offences of
cooperation with a hostile State and espionage are vague and overly broad. The principle of
legality requires that laws be formulated with sufficient precision that individuals can access
and understand the law and regulate their conduct accordingly. Mr. Vandecasteele could not
have foreseen that travelling to rescind the rental contract for his apartment, to remove his
furniture and to close his bank account would amount to cooperation with a hostile State or
spying. His imprisonment under vague provisions is thus incompatible with article 11 (2) of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 (1) and 15 (1) of the Covenant,
concludes the source.
33.
In relation to category III, the source submits that there have been numerous violations
of the most basic standards of due process throughout Mr. Vandecasteele’s pretrial and post-
trial detention.
34.
In this context, the source argues that Mr. Vandecasteele’s pretrial detention (which
lasted nine months) violated article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
article 9 of the Covenant. Mr. Vandecasteele was deprived of his liberty without an arrest
warrant and without being informed of the reasons for his arrest or the charges against him.
No charges were filed for nine months after his initial arrest, during which time
Mr. Vandecasteele
was
held
in
detention,
including
in
solitary
confinement.
Mr. Vandecasteele was not immediately brought before a judge nor afforded the right to bring
proceedings before a court so as that it might decide on the lawfulness of his detention.
35.
Mr. Vandecasteele was, at all times, denied access to his chosen legal counsel.
Following his arrest, he was interrogated without the presence of a lawyer and he was never
able to meet the lawyers chosen by his family. He had only access to a lawyer during his trial.
However, this lawyer was appointed by the judge, despite Mr. Vandecasteele’s request to be
assisted by the lawyer chosen by his family. Moreover, this lawyer was prevented from
speaking to Mr. Vandecasteele or on his behalf. The source thus argues that the failure to
provide Mr. Vandecasteele with access to a lawyer from the outset has violated his right to
adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with
counsel of his own choosing under article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and article 14 (3) (b) and (d) of the Covenant.
36.
The denial of full access to the case file for Mr. Vandecasteele and his chosen lawyers
was a further violation of Mr. Vandecasteele’s rights under article 14 (1) and (3) (b) and (e)
of the Covenant. Furthermore, Mr. Vandecasteele was not allowed to call witnesses, in
violation of article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant.
37.
It is further argued that Mr. Vandecasteele only had the opportunity to talk to the
Ambassador of Belgium for the first time two months after his arrest, on 28 April 2022.
Throughout his detention, the consular visits he received were systematically filmed and were
held in the presence of authorities to ensure that Mr. Vandecasteele did not complain about
the conditions of his detention. Mr. Vandecasteele was therefore denied the right to
communicate freely with a Belgian representative. Moreover, he was denied diplomatic or
consular presence during his trial.
38.
Furthermore, the source argues that the Iranian authorities have subjected
Mr. Vandecasteele to conditions of detention which do not allow full realization of the
purposes of communication and access for which the right of consular visit was established.
These conditions allegedly amount to torture and degrade Mr. Vandecasteele’s state of health
to such an extent that they render the consular visit useless, as the detainee is no longer able
to communicate effectively with the consul.
39.
In this regard, the source recalls that the Working Group has highlighted in its earlier
jurisprudence that consular assistance constitutes an important safeguard and is invaluable
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/37
6
GE.23-18328
for foreign nationals who are disadvantaged by lack of familiarity with the local law, customs
and even language.
40.
Furthermore, it is recalled that in its resolution 72/179, the General Assembly
reaffirmed the duty of States parties to ensure full respect for and observance of the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations, in particular with regard to the right of all foreign
nationals.
41.
The source submits that the failure to respect Mr. Vandecasteele’s right to consular
protection under customary international law, which is codified in article 36 of the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations and was ratified by the Islamic Republic of Iran on 5 June
1975, during his arrest and detention, is a violation of articles 9, 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, articles 9 (1) and 14 (1) of the Covenant, principle 16 (2) of
the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment and rule 62 (1) of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the
Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules).
42.
Furthermore, the source submits that the conditions of Mr. Vandecasteele’s detention
have also hindered his ability to participate in and prepare his defence. Until August 2022,
Mr. Vandecasteele was held incommunicado (for more than two months after his arrest and
for periods of one to two months thereafter) and in solitary confinement in Evin prison. He
was then transferred to an unknown place of detention, where his incommunicado detention
and solitary confinement were maintained. The source submits that this prolonged
incommunicado detention and solitary confinement violates rules 43 to 45 of the Nelson
Mandela Rules and article 10 (1) of the Covenant.
43.
Moreover, the source argues that the treatment of Mr. Vandecasteele by the authorities
(psychological abuse including solitary confinement and incommunicado detention) and the
inhumane conditions (constant artificial light, extremely long interrogation sessions without
legal assistance, poor diet, restricted access to health care, and exposure to extreme cold
without appropriate clothing) in which he is detained violate the absolute prohibition of
torture as a peremptory norm of international law, article 5 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, rule 1 of the Nelson Mandela Rules, articles 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant and
principle 6 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment.
44.
The source recalls that Mr. Vandecasteele’s trial consisted of one hearing which lasted
for a maximum of 30 minutes, despite the serious charges and the heavy sentence ultimately
imposed. The source recalls the Working Group’s earlier findings that a short trial for a
serious criminal offence suggests that the defendant’s guilt has been determined prior to the
proceedings. The brief duration of the trial, together with the lack of access to the evidence
and the denial of the right of Mr. Vandecasteele to be represented by the legal counsel of his
choice, constitutes a breach of Mr. Vandecasteele’s right to the presumption of innocence
under article 14 (2) of the Covenant.
45.
The source further recalls that Branch 15 of the Islamic Revolutionary Court, which
tried, convicted and sentenced Mr. Vandecasteele, is a court that does not meet the minimum
standards of an independent and impartial tribunal, in violation of article 14 (1) of the
Covenant. The judge presiding over the trial is also reportedly known for his unfair treatment
of foreign and dual nationals.
46.
Finally, in relation to category V, the source submits that Mr. Vandecasteele’s
detention was motivated by his status as a Belgian national. His detention allegedly took
place as part of a pattern of targeting and detaining foreign nationals on grounds of State
security. The source recalls that both the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran have
recognized this pattern.
47.
The source submits that there is no evidence that Mr. Vandecasteele was in the Islamic
Republic of Iran for any reason other than to recover personal belongings before his definitive
departure. He had previously lived in the Islamic Republic of Iran between 2015 and 2021
for work without any incident. He has been, on different occasions, praised by the Minister
of Health and Education for his good work. Furthermore, Mr. Vandecasteele’s sentence
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/37
GE.23-18328
7
appears to be disproportionate, as there is no evidence that he had a criminal record, or that
he had cooperated with the Government of the United States of America, to which he has no
attachment, or that he had engaged in spying, smuggled foreign currency, or laundered any
money.
48.
The source concludes that Mr. Vandecasteele was detained on a discriminatory basis,
namely his nationality, in violation of articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant.
(b)
Response from the Government
49.
On 19 May 2023, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source to
the Government under its regular communications procedure. The Working Group requested
the Government to provide, by 18 July 2023, detailed information about the current situation
of Mr. Vandecasteele and to clarify the legal provisions justifying his continued detention,
as well as its compatibility with the obligations of the Islamic Republic of Iran under
international human rights law, and in particular with regard to the treaties ratified by the
State.
50.
The Working Group regrets that the Government did not submit a reply, nor did it
seek an extension in accordance with paragraph 16 of Working Group’s methods of work.
2.
Discussion
51.
In the absence of a response from the Government, the Working Group has decided
to render the present opinion, in conformity with paragraph 15 of its methods of work.
52.
In determining whether Mr. Vandecasteele’s detention is arbitrary, the Working
Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with evidentiary
issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of international law
constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon the
Government if it wishes to refute the allegations.2 In the present case, the Government has
chosen not to challenge the prima facie credible allegations made by the source.
53.
As a preliminary matter, the Working Group notes that Mr. Vandecasteele was
released on 26 May 2023. He is therefore no longer detained. There is no provision in the
Working Group’s methods of work that precludes consideration of a case in such
circumstances. Indeed, the Working Group considers it necessary to render an opinion, given
the serious allegations relating to Mr. Vandecasteele’s deprivation of liberty.3
(a)
Category I
54.
The Working Group finds that the source has provided credible information, which
was not rebutted by the Government, that on 24 February 2022, Mr. Vandecasteele was
arrested without an arrest warrant. These circumstances give rise to a violation of article 9 (1)
of the Covenant, articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principles
2 and 4 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment. In order for a deprivation of liberty to have a legal basis, it is not
sufficient for there to be a law that might authorize the arrest. The authorities must invoke
that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case through an arrest warrant.4 The
Working Group observes that the factual circumstances of Mr. Vandecasteele’s arrest serve
to strengthen the conclusion that his arrest was without legal basis.
55.
The Working Group also finds credible the source’s unrebutted submissions that
Mr. Vandecasteele was not informed about the reasons for the arrest nor about the charges
against him until his trial in November 2022, nine months after his arrest. It therefore finds
that Mr. Vandecasteele’s rights deriving from article 9 (2) of the Covenant, article 9 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principle 10 of the Body of Principles for the
2 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
3 Opinions No. 50/2017, para. 53 (c); and No. 55/2018, para. 59.
4 Opinions No. 46/2017; No. 66/2017; No. 75/2017; No. 35/2018; No. 79/2018; and No. 15/2021,
para. 50.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/37
8
GE.23-18328
Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment were violated.
Article 9 (2) of the Covenant provides that anyone who is arrested is to be informed, at the
time of arrest, of the reasons for the arrest and is to be informed promptly of the charges
against them.
56.
The Working Group finds credible the source’s unrefuted submission that
Mr. Vandecasteele only saw a judge nine months after his arrest. As the Working Group has
reiterated in its jurisprudence, and the Human Rights Committee has specified, 48 hours is
ordinarily sufficient to satisfy the requirement of bringing a detainee promptly before a judge;
any longer delay must remain absolutely exceptional and be justified under the
circumstances.5 In the present case, the Working Group therefore finds a clear violation of
article 9 (3) of the Covenant, as Mr. Vandecasteele was not brought promptly before a judge.
57.
Furthermore, as Mr. Vandecasteele first saw a judge nine months after his arrest, he
was not able to challenge the legality of his detention, in violation of article 9 (4) of the
Covenant, articles 3, 8 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and principles
11, 32 and 37 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment. Judicial oversight of deprivation of liberty is a fundamental
safeguard of personal liberty and is essential in ensuring that detention has a legal basis.6
Mr. Vandecasteele’s detention also violated his rights under article 2 (3) of the Covenant and
article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as he was denied his right to an
effective remedy.
58.
The source has submitted that Mr. Vandecasteele spent nine months in pretrial
detention following his arrest. Article 9 (3) of the Covenant states that it is not to be the
general rule that persons awaiting trial are to be detained in custody. The Working Group
recalls the view of the Human Rights Committee, as well as its own recurrent findings, that
pretrial detention must be the exception and not the rule, should be ordered for as short a time
as possible,7 and must be based on an individualized determination that it is reasonable and
necessary, taking into account all the circumstances, for such purposes as to prevent flight,
interference with evidence or the recurrence of crime. Courts must examine whether
alternatives to pretrial detention, such as bail, electronic bracelets or other conditions, would
render detention unnecessary in the case in question.8 In the present case, the Working Group
concludes that an individualized determination of his circumstances did not take place and,
as a result, his detention lacked a legal basis and was ordered in violation of article 9 (3) of
the Covenant. In reaching this conclusion, the Working Group notes that the Government did
not submit any information to suggest that such a determination took place or to rebut the
source’s submissions.
59.
The source further submits that until August 2022, Mr. Vandecasteele was held
incommunicado (for over two months after his arrest and for periods of one to two months
thereafter). In this regard, the Working Group recalls that prompt and regular access to family
members, as well as to independent medical personnel and lawyers, is an essential safeguard
for the prevention of torture as well as for protection against arbitrary detention. 9 The
Working Group therefore finds a contravention of Mr. Vandecasteele’s right to contact with
the outside world under rules 43 (3) and 58 (1) of the Nelson Mandela Rules and principles
15, 16 (1) and (2) and 19 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under
Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. The Working Group recalls that holding persons
incommunicado prevents prompt presentation before a judge and violates the right to
5 Opinions No. 6/2017, No. 30/2017, No. 49/2019, No. 60/2020 and No. 66/2020. See also Human
Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 33.
6 Opinions No. 35/2018, para. 27; No. 83/2018, para. 47; No. 32/2019, para. 30; No. 33/2019, para. 50;
No. 44/2019, para. 54; No. 45/2019, para. 53; No. 59/2019, para. 51; and No. 65/2019, para. 64.
7 Opinions No. 57/2014, para. 26; No. 8/2020, para. 54; No. 5/2021, para. 43; and No. 6/2021, para. 50.
See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38; and A/HRC/19/57,
paras. 48–58.
8 A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48–58.
9 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 58; and opinions No. 34/2021,
para. 77; and No. 5/2022, para. 72.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/37
GE.23-18328
9
challenge the lawfulness of their detention before a court, contrary to article 9 (3)10 and (4)
of the Covenant.11
60.
Finally, the source asserts that the charges later brought against Mr. Vandecasteele
were overly broad. According to the source, Mr. Vandecasteele was denied information
regarding the legal basis and the specific factual circumstances of his arrest and detention
before the trial date, which was not until nine months after his arrest. In the absence of any
government response, the Working Group finds this unrebutted submission credible.
61.
The Working Group has raised the issue of prosecution under vague and overly broad
penal laws on several occasions – including the offences of cooperation with a hostile State12
and espionage.13 As the use of vague laws can undermine the principle of legality, the
Working Group has stated previously that the principle of legality requires that laws be
formulated with sufficient precision so that the individual can access and understand the law
and regulate his or her conduct accordingly.14 In the case of Mr. Vandecasteele, the Working
Group considers that he could not have foreseen that travelling to rescind the rental contract
for his apartment, to remove his furniture and to close his bank account would amount to
cooperation with a hostile State or spying. Thus, his detention and prosecution under these
vague provisions are incompatible with article 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and articles 9 (1) and 15 (1) of the Covenant. Vague laws may have a deterrent effect
on the exercise of fundamental freedoms as they have the potential for abuse, including the
arbitrary deprivation of liberty.15
62.
For these reasons, the Working Group considers that the deprivation of liberty of
Mr. Vandecasteele lacks legal basis and is thus arbitrary, falling under category I.
(b)
Category III
63.
The source submits that Mr. Vandecasteele was, at all times, denied access to his
chosen legal counsel. After his arrest, he was interrogated without the presence of a lawyer
and was never able to meet the lawyers chosen by his family. During trial, he only had access
to a lawyer appointed by the judge, despite his request to be assisted by the lawyer chosen by
his family. The lawyer chosen by his family was prevented from speaking to
Mr. Vandecasteele or on his behalf.
64.
The Working Group recalls that persons deprived of their liberty have the right to
legal assistance by counsel of their choice, at any time during their detention, including
immediately after the moment of apprehension, and that such access must be provided
without delay.16 The Working Group considers that the failure to provide Mr. Vandecasteele
with access to his lawyer from the outset, including during interrogation, seriously affected
his ability to prepare a defence. The fact that Mr. Vandecasteele was facing serious charges
relating to cooperation with a hostile State and espionage made these violations of due
process all the more egregious.
65.
In these circumstances, the Working Group finds that Mr. Vandecasteele’s right to
adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence and to communicate with counsel of his
choosing, under article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant and principles 17 (1) and 18 (2) of the
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment, was violated, as was his right to present an effective defence through counsel
of his choosing under article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant. With regard to the source’s
10 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 35.
11 Opinions No. 45/2017, No. 46/2017, No. 69/2017, No. 35/2018, No. 9/2019, No. 44/2019,
No. 45/2019 and No. 25/2021.
12 Opinion No. 52/2018, para. 78.
13 Opinions No. 7/2017, para. 41 (a); and No. 9/2017, para. 23.
14 See, for example, opinion No. 41/2017, paras. 98–101. See also opinions No. 62/2018, paras. 57–59;
and No. 33/2019, para. 51; and Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 22.
15 Opinions No. 10/2018, para. 55; and No. 15/2021, para. 65.
16 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, principle 9 and guideline 8; and
Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 35. See also General Assembly
resolution 73/181; CCPR/C/IRN/CO/3, para. 21; and A/HRC/45/16, para. 51.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/37
10
GE.23-18328
unrebutted claim relating to the denial of full access to the case file to Mr. Vandecasteele and
his chosen lawyers, the Working Group finds a violation of Mr. Vandecasteele’s rights under
article 14 (1) and (3) (b) of the Covenant. The Working Group notes that the present case is
another example of instances where legal representation was denied or limited for individuals
facing serious charges, suggesting that there is a systemic failure to provide access to counsel
during criminal proceedings in the Islamic Republic of Iran, especially where foreign and
dual nationals are concerned.17
66.
The source submits that Mr. Vandecasteele only had the opportunity to talk to the
Ambassador of Belgium for the first time on 28 April 2022, two months after his arrest.
Mr. Vandecasteele was therefore denied the right to communicate freely with a Belgian
representative and was also denied diplomatic or consular presence during his trial. The
Working Group recalls that consular assistance provides detainees and consular officials of
the detainee’s nationality with certain rights, including for the latter to communicate freely
with and have access to their detained nationals and to be informed about an arrest without
delay.18 The Working Group considers that the Government’s failure to respect these rights
as embodied in article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to which the
Islamic Republic of Iran is a party, is in violation of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, articles 9 (1) and 14 (1) of the Covenant, rule 62 (1) of the Nelson Mandela
Rules and principle 16 (2) of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under
Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.19
67.
Moreover, the source argues that the authorities have subjected Mr. Vandecasteele to
conditions of detention which do not allow full realization of the purposes of communication
and access for which the right of consular visit was established. The source further submits
that that conditions of Mr. Vandecasteele’s detention have also hindered his ability to
participate in and to prepare his defence. Until August 2022, Mr. Vandecasteele was held
incommunicado in solitary confinement in Evin prison.
68.
The Working Group notes that according to rule 45 of the Nelson Mandela Rules, the
imposition of solitary confinement must be accompanied by certain safeguards. Solitary
confinement must only be used in exceptional cases as a last resort, for as short a time as
possible, and must be subject to independent review and authorized by a competent authority.
Prolonged solitary confinement in excess of 15 consecutive days is prohibited under rules
43 (1) (b), 44 and 45 of the Nelson Mandela Rules. The Working Group recalls that the
Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
has deemed that prolonged solitary confinement in excess of 15 days, at which point some of
the harmful psychological effects of isolation can become irreversible, may amount to torture
as described in article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment.20
69.
Moreover, the source argues that the treatment of Mr. Vandecasteele by the authorities
(psychological abuse including solitary confinement and incommunicado detention) and the
inhumane conditions (constant artificial light, extremely long interrogation sessions without
legal assistance, poor diet, restricted access to health care, and exposure to extreme cold
without appropriate clothing) in which he was detained violate the absolute prohibition of
torture as a peremptory norm of international law. Referring to the source’s submission, the
Working Group recalls that denial of medical care can constitute a form of torture.21 The
Working Group notes with grave concern Mr. Vandecasteele’s health issues, some of which
were exacerbated or caused by his conditions of detention. According to article 10 (1) of the
17 A/HRC/40/24, para. 13; and opinions No. 54/2022, para. 87; and No. 27/2022, para. 65.
18 Opinions No. 51/2019, para. 72; No. 54/2022, para. 88; and No. 27/2022, para. 67. See also General
Assembly resolution 72/179, para. 4 (k), which reaffirms the duty of States parties to ensure full
respect for and observance of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, in particular with regard
to the rights of all foreign nationals.
19 Opinions No. 30/2018, paras. 52–56; No. 51/2019, paras. 68–73; and No. 81/2021, para. 107. See also
General Assembly resolution 72/179, para. 4 (k); and A/HRC/48/55, paras. 57–63.
20 A/63/175, para. 56; A/66/268, para. 61; General Assembly resolution 68/156; A/56/156, paras. 14 and
39 (f); and Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 35.
21 A/HRC/38/36, para. 18; and opinions No. 21/2023, para. 98; No. 54/2022, para. 91; No. 20/2022,
para. 104; and No. 46/2022, para. 83.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/37
GE.23-18328
11
Covenant, all persons deprived of their liberty must be treated with humanity and dignity,
which includes receiving appropriate medical care.22 The Working Group refers the present
case to the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest
attainable standard of physical and mental health.
70.
The Working Group considers that the aforementioned violations substantially
undermined Mr. Vandecasteele’s capacity to defend himself in the judicial proceedings.23
The right to freedom from torture is set out in article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and article 7 of the Covenant.24 The Working Group has previously concluded that
when it is not possible for a person who is subjected to torture to prepare an adequate defence
for a trial that respects the equality of both parties, the right to a fair trial is violated.25 In the
present case, the Working Group finds that such treatment and conditions of detention
violated rules 1, 13, 21, 22 (1) and 23 (1) of the Nelson Mandela Rules, affected
Mr. Vandecasteele’s ability to prepare a defence, jeopardized the principle of equality of both
parties and violated Mr. Vandecasteele’s right to a fair trial.26 The Working Group refers the
present case to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.
71.
Noting the source’s credible claim that Mr. Vandecasteele was not allowed witnesses
during his trial, the Working Group also finds violations of his right to equality before courts
and tribunals and to a fair trial, contrary to article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant.27 The right to
equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial entails a strict obligation to respect the
right of accused persons to have witnesses admitted who are relevant for the defence and to
be given a proper opportunity to question and challenge witnesses against them at some stage
during the proceedings. 28 The Working Group refers the present case to the Special
Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.
72.
The source submits that Mr. Vandecasteele’s trial consisted of one hearing that lasted
for a maximum of 30 minutes. As the Working Group has previously noted, a short trial for
a serious criminal offence, with a heavy sentence, indicates that guilt had been determined
prior to the trial.29 The brief duration of the trial, along with the lack of access to the evidence
and the denial of access to legal counsel of Mr. Vandecasteele’s choosing, resulted in the
denial of Mr. Vandecasteele’s right to the presumption of innocence under article 11 (1) of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (2) of the Covenant.30
73.
Finally, the source submits that Branch 15 of the Islamic Revolutionary Court, which
tried, convicted and sentenced Mr. Vandecasteele, is a court that does not meet the minimum
standards of an independent and impartial tribunal.31 The judge presiding over the trial is also
reportedly known for his unfair treatment of foreign and dual nationals.32 As the Working
Group has previously stated, the revolutionary courts do not meet international standards of
independence or impartiality.33 The Working Group therefore finds a violation of article 10
22 Opinion No. 26/2017, para. 66.
23 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, paras. 12, 15, 67 and 71.
24 See also rule 1 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the
Nelson Mandela Rules), art. 10 (1) of the Covenant and principle 6 of the Body of Principles for the
Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
25 Opinions No. 32/2019, para. 42; and No. 20/2022, para. 104.
26 Opinions No. 92/2017, para. 56; and No. 32/2019, para. 42. See also opinions No. 47/2017, para. 28;
No. 52/2018, para. 79 (j); and No. 53/2018, para. 77 (c); and E/CN.4/2004/3/Add.3, para. 33.
27 Opinion No. 4/2021, para. 101.
28 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 39.
29 Opinions No. 85/2021, para. 88; and No. 83/2018, para. 61. See also opinions No. 75/2017, para. 53;
and No. 36/2018, para. 55.
30 Opinion No. 85/2021, para. 88.
31 Opinions No. 19/2018, para. 34; No. 52/2018, para. 79 (f); No. 51/2019, para. 65; and No. 85/2021,
para. 87. See also E/CN.4/2004/3/Add.2, para. 65; and CCPR/C/IRN/CO/3, paras. 21 and 22.
32 Opinion No. 85/2021, paras. 86 and 87.
33 E/CN.4/2004/3/Add.2, para. 65 (1). The Working Group considers that this finding remains current:
see opinions No. 19/2018, para. 34; No. 52/2018, para. 79 (f); No. 32/2019, para. 44; No. 33/2019,
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/37
12
GE.23-18328
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (1) of the Covenant, as any
person facing criminal charges has a right to a hearing before a competent, independent and
impartial tribunal established by law.
74.
For the reasons above, the Working Group concludes that the breaches of the fair trial
and due process rights of Mr. Vandecasteele are of such gravity as to give his deprivation of
liberty an arbitrary character, falling within category III.
(c)
Category V
75.
Finally, in relation to category V, the source submits that Mr. Vandecasteele’s
detention was motivated by his status as a Belgian national. His detention allegedly took
place as part of a pattern of targeting and detaining foreign nationals on grounds of State
security. In its jurisprudence, the Working Group has identified a practice in the Islamic
Republic of Iran of arbitrarily detaining persons who are foreign nationals,34 dual nationals35
or Iranian nationals with permanent residence in another country.36 The Special Rapporteur
on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran has also recognized this
pattern, noting that recent estimates have suggested that at least 30 foreign and dual nationals,
as well as Iranians with permanent residency in another country, have been imprisoned since
2015.37 The present case is consistent with this pattern.
76.
In his 2023 report, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the
Islamic Republic of Iran specifically mentioned the detention of Mr. Vandecasteele since
February 2022 and was “extremely concerned at the arbitrary arrest, detention and harsh
sentencing of foreign and dual nationals by the Iranian authorities, apparently to put pressure
on foreign Governments for prisoner swaps or other returns”.38 In this regard, the Working
Group recalls the Declaration against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations, which
stipulates that “the arbitrary arrest or detention of foreign nationals to compel action or to
exercise leverage over a foreign government is contrary to international law”.39
77.
The Working Group finds to be credible the source’s unrebutted claim that there is no
information that Mr. Vandecasteele was in the Islamic Republic of Iran for any reason other
than to recover personal belongings before his definitive departure. He had previously lived
in the Islamic Republic of Iran between 2015 and 2021 for work without any incident. He
has been, on different occasions, commended by the Minister of Health and Education for
his good work. The Working Group received no information indicating that he had
cooperated with any Government, engaged in spying, smuggled foreign currency or
laundered any money.
78.
Based on the foregoing, the Working Group concludes that Mr. Vandecasteele was
deprived of his liberty on discriminatory grounds, on the basis of being a foreign national,40
in violation of his rights under articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant. His deprivation of liberty is arbitrary, falling within
category V.41
para. 67; No. 51/2019, para. 65; No. 85/2021, para. 87; No. 54/2022, para. 58; and No. 21/2023,
para. 89. See also CCPR/C/IRN/CO/3, paras. 21 and 22.
34 Opinions No. 28/2013, No. 50/2016, No. 52/2018 and No. 51/2019.
35 Opinions No. 18/2013, No. 44/2015, No. 28/2016, No. 7/2017, No. 49/2017, No. 27/2021 and
No. 85/2021.
36 Opinions No. 92/2017, No. 32/2019 and No. 29/2021.
37 A/HRC/37/68, paras. 51–57; A/HRC/40/24, para. 13; and A/HRC/43/61, para. 27. See also
A/HRC/37/24, paras. 56–57.
38 A/HRC/52/67, para. 70.
39 A/HRC/48/55, paras. 61–63. See also the Declaration against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State
Relations, available at www.international.gc.ca/news-nouvelles/assets/pdfs/arbitrary_detention-
detention_arbitraire-declaration-en.pdf.
40 Opinions No. 28/2016, paras. 47–49; No. 9/2017; No. 33/2019; and No. 83/2020.
41 Opinions No. 75/2017, No. 79/2017, No. 35/2018, No. 36/2018, No. 45/2018, No. 46/2018,
No. 9/2019, No. 44/2019 and No. 45/2019.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/37
GE.23-18328
13
(d)
Concluding remarks
79.
The present case is one of a number of cases brought before the Working Group in
recent years concerning arbitrary deprivation of liberty in the Islamic Republic of Iran.42 The
Working Group is concerned that this indicates widespread or systemic arbitrary detention in
the country, which amounts to a serious violation of international law. The duty to comply
with international human rights standards rests with all State organs, officers and agents. The
Working Group recalls that under certain circumstances, widespread or systematic
imprisonment or other severe deprivation of liberty in violation of the rules of international
law may constitute crimes against humanity.43 The Working Group refers the present case to
the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, for
appropriate action.
80.
The Working Group would welcome the opportunity to work constructively with the
Government to address arbitrary deprivation of liberty in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Given
that a significant period of time has passed since its most recent country visit to the Islamic
Republic of Iran, in February 2003, the Working Group considers that it is now an appropriate
time to conduct another visit. The Working Group made a request to the Government on 19
July 2019 to conduct a country visit. The Working Group recalls that the Government issued
a standing invitation on 24 July 2002 to all thematic special procedure mandate holders, and
it awaits a positive response to its request to visit.
3.
Disposition
81.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Olivier Vandecasteele, being in contravention of articles 2, 3,
5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2, 7, 9, 10,
14, 15 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and
falls within categories I, III and V.
82.
The Working Group requests the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to take
the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Mr. Vandecasteele without delay and bring it
into conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
83.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to accord Mr. Vandecasteele an enforceable right to
compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law.
84.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Mr. Vandecasteele and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the
violation of his rights.
85.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers
the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the
Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest
attainable standard of physical and mental health and the Special Rapporteur on the situation
of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, for appropriate action.
42 Opinions No. 18/2013, No. 28/2013, No. 52/2013, No. 55/2013, No. 16/2015, No. 44/2015,
No. 1/2016, No. 2/2016, No. 25/2016, No. 28/2016, No. 50/2016, No. 7/2017, No. 9/2017,
No. 48/2017, No. 49/2017, No. 92/2017, No. 19/2018, No. 52/2018, No. 83/2018, No. 32/2019 and
No. 33/2019.
43 A/HRC/13/42, para. 30. See also opinions No. 1/2011, para. 21; No. 37/2011, para. 15; No. 38/2011,
para. 16; No. 39/2011, para. 17; No. 4/2012, para. 26; No. 38/2012, para. 33; No. 47/2012, paras. 19
and 22; No. 50/2012, para. 27; No. 60/2012, para. 21; No. 9/2013, para. 40; No. 34/2013, paras. 31,
33 and 35; No. 35/2013, paras. 33, 35 and 37; No. 36/2013, paras. 32, 34 and 36; No. 48/2013,
para. 14; No. 22/2014, para. 25; No. 27/2014, para. 32; No. 34/2014, para. 34; No. 35/2014, para. 19;
No. 36/2014, para. 21; No. 44/2016, para. 37; No. 60/2016, para. 27; No. 32/2017, para. 40;
No. 33/2017, para. 102; No. 36/2017, para. 110; No. 51/2017, para. 57; and No. 56/2017, para. 72.
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/37
14
GE.23-18328
86.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
87.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests
the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up
to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to
Mr. Vandecasteele;
(b)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of
Mr. Vandecasteele’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(c)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of the Islamic Republic of Iran with its international
obligations in line with the present opinion;
(d)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
88.
The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may
have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and
whether further technical assistance is required, for example through a visit by the Working
Group.
89.
The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the above-
mentioned information within six months of the date of transmission of the present opinion.
However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up to the
opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action would
enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in
implementing its recommendations, as well as of any failure to take action.
90.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States
to cooperate with the Working Group and has requested them 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.44
[Adopted on 28 August 2023]
44 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.