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.25-15053 (E) 051125 051125
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 103rd session, 25–29 August 2025
Opinion No. 48/2025 concerning Cécile Kohler and Jacques Paris
(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 4 March 2025 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran a communication concerning
Cécile Kohler and Jacques Paris. The Government replied to the communication on 3 June
2025. 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
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/48
General Assembly
Distr.: General
6 November 2025
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/48
2
GE.25-15053
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Cécile Kohler is a national of France, born on 25 September 1984. She is a teacher of
modern literature at a high school in Carrières-sur-Seine, Yvelines, France. She is also a
member of the trade union Force Ouvrière. Her address of residence is in Nantes, France.
5.
Jacques Paris is a national of France, born on 7 June 1953. He is a former teacher of
mathematics, retired in 2018. He is also a member of the trade union Force Ouvrière, in the
retired workers’ section, where he does not hold any positions of responsibility. His address
of residence is in Nantes, France.
(i)
Arrest and detention
6.
The source submits that Ms. Kohler had always wanted to visit the Islamic Republic
of Iran for its culture. To this end, she and her partner, Mr. Paris, organized a trip to the
Islamic Republic of Iran from 28 April to 8 May 2022, during the school vacation period in
France. During their trip, Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris visited various regions of the Islamic
Republic of Iran and followed a classic tourist itinerary. They visited the Azadi Tower in
Tehran, the Shah’s Palace, Isfahan and the Kashan bazaar. Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris travelled
on tourist visas.
7.
While Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris regularly sent photos of their sightseeing tour on the
family WhatsApp group, from 7 May 2022 the family received no further news. Ms. Kohler’s
disappearance was reported by her colleagues when she did not return to work on 10 May
2022.
8.
The exact circumstances surrounding the arrest of Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris remain
uncertain, as they could not be confirmed during consular visits or telephone calls. It is
assumed that Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris were arrested on their way to the airport in Tehran
on 7 or 8 May 2022 from where they were supposed to take a return flight to France. The
forces thought to be responsible for their arrest would be, according to the source, officials
from the Ministry of Intelligence of the Islamic Republic of Iran. No arrest warrant has been
communicated to Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris, their family or the French authorities. Similarly,
no information was provided regarding legal grounds for the arrest, including the relevant
legislation.
9.
The source notes that the Ambassador of France based in the Islamic Republic of Iran
is not allowed to ask questions regarding the ongoing legal proceedings of Ms. Kohler and
Mr. Paris.
10.
On 11 May 2022, the announcement of the arrest of Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris was
broadcast by the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence. 2 According to Iranian television,
Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris were initially charged with “espionage” and “collusion to
undermine national security”.
11.
On the same day, 11 May 2022, the French authorities informed the family of
Ms. Kohler of her incarceration. The family of Mr. Paris was notified on 12 May 2022.
12.
The Iranian authorities have reportedly accused Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris of meeting
with and training members of Iranian trade unions during their trip, taking part in trade union
meetings, and filming and photographing areas around Natanz, which the Iranian authorities
consider to be an Iranian-controlled zone.3
13.
However, subsequently, the authorities, in response to proceedings before the
International Labour Organization, stated that Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris had been arrested
2 Press release from an official of the Islamic Republic Islamic of Iran, available at:
https://www.irna.ir/news/84748853/.
3 With regard to Ms. Kohler, see International Labour Organization, Report of the Committee on
Freedom of Association, document GB.348/INS/4, para. 286.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/48
GE.25-15053
3
and were now being prosecuted, for assembly and collusion with the intention of committing
a crime against the security of the State.4 No mention of espionage charges has been made.
14.
Since their arrest, Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris have been held in section 209 of Evin
prison, controlled by the Ministry of Intelligence. The source notes that usually prisoners are
held in this section only temporarily. The source further reports that, according to the
response sent by the Iranian authorities to the International Labour Organization,5 Ms. Kohler
and Mr. Paris have been remanded in custody in accordance with an order issued by an
investigating judge of the Tehran Public Prosecutor’s Office.
15.
On 17 May 2022, a video edit was broadcast by Iranian television, showing that
Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris had been followed by agents of Iranian intelligence services from
their arrival on Iranian territory. Surveillance camera footage broadcast by the Iranian
authorities showed that Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris had met with people described as “trade
unionists”, which was produced with the help of the Iranian authorities. 6 Neither the
authenticity nor the veracity of the video could be verified.
16.
The source submits that Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris did not travel to the Islamic
Republic of Iran as a result of or in connection with their trade union activities. It notes that
the only two sources available on these meetings with alleged “trade unionists” are Iranian
sources. It is therefore impossible to confirm with whom Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris met and
which activities they undertook during their trip.
17.
On 6 July 2022, at a press conference in Tehran, the Iranian judicial spokesman
declared that Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris were accused of “association and collusion with the
aim of undermining State security”.
18.
On 6 October 2022, the Iranian State television broadcast a video entitled “Story of a
mission”, in which Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris “confessed”7 and described themselves as spies
and agents of the French State intelligence services. The source denies that this is the case.
19.
In its response to the proceedings before the International Labour Organization, the
Islamic Republic of Iran asserted that Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris had been arrested, and were
currently being prosecuted, for “collusion to undermine national security”. Charges of
espionage were no longer mentioned. Their “confessions” were therefore clearly extorted,
asserts the source, after three months in complete isolation. Furthermore, the source notes
that, for seven months, neither Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris, nor their families nor the
Government of France received any news from them in detention.
20.
According to the source, Ms. Kohler was initially held in complete isolation for three
months. Similarly, Mr. Paris was held in isolation for the same period. Following this period
of solitary confinement, around August 2022, Ms. Kohler was transferred to a 9 m² cell,
which she shares with two other inmates. Mr. Paris was transferred to a cell with about five
other inmates.
21.
Both the cells that hold Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris are devoid of furniture, requiring
the detainees to sleep on the floor with only blankets. A Farsi-language television remains
switched on continuously within cells. Ms. Kohler’s and Mr. Paris’ cellmates change
frequently. Owing to the language barrier – none of their fellow inmates speak French or
English – Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris are unable to establish any meaningful social interaction.
Mr. Paris’ family sent him a book to learn Farsi and communicate with his cellmates.
However, this book was reportedly never delivered to him.
22.
Access to outdoors for both Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris is strictly limited to three times
per week, with each session lasting no more than 30 minutes. These outings are frequently
cancelled without explanation. Additionally, Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris are permitted to
shower only twice per week and must request access to toilet facilities, as they are not located
within their cells.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Video published by the Iranian media (FarsNews): https://farsnews.ir/media/14010227000384/.
7 Video broadcast by Iranian television: https://telewebion.com/episode/0x299ea3e?s=08.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/48
4
GE.25-15053
23.
At approximately 11 p.m. on 15 October 2022, the families of Ms. Kohler and
Mr. Paris were alerted by reports that heavy fire, gunshots and mortar explosions were
occurring at Evin prison. Neither their families nor the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs
received any immediate information regarding the safety of Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris. It was
only the following afternoon that the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, having gained
access to an Iranian press release, was able to inform the families that no foreign nationals
had been harmed. The incident reportedly resulted in 4 fatalities and 61 injured persons.
24.
Deprived of any communication, it was not until 18 December 2022 – after 7 months
and 11 days – that Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris were able to contact their families. The families
reportedly continue to face significant difficulties in sending them books, even though access
to reading material is essential for their mental well-being.
25.
Furthermore, despite having been detained for nearly three years, neither Ms. Kohler
nor Mr. Paris have been provided with a prison account, making it extremely challenging for
families to send financial support. The only available means of transferring funds is through
the French Embassy in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The families of Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris
have no way of verifying whether the money has ever reached them.
26.
According to the source, prisoners in the section holding Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris
are blindfolded during all movements within the facility. The conditions of detention that
Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris have endured and continue to endure are inhumane, constituting
treatment designed to break them both physically and psychologically.
27.
The source further reports that Ms. Kohler is only allowed to call her family about
once a month, while Mr. Paris is allowed to make calls once every two months. The first call
between Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris and their families occurred on 18 December 2022,
7 months and 11 days after their arrest. WhatsApp calls are brief, lasting between 5 and
10 minutes, of poor quality and frequently disconnected. As a result, the actual time for
conversation between Ms. Kohler, Mr. Paris and their families is minimal. The source
submits that the unusually brief duration of these calls, especially compared to other inmates,
who are permitted longer conversations, underscores a deliberate effort to isolate Ms. Kohler
and Mr. Paris from their families.
28.
During these videoconference calls, Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris are constantly
monitored and not free to express themselves. On at least one occasion, Ms. Kohler’s family
overheard someone dictating what she should say. Furthermore, the disclosure of any
information regarding their conditions of detention is strictly prohibited.
29.
The source further submits that, following a press release issued by her family,
Ms. Kohler faced further pressure from the authorities, which reportedly indicated that the
family needed to send positive messages to the press if they wanted more calls.
30.
Since their arrest, Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris have been granted only three consular
visits to date. The French Embassy in Tehran was informed of their detention several days
after their arrest. Despite immediate and repeated requests, consular access was
systematically denied. It was only on 23 November 2022, 6 months and 16 days after their
arrest, that the French Ambassador was finally permitted to visit Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris.
This visit lasted less than 10 minutes. The two subsequent visits took place on 14 June 2023
and 18 February 2024, with each lasting between 15 and 20 minutes. All consular visits are
reportedly conducted under strict surveillance, monitored and recorded. As a result,
Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris are not free to speak with the French Ambassador.
31.
During the visit that took place on 18 February 2024, a translator was in the room
taking notes and two male security agents were stationed behind a screen, recording the
conversation. Furthermore, the scope of discussions with French Ambassador is severely
restricted. Despite the Ambassador’s objections, discussions regarding the substance of the
case, any aspect of the ongoing criminal proceedings, or the conditions of detention of
Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris are strictly prohibited. The only mention of detention conditions
occurred when the translator sought to emphasize the favourable treatment that Ms. Kohler
had reportedly received. The source notes that the ban on discussing the case file constitutes
a violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Since 18 February 2024, there
have been no additional consular visits.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/48
GE.25-15053
5
32.
The source further expresses serious concern about the health of Ms. Kohler and
Mr. Paris. It reports that for over one year Ms. Kohler was placed on sedatives and sleeping
pills daily, which resulted in her being in a lethargic state. During her first consular visit, it
became apparent that Ms. Kohler had been deprived of her glasses, despite suffering from
severe short-sightedness. She reportedly had access to only a single contact lens. The source
notes that not only did this prevent her from seeing properly, but that the detention conditions
– combined with restricted access to showers – were wholly unsuited to the hygienic use of
contact lenses. Although the Embassy of France was reportedly permitted to send her
corrective glasses, Ms. Kohler does not consistently wear them during her limited video calls
with her family, raising concerns about whether she has regular access to them.
33.
During initial telephone calls with his family, Mr. Paris complained of severe back
pain and digestive problems. It is unknown whether he received any medical care for these
conditions. In addition, during videoconference calls with his family, Mr. Paris does not
always wear his glasses, which he needs. During the latest call, Mr. Paris’s physical
appearance raised serious concerns about his physical and mental state.
34.
The source reiterates that the state of mental health of both Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris
is extremely worrying. Cut off from any regular communication with their families, from
books and writing materials and even from contact with people who speak French and/or
English, they seem to be totally under the control of the Iranian authorities. The source notes
that Ms. Kohler presented her detention conditions as pleasant to her relatives and the
Ambassador of France, yet she was also forced to confess on Iranian television and falsely
state that she was a French intelligence agent.
35.
With regard to the judicial proceedings, the source submits that the Ambassador of
France is prohibited from inquiring about the progress of the case or discussing it in any
capacity. Any attempt to do so risks the immediate restriction or termination of consular
visits.
36.
Furthermore, the source reports on the lack of access by Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris to
a lawyer. Between June and September 2022, the families of Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris hired
Iranian lawyers who were never able to contact their clients or gain access to their case files.
Furthermore, Ms. Kohler was also unable to reach these counsels.
37.
During the preliminary investigation phase, only lawyers accredited by the authorities,
and more specifically appointed by the presiding judge, were allowed to contact Ms. Kohler
and Mr. Paris. The source points out that the presiding judge has been accused by the
European Union of numerous human rights violations. The source submits that the presiding
judge, to whom Ms. Kohler was presented two or three times, has systematically denied her
the right to meet with her lawyers.
38.
During their detention, Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris have been subjected to multiple
interrogations. As a result of these interrogations, they were reportedly coerced into making
a public confession on Iranian television, falsely admitting to being agents of the
Directorate-General for External Security of France. The details of these interrogations,
including the methods employed by the Iranian authorities, remain unknown.
39.
On 12 September 2023, the Spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice announced the
closure of the investigation. On 5 November 2024, the Iranian judicial authorities announced
to the press that the trial of Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris was scheduled for 24 November 2024.
However, the defendants were reportedly not informed of the scheduled trial date
communicated to the press by the authorities.
40.
On 24 November 2024, the hearing concerning Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris took place,
but the verdict has not yet been delivered. A final hearing was reportedly due to take place
within 30–45 days of 24 November 2024, but there was no specific date set. The judge has
reportedly promised to hand down an extremely severe sentence. The lawyers hired by the
families of Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris were denied access to the court hearing by the judge.
41.
At the date of the present communication, no additional information has been
communicated by the Iranian authorities to the French authorities, the families or the press.
Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris have been detained for almost three years without receiving a
judgment.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/48
6
GE.25-15053
(ii)
Legal analysis
42.
The source submits that the deprivation of liberty of Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris is
arbitrary and falls under categories I, II, III and V of the Working Group.
a.
Category I
43.
In relation to category I, the source submits that there is no legal basis for the arrest
and detention of Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris. It recalls that the authorities failed to produce a
warrant when they arrested Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris. It is also noted that both Ms. Kohler
and Mr. Paris have been incarcerated for more than two years without a trial and that no
verdict has been announced nearly three years after their arrest.
b.
Category II
44.
The source further submits that the deprivation of liberty of Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris
falls under category II of the Working Group. It recalls in this context that deprivation of
liberty is arbitrary under category II when it results from a violation of the exercise of
fundamental rights and freedoms, stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and the Covenant.
45.
The source submits that the arrest and detention of Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris are
directly linked to their trade union activities in France. They have been arrested and detained,
initially on charges of “espionage” and “collusion to undermine State security”, and later
solely on charges of “collusion”. The authorities have accused them of having met and trained
members of the Iranian trade unions.
46.
The source therefore submits that the arrest and detention of Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris
violate article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (freedom of opinion and
expression); article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (freedom of assembly
and association); and articles 18 (freedom of thought), 19 (freedom of expression) and
article 21 (freedom of assembly) of the Covenant.
c.
Category III
47.
The source alleges multiple violations of the right to fair trial that render the
deprivation of liberty of Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris arbitrary under category III.
48.
In this regard, the source recalls that Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris:
(a)
Have not been the subject of an arrest warrant issued by an independent and
impartial judicial authority;
(b)
Have not been brought before a judge during the two years of their detention;
(c)
Have been deprived of their right of access to a lawyer of their choice during
their arrest and detention;
(d)
Have been forbidden to contact their lawyers;
(e)
Did not have access to an impartial and independent tribunal;
(f)
Have not gone on trial within two years of their detention, and therefore their
cases have not been adjudicated within a reasonable time;
(g)
Have been pressured into making confessions;
(h)
Were subjected to charges so broad that it is impossible to know what they are
accused of.
d.
Category V
49.
The source recalls that a detention is arbitrary under category V when the deprivation
of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on the grounds of discrimination based
on national origin.
50.
It submits that, during telephone calls with their families, Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris
were used as intermediaries for the Iranian authorities to negotiate with the French
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/48
GE.25-15053
7
authorities. The source affirms that the authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran are
attempting to put pressure on the authorities in France and obtain political and diplomatic
favours through Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris.
51.
Furthermore, the source recalls that in its case law, the Working Group has repeatedly
found that the Islamic Republic of Iran has a practice of targeting foreign nationals for
detention. In this sense, the Working Group considers the detention of foreign nationals in
the Islamic Republic of Iran to be arbitrary.8
(b)
Response from the Government
52.
On 4 March 2025, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source to
the Government under its regular communication procedure. The Working Group requested
that the Government provide detailed information by 5 May 2025 about the current situation
of Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris. The Working Group also requested that the Government clarify
the legal provisions justifying their continued detention, as well as the compatibility of that
detention 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. Moreover, the
Working Group called upon the Government to ensure the physical and mental integrity of
Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris. The Government requested a one-month extension, which was
duly granted, and it submitted its response on 3 June 2025.
53.
In its reply, the Government asserts that Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris are members of the
intelligence services of a foreign country and that they used the cover of international labour
organizations to organize activities that were threatening to the security of the Islamic
Republic of Iran. It states that all of their rights have been respected and therefore their
detention is not arbitrary. It lists the various visits that it claims Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris
have had while in custody.
54.
Specifically, the Government alleges that Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris, alias Cheirlie
Swanm and Jacques Diricket, were members of the foreign intelligence service of a foreign
country who entered the country on a tourist visa and used the cover of international labour
organizations, in particular the International Labour Organization, to organize anti-security
and illegal actions.
55.
It is submitted that Mr. Paris has travelled to the Islamic Republic of Iran many times
on missions assigned by the relevant intelligence service and Ms. Kohler was on her first
mission from the aforementioned intelligence service to the Islamic Republic of Iran. These
two agents used the cover of the International Labour Organization and Education
International, the international teachers’ organization, during their presence in the Islamic
Republic of Iran. In implementing the plan of foreign governments to overthrow the
authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran in early 2022 (exactly, a few months before the
2022 riots), the above-mentioned individuals had put on their agenda measures related to the
convergence and organization of labour unions and trade unions for the purpose of illegal
and subversive actions against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
56.
In order to achieve their goals, these individuals had met with members of some
terrorist groups, being aware of their activities, as a result of which a large number of innocent
Iranians were harmed. According to the information available, those individuals were fully
aware of the activities and the stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by elements affiliated
with the aforementioned goals, and used them to achieve their goals.
57.
In pursuing their criminal activities, the individuals selected organizations and
individuals to communicate with, first, that lacked legal authorization for their activities and,
second, most of whose active members had convictions in the judicial system. The following
led to the arrest of the aforementioned individuals in April 2022 with judicial authorization
and with respect for human dignity: documented information regarding the payment of
significant sums of money to individuals with specific conditions and convictions in the
judicial system by the defendants in exchange for carrying out anti-security measures; the
sending of some members of organizations without legal authorization to France for 40-day
8 See opinions No. 28/2016, No. 7/2017, No. 49/2017 and No. 52/2018.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/48
8
GE.25-15053
training courses that were completely unrelated to union activities and worker empowerment;
and other available evidence indicating criminal actions that violated the criminal laws of the
Islamic Republic of Iran. The process of investigation into the allegations was initiated in
accordance with laws and regulations and, subsequently, hearings to investigate the
allegations were ordered by the competent judicial authority. It should be noted that fair trial
guarantees, including access to a lawyer (providing conditions for hiring two lawyers) and
access to an interpreter, have been taken into consideration.
58.
During the period of detention, the defendants, in addition to having the possibility of
regular contact with their families (via video call), have also met in person with the French
Ambassador and Deputy Ambassador to the Islamic Republic of Iran and with the former
Prime Minister of Iraq, now the Special Representative of the President of France.
59.
Given the circumstances of the defendants and their written and oral requests for a
private meeting with each other, this possibility has been provided to the defendants more
than three times with coordination with the judiciary. The defendants have two lawyers and
have regular contact and meetings with them. Their last meeting was on 4 March 2025. So
far, more than six court sessions have been held to hear the charges against the defendants in
the presence of lawyers and a certified interpreter.
60.
The defendants have met with the French Ambassador to the Islamic Republic of Iran
five times so far and expressed some of their needs, which have then been met. In addition,
at the request of the French authorities, some political figures from the region were allowed
to meet with the defendants on behalf of France and deliver gifts to the defendants.
61.
In addition to meeting in person and holding private meetings in the private space
previously specified, the defendants have regularly (about fifty times) contacted their families
in France by telephone and video call. At the request of the defendants, various books in
French have been provided for them to read. So far, each of the defendants has received and
read six books in French.
62.
The defendants regularly enjoy all the facilities and services necessary, including
proper healthcare and treatment, ventilation and access to television, the bathroom, a
refrigerator, their glasses and personal necessities, and can freely purchase and place regular
orders for items additional to their needs as covered in prison by paying expenses personally.
In addition, the defendants have been provided with sufficient money to meet their needs
within the prison.
63.
The physical and mental health of the defendants is regularly monitored and controlled
by competent doctors, free of charge, and at any time upon their request. Based on the
diagnosis and authorization of competent doctors, nutritional supplements and fortifying
medicines are provided to them.
64.
The Government provides meeting schedules for the individuals.
(c)
Additional comments from the source
65.
In its further comments, the source noted the urgency of the situation of Ms. Kohler
and Mr. Paris given the unpredictable security situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The
source refutes the Government’s claim that the detainees are agents of a foreign intelligence
agency, noting that they are both teachers by profession and that they entered the Islamic
Republic of Iran under their real identities as tourists to see the country.
66.
The source notes that the “confessions” that Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris made to being
intelligence agents were extracted after three months of isolation and cannot be considered
reliable. In addition, it argues that the Government’s allegations that Ms. Kohler and
Mr. Paris met with alleged members of terrorist groups are not substantiated, and that its
claims that they sent individuals from the Islamic Republic of Iran for training in France is
not supported by any evidence or substantiation.
67.
In relation to the visits while in detention, the source argues that there are inaccuracies
regarding the number and duration of visits and that some of the alleged visits never occurred.
It notes that those visits have been held under extremely restrictive conditions.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/48
GE.25-15053
9
68.
The source argues that Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris were never permitted access to the
Iranian lawyers of their choice, despite their families having retained those lawyers for them.
69.
In addition, the source reiterates its basis for arguing that the arrest and detention of
Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris are arbitrary under international human rights law.
2.
Discussion
70.
In determining whether the detention of Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris 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.9
(a)
Category I
71.
Under category I, the source submits that there is no legal basis for the arrest and
detention of Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris. It specifies that an arrest warrant was not presented
to them at the time of their arrest and that they have not been brought before a judge during
the two years of their detention. The Government states that they were arrested pursuant to
judicial authorization but does not specifically address the arguments concerning the arrest
warrant.
72.
Pursuant to article 9 (1) of the Covenant, no one is to be deprived of his or her liberty
except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established by law.
As the Working Group has previously stated, for deprivation of liberty to have a legal basis,
it is not sufficient that there is a law that may authorize the arrest. The authorities must invoke
that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case.10 This is typically done through
an arrest warrant or arrest order (or equivalent document).11
73.
The Working Group notes that the Government does not specifically respond to the
source’s claim regarding the lack of any warrant for the arrest of Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris.
It notes that the Government arrested them on the way to the airport on the day they were due
to depart, having been aware of their presence in the Islamic Republic of Iran over the
preceding days. Even according to the Government’s account, Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris were
engaged in the imputed conduct throughout their trip and not only as they made their way to
the airport. Consequently, this cannot be considered a situation of flagrante delicto, as the
Government had ample time to obtain an arrest warrant and present it to them. Considering
that the submissions establish that no arrest warrant was presented at the time of their arrest,
and in the absence of any explanation, the Working Group considers that a violation of article
9 (1) of the Covenant has been shown. On this basis, the Working Group finds that their arrest
violated article 9 of the Covenant, article 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.
74.
Furthermore, the source argues that Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris have not been brought
before a judge during the two years of their detention. In its response, the Government states
that they have had six court sessions during their detention.
75.
Article 9 (3) of the Covenant stipulates that anyone arrested or detained on a criminal
charge is to be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise
judicial power. Similarly, article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights addresses
the rights of an individual to challenge and seek remedy against violations of an individual’s
rights, including the right to a fair trial and due process, stating that everyone has the right to
an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental
rights granted to him or her by the constitution or by law.
9 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
10 Opinions No. 9/2019, para. 29; No. 46/2019, para. 51; and No. 59/2019, para. 46.
11 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 27; No. 3/2018, para. 43; and No. 30/2018, para. 39. In cases of arrests
made in flagrante delicto, the opportunity to obtain a warrant will typically not be available.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/48
10
GE.25-15053
76.
The Working Group has reviewed the materials provided by the source and the
Government. Although the source argues that Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris have not been
brought before a judge during the two years of their detention, the information provided is
unclear on this issue. For example, the source acknowledges that Ms. Kohler was presented
to the presiding judge two or three times and that a hearing concerning Ms. Kohler and
Mr. Paris took place, although their families were not allowed to attend. In the light of this
information, the Working Group is unable to determine whether a violation of the right to be
presented to a judge under, inter alia, article 9 (3) of the Covenant has been shown.
77.
In relation to the pretrial detention of Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris, the Working Group
recalls that, under article 9 (3) of the Covenant, pretrial detention should be an exception and
as short as possible, 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 particular case.12
78.
In the present case, no sufficient explanation has been provided by the Government
indicating that an individualized assessment of the need for pretrial detention was conducted.
Instead, it appears that detention was imposed automatically without consideration of
alternatives. In that connection, the Working Group notes that, whereas extensive materials
have been provided indicating that Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris are teachers by profession, the
Government has not provided any substantiation for its claims that they are serving as
intelligence officers. In that light, their detention appears to directly contradict the
Declaration against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations of 2021.
79.
Based on the foregoing, the Working Group considers that the deprivation of liberty
of Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris lacks a legal basis and is thus arbitrary, falling under category I.
(b)
Category II
80.
Under category II, the source argues that the detention of Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris
violates articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Covenant, as they were arrested and detained, initially
on charges of “espionage” and “collusion to undermine State security”, and later on charges
of “collusion”. The Government argues that these are in fact the bases for their arrest, which
would undermine the claim of category II arbitrary detention.
81.
The Working Group has closely assessed the allegations under category II. It recalls
that the source argues that the State has not provided detailed and substantiated information
indicating that the detainees engaged in any of the alleged behaviour, including organizing
training for labour organization officials. In fact, no such evidence at all has been placed
before the Working Group and instead the Working Group has received extensive materials
indicating that Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris are teachers by profession. On this basis, the
source’s submissions indicate that the espionage label is pretextual, as noted above in relation
to category I. Consequently, the source’s arguments do not provide a basis to find that there
has been a separate violation under category II, as they were not detained because of the
exercise of their rights but instead on a discriminatory basis as set out in relation to category V
below.
(c)
Category III
82.
The source submits that the present case falls within category III on the basis of
multiple violations of due process rights, including the lack of access of Ms. Kohler and
Mr. Paris to their chosen lawyers, overly lengthy proceedings, that they were pressured into
confessing and overly broad charges. The Government denies these allegations and argues
that the detainees’ rights have been respected during their arrest and detention.
83.
In relation to access to a lawyer, the Working Group recalls that all persons deprived
of their liberty have the right to legal assistance by a counsel of their choice at any time during
12 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38; and opinions No. 75/2021,
para. 49; and No. 63/2023, para. 81.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/48
GE.25-15053
11
their detention, including immediately after their apprehension. Such access is to be provided
without delay in the absence of exceptional reasons justifying a restriction on such access,13
as set out inter alia under 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant.14
84.
The Government has replied that Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris have had access to two
lawyers and met with them multiple times. However, the Working Group notes that the
Government does not address the source’s argument that Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris were not
able to engage the services of their preferred Iranian lawyers. Given that no justification has
been provided and given the source’s complaints about the lawyers that were assigned,
including the claim that they did not present relevant arguments, the Working Group
concludes that the right of access to a lawyer has been violated under article under 14 (3) (b)
of the Covenant.
85.
On the issue of the forced confession, the source argues that the three months of
solitary confinement, exacerbated by the lack of access to healthcare and materials in a
language the detainees could understand, led to the supposed confessions being recorded.
The Government denies these claims, without going into details.
86.
The Working Group notes that article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant provides that each
person charged with a crime has the right not to be compelled to testify against himself or
herself or to confess guilt. The Government has not responded to this specific allegation other
than saying that the confessions reflect reality. The Working Group considers that, in the
light of the submissions, the source has established that a further violation of the Covenant
was committed due to the pressure imposed on the detainees to confess to the charges against
them.
87.
In relation to their right to an impartial and independent tribunal, the source argues
that this was violated. The Working Group considers that the due process concerns have
already been dealt with in the preceding paragraphs.
88.
Concerning the delay in proceedings, the source argues that a two-year delay without
a judgment being rendered is excessive. The Government disputes that a violation has
occurred. The right to be tried within a reasonable time and without undue delay is one of the
fair trial guarantees embodied in articles 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and articles 9 (3) and 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant. Allegations of a violation of the right
to trial without undue delay must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Given that the situation
of Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris has still not been resolved after more than two years of protracted
proceedings and given that no sufficient explanation for the delays has been provided by the
Government, the Working Group considers that this allegation demonstrates a violation of
the due process rights of Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris under article 14 of the Covenant.
89.
In the light of the violations set out above, the Working Group concludes that the
breaches of the fair trial and due process rights of Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris are of such
gravity as to give their deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character, falling within category III.
(d)
Category V
90.
Under category V, the source submits that the arrest, detention and sentencing of
Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris constitutes part of a larger trend of intimidation and suppression of
foreign nationals. The source recalls that a detention is arbitrary under category V when the
deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on the grounds of
discrimination based on national origin. In its reply, the Government argues that they were
detained not because of discrimination but because they were found to be organizing
activities that threatened the security of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
13 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; Human
Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 35; A/HRC/45/16, paras. 50–55; and
A/HRC/48/55, para. 56. See also A/HRC/27/47, para. 13.
14 Opinion No. 32/2019, para. 42. See also opinions No. 47/2017, para. 28; and No. 52/2018,
para. 79 (j). See further E/CN.4/2004/3/Add.3, para. 33.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/48
12
GE.25-15053
91.
The Working Group has consistently found such discrimination when it is apparent
that persons have been deprived of their liberty specifically on the basis of protected
characteristics,15 which can include national origin or nationality. In relation to the Islamic
Republic of Iran, in its previous jurisprudence the Working Group has identified a practice
of arbitrarily detaining persons who are foreign nationals, 16 dual nationals17 and Iranian
nationals with permanent residence in another country.18 The Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran also recognized this pattern, noting
that current estimates suggested that at least 30 foreign and dual nationals, as well as Iranians
with permanent residency in another country, had been imprisoned since 2015.19 The present
case is consistent with this pattern.
92.
Given that there is a pattern of detentions in the Islamic Republic of Iran of foreign
nationals, which the Working Group has had to address repeatedly, and given that the
Government has not substantiated its claims that Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris were foreign
intelligence agents with detailed and substantiated information, the Working Group considers
that their detention did amount to discrimination. Their deprivation of liberty violates the
right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law under articles 2 and 7 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant and was
arbitrary under category V.20
(e)
Concluding remarks
93.
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.21 The
Working Group is concerned that this might indicate a widespread or systemic practice of
arbitrary detention in the country. The Working Group underlines that States have the
obligation not to engage in acts that could constitute crimes against humanity and to prevent
and punish them if they are committed. 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.
94.
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 awaits a positive response to its request to visit.
3.
Disposition
95.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Cécile Kohler and Jacques Paris, being in contravention
of articles 2, 3, 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
15 A/HRC/36/37, para. 48.
16 See opinions No. 28/2013, No. 50/2016, No. 52/2018 and No. 51/2019.
17 See opinions No. 18/2013, No. 44/2015, No. 28/2016, No. 7/2017, No. 49/2017, No. 27/2021 and
No. 85/2021.
18 See opinions No. 92/2017, No. 32/2019 and No. 29/2021.
19 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 and 57.
20 See 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.
21 See, for example, 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, No. 33/2019, No. 20/2022, No. 46/2022, No. 54/2022, No. 82/2022, No. 21/2023,
No. 37/2023 and No. 53/2024.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/48
GE.25-15053
13
articles 2, 9, 14 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is
arbitrary and falls within categories I, III and V.
96.
The Working Group requests the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to take
the steps necessary to remedy the situations of Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris without delay and
bring them 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.
97.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris immediately and
accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with
international law.
98.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the
violation of their rights.
99.
In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, 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.
100.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
101.
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 Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris have been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Ms. Kohler and
Mr. Paris;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of the rights of
Ms. Kohler and Mr. Paris, and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d)
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;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
102.
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.
103.
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.
104.
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.22
[Adopted on 26 August 2025]
22 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.