Do Iranian Elections Conform to International Standards?

 

Iran is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, one of 169 state parties that have formally committed to uphold the terms of the treaty, which includes respecting citizens’ right to vote and be elected, as well as protecting their civil and political rights. 

With reference to electoral rights, Article 25 of the covenant reads: 

Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions...and without unreasonable restrictions:

(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;

(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;

(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.

 

So does Iran carry out its obligations as a signatory to this covenant? Are elections in Iran free and fair as defined by this document?

I spoke to Hossein Raeesi, a lawyer and human rights activist, about Iran and its international obligations when it comes to elections. Raeesi specializes in human rights law for women and children, and also has experience in other areas of the law, including civil, business, employment, property, and sharia law. He has worked on a range of controversial topics, including cases regarding the stoning of women, child executions, religious persecution, and discrimination. He currently lives and teaches in Canada, but maintains an active practice in Shiraz, Iran. 

 

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) lays out the standards for free elections in UN member countries very clearly. From a legal and human rights point of view, how helpful is this document?

Article 25 of the covenant is very clear about the basic standards for free elections. This article articulates two inalienable rights. The first is the recognition of the right of political participation as a civil right for all citizens, without discrimination. The second is the necessity of guaranteeing the right of political and civil participation as a basic right and as a human right.

This article clearly states that citizens have the right to elect and be elected, directly or indirectly and without discrimination, in all electoral arenas. This international covenant commits all governments to observe all its provisions. The previous Iranian government joined this international covenant a year after its passage without reservations or conditions and consequently became committed to observing its provisions.

Do you mean that since Iran joined this international covenant under the previous [shah’s] government, now that the regime has changed and Iran is an Islamic republic, the country is free of its obligations?

No. The government of Iran must observe the principles of this document and other documents like it, including Article 25. The Iranian government can in no way refuse to adhere to them because, based on the principle of the immutability of the legal personality of states, the state is not changed by a revolution or a change in the political regime. The new government inherits the obligations of the previous government. So the Iranian government cannot say that since such an agreement was signed by a previous regime that it will not adhere to its principles because it does not agree with that previous regime. So the Islamic Republic government’s refusal, since the victory of the revolution, to abide by the provisions of this document and the principles embodied in it is a violation of human rights, ignores citizens’ rights and is wrong from a legal point of view.

Iran’s own laws agree that the government must adhere to the provisions of international documents that it has accepted. Article 9 of the Civil Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran clearly states:“Treaty stipulations which have been, in accordance with the Constitutional Law, concluded between the Iranian government and other governments, shall have the force of law.” So international covenants that the Iranian government has joined or will join work like domestic laws. Adhering to its provisions is obligatory for the government, and for everybody else.

This article is included in the preamble of Iran’s civil code. It was passed before the revolution and it was not changed after the revolution. This part of the civil code, including Article 9, specifies how all laws must be implemented. So based on this article, Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is considered a domestic law and must be implemented.

Also, no new law can be passed that is contrary to a general principle or to the obligations that the government has accepted. A new law can abolish an old law, but a new law cannot explicitly or implicitly violate the international commitments of the previous government and the associated documents. As I said, not only this has not happened [after the revolution] but Article 9 of the Civil Code has remained as it was.

Has the Iranian government ever tried to withdraw from this commitment or this international covenant?

Not only has the government of Iran not announced that it wants to withdraw from the covenant — of course, as I mentioned earlier, governments cannot withdraw from this international covenant because of the immutability of states’ legal personalities — but it acts according to some parts of this international document that might be contrary to the interest of the Iranian regime. For example, Iran submits annual reports to the United Nations and hence it is accepted as part of this international community.

Iran has signed the UN Charter. Adherence to this charter requires Iran to observe certain commitments, including observing provisions of international covenants. So Iran must adhere to international documents such as Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights — meaning that it is not permitted to limit the civil rights of its citizens, both those people who are elected and those who elect. Article 6 of the Iranian constitution confirms this principle, and states: “In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the affairs of the country must be administered on the basis of public opinion expressed by the means of elections.” So, altogether, the Iranian constitution is in accord with this international covenant.

But certain provisions of the Iranian constitution clearly contravene this international covenant. For example, Article 115 clearly states that the president must be a statesman who believes in “the fundamental principles of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the official religion of the country,” among other conditions. This does not agree with the international covenant.

You are absolutely right. Unfortunately when we get to the chapter on executive power, we find out that that it limits the application of Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The use of the term “statesman” and the last provision of Article 115 that says the president must believe in “the fundamental principles of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the official religion of the country” is totally contrary to this covenant. Article 115 denies women the right to be presidential candidates. Of course, the Guardian Council has yet to issue an official interpretation of this part of the article, but I believe that in this legal context, the plural term “statesmen” does not refer only to men, because in legal and political texts the term means “personality,” be it a man or a woman. So the Guardian Council has been wrong in not allowing women to run as presidential candidates.

Through this action, the Guardian Council has clearly denied the rights of half of Iranian citizens. The same provision also disqualifies secular citizens from being elected. It also grades [religious] believers and only accepts those who belong to the official religion of the country, meaning Twelver Shi’a Muslims. As a result, other Muslims, such as Sunnis or Sufis, or other Shias who are not Twelvers, are not qualified to be elected. And non-Muslims, whether they are recognized by the constitution, such as Jews, Zoroastrians and Christians, or not, such as Baha’is, are automatically denied their civil right of being able to be elected.

Beyond Article 115 of the constitution, Article 35 of the Presidential Election Law makes the same point about electors and the elected. Therefore, both the constitution and the Presidential Election Law have imposed limits on the rights specified in Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These limits make it possible to strip various groups of citizens of their rights.

So Article 115 of the constitution and Article 35 of the Presidential Election Law contravene the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. But do they agree with Iranian laws?

These articles violate the equality of citizens and are contrary to Articles 19 and 20 of the Iranian constitution. Article 19 states: “All people of Iran, whatever the ethnic group or tribe to which they belong, enjoy equal rights; and color, race, language, and the like do not bestow any privilege.” But Article 115 classifies citizens, bestows the highest rank on Twelver Shia citizens, and denies other citizens their rights.

How do you assess the role of the Guardian Council and its power of “supervisory approval?” Does it help limit Iran’s adherence to this international covenant?

The constitution gives the Guardian Council the power to interpret the constitution. But the Council has interpreted Article 99 of the constitution to mean changing laws and passing new legislation, not interpreting the law, because here they have not heeded the basic assumptions of interpretation. According to legal literature, interpretation must closely address the subject of interpretation. The power of supervisory approval, supervising all stages of the elections and the power to nullify an election without the possibility of appeal by the individual who has been stripped of his right — these are interpretations that are unjustifiably too far removed from the letter of the law. As a result, whether through the interpretation and the implementation of the law or through legislation, the Islamic Republic has limited or removed the guarantees for enforcing Article 25 of the international covenant.

Then, even though Iran has accepted these obligations, it does not practice them? And there are no international guarantees to enforce them?

The United Nations uses legal mechanisms including enforcement guarantees for international documents that establish obligations, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Special rapporteurs and their reports on human rights cases inform people about how the Islamic Republic denies its citizens equal rights when it comes to running as candidates for elections, including presidential elections.

The role of each of the member countries of the United Nations is evaluated based on how much they adhere to internationally accepted documents. As we have seen, a legal analysis would clearly show that Iranian electoral laws fail in this regard. These laws and the processes by which they are implemented deny equal rights to citizens. In a way, repeated condemnations of Iran and the characterization of Iran as a violator of human rights on the international stage work as enforcement guarantees because they shame the government for violating human rights and discrimination.

All these violations are reported to the UN. But are there enforceable international guarantees to change this process and to arrive at a sound electoral process in Iran?

Even though remedies, including invalidating elections, punishments or imposing fines, are not practiced in an international context, this does not mean that there are no guarantees. It is important to note that the international community, including the United Nations, has concluded that Iranian elections do not conform to standards for free and fair elections. This is one of the most important enforcement guarantees because, in international practice, reports sent to the UN enjoy international attention. Also, the relations between countries that feel more obligated to adhere to the principles of human rights and other countries depends on how well these countries follow the same international standards. It depends on how faithful these countries are to international laws and to human rights, how democratic they are or how much they tend toward dictatorship.

These factors decide the standing of a country within the international community. For example, if a country ranks low, it might lose foreign investment or be shut out from making deals with foreign countries, or it might become more difficult for the country to conduct business abroad. Also, depending on the reports that the UN receives, the UN might ask a government to change specific laws. It might ask member states to enforce restrictions on Iran because Iran has failed to adhere to the principles of human rights, including guaranteeing sound elections and the right of the people to freely participate in elections, especially where the candidates are involved.

To take on certain positions at the United Nations and its agencies, a country requires the votes of its member states. Usually countries that are known to be violators of human rights have less chance of occupying such positions. In today’s world, a country’s international reputation is based on its adherence to human rights and how free and sound its elections are.

To conclude, one can say that the most important thing about Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is that it requires guarantees that sound elections take place, and that people are equally entitled to be elected. Any shortcoming in this regard, including the shortcomings that I mentioned above, creates serious doubts about the legitimacy of the regime and the government. These doubts raise the prospect of the government being regarded as illegitimate, first in the eyes of its own citizens and then in the eyes of the citizens of the world. This is bound to damage the legitimacy of the people who run the country. Doubts about the legitimacy of the government and about the regime’s institutions among a country’s citizens is a product of failing to adhere to the standards of Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Therefore, in many ways, how the citizens view their own rulers is also an enforcement mechanism for international human rights documents.