Before discussing the states in question, it is worth mentioning two examples of the latest human rights violations in Iran. In the examples discussed below, the Iranian government suspends human rights by breaching provisions of the Iranian constitution. The use of judicial and military methods like prolonged imprisonment, forced confessions and the utility of legislative techniques aimed at reducing women’s civil rights, all contravene Iranian constitutional guarantees. According to unofficial statistics, there are more than 1000 political prisoners in Iran.[3] In contravention of article 37 of the Iranian constitution, political prisoners are often first tortured and then forced to confess. [4] One of the numerous female human rights activists in Iran, Bahareh Hedayat, received 16 charges for participating in a peaceful march. The charges vary from “Propagation against and blackwashing of the regime,” “Active participation in gatherings after the elections,” “Interviews with and news propagation to foreign press,” “Insulting the Leader,” “Insulting the President,” and “Mutiny and congregation and actions against national security”[5]. These charges are all in contravention of the freedom of assembly and association, and freedom of the press constitutional guarantees in the Iranian constitution (articles 24-27). The Iranian government’s denial of human rights also involves the tabling of legislation that severely undermines women’s civil rights.

A bill was proposed this month in the Iranian government which would give men the right to take additional wives without requiring the wife’s permission, as under current laws. The law would also impose restrictions on alimony for women.[6] This is another manifestation of the Iranian government’s undermining of its own constitution. Article 3, 9 and 21 guarantee the status of women and the need for special protection as a way to advancing their status.[7] Contrary to these constitutional provisions, the bill in question aims to limit women’s civil rights and is thus anti-constitutional. Despite gross human rights abuses by the Iranian government, numerous states in the last Universal Periodic Review on Iran effectively denied such abuses by failing to discuss them.

Among the countries that abstained from criticizing Iran’s deplorable human rights record was Pakistan who commended the “high standards set out in the area of economic, social and cultural rights”.[8] Bahrain, Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Venezuela and Libya recognized Iran’s commitment to promoting economic, social and cultural rights and Nicaragua acknowledged the country’s compliance with “several human rights treaties”. Qatar, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, India and Syria noted the recent advances made by Iran in terms of the provision of welfare, education and the protection of refugee populations. Russia, Vietnam, Kuwait, Bangladesh and India abstained from criticizing and commended Iran’s progress, whether in combating illiteracy or in cooperating with international human rights bodies like the OHCHR.

While Iran’s trade partners maintain ambivalence towards the regime’s severe post-election crack-down, the remaining members of the delegation did not spare the opportunity to shame the Iranian government’s denial of human rights. Strong statements were made by Denmark, who expressed concern about the post-election crackdowns and cited reports of extrajudicial killings, rapes, torture and violations of the rights of freedom of assembly and expression, as well as thousands of arbitrary arrests. Chile was alarmed at the excessive use of force against demonstrators and expressed concern about the use of the death penalty. The remaining states were equally alarmed, expressing varying degrees of concern about the status of women and minorities, political prisoners, the treatment of detainees and Iran’s failure to comply with international human rights legislation. Given the gross human rights abuses, it is time international law proves its effectiveness as an enforcement mechanism for human rights. Clearly, the Iranian government has so far failed in enforcing its own constitutional provisions and has instead fixated itself  entirely on tightening its grip on power for as long as possible.

Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and as such is entitled to enrich uranium. The degree of enrichment is essential here. Low enriched uranium (LEO) is for use of fuel in an electricity generating plant. Medium enriched uranium is for production of medical isotopes, and more than 90 percent enrichment is for a bomb-grade fuel. Iran has so far manifested LEO at its Natanz nuclear plant. The latest UN report on Iran’s nuclear program however calls into question Iran’s compliance with the non-Proliferation Treaty. A recently disclosed facility built into a mountain near the city of Qom sparked the latest IAEA report, according to which the building of the facility began in 2002. In fact, the Iranian government refused to ratify the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, asserting that it is not obliged to disclose new sites to international inspectors until six months before introducing nuclear arsenal to them, a contention largely disputed by the IAEA and by Western powers. In addition, in a letter on Oct. 28th, Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization states that “”threats of military attacks against Iran” precipitated the construction of a network of “contingency centers for various organizations and activities.” A copy of the “Iran Six” resolution prepared for the October meeting indicates that Iran’s delay in reporting the new Qom facility “does not contribute to the building of confidence in Tehran’s nuclear capabilities.” The latest finding, according to the UN quarterly report on the Qom facility, suggests that Iran has built a nuclear program in contravention of its international nuclear obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty. In addition, the report also raises questions about whether there are other existing nuclear facilities in Iran.

The Islamic Republic has enriched uranium enough for up to two nuclear weapons. In accordance with the October 1st agreement, with the “Iran Six”, the Islamic Republic is to ship over 70% of its enriched uranium to Russia. In exchange, Iran is to receive fuel, to be used in a plant for medical research and the development of medical isotopes. Iran is yet to respond to its international nuclear obligations to swap its enriched uranium for fuel.

The IAEA Chief Mohamed ElBaradei urged Iran on Wednesday to endorse a plan that would reduce Iran’s enriched stockpile by over 70%. So far, his comments have been the strongest public denouncement of Iran’s attempt to modify the proposal. After Monday’s “Iran Six” meeting, the six world powers drafted a resolution to censure Iran on its latest nuclear facility and to involve the UN Security Council. However, would all six powers agree on the imposition of sanctions?

In the wake of the global economic crisis, both China and Russia have opted to maintain economic relations with Iran. In a recent meeting, China decide to continue cooperating with Iran in the field of hydrocarbons and trade. Russia is in the process of building a nuclear electricity-generating power plant near the Iranian city of Bushehr. These and other examples of economic cooperation suggest that China and Russia will not support sanctions on Iran. However, the latest grouping of China and Russia into the “Iran Six” countries represents a unified action which might make both countries more inclined to support a fourth set of Security Council measures.

The latest news on the development of the most recent IAEA resolution on Iran shows that the world powers have already begun a discussion on imposing new economic sanctions. Noncompliance with treaty provisions, combined with unified action from world powers might lead to an unprecedented headway in the enforcement of international law for the strengthening of peace and security.