Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1990, Publication: 77th ILC session (1990)

Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) - Iran (Islamic Republic of) (Ratification: 1964)

A Government representative stated that he would concentrate on describing the substantive measures taken by his Government to comply with the provisions of the Convention. While many of the points raised by the Committee of Experts were of a sensitive nature, he informed the Committee that they had now been discussed at the highest government level in his country. Drawing the attention of the present Committee to two reports prepared by the UN Commission on Human Rights (UN documents A/44/620 of 2 November 1989 and E/CN. 4/1990/24 of 12 February 1990), he stated that they contained examples of recent positive developments in the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran. These included a directive of January 1989 setting out official government policy on minority groups mentioned in the report with regard to Article 4 of the Convention. One practical result had been that 500 individals concerned had participated in the university entrance examinations. The directive had been brought to the attention of the relevant conciliation and arbitration bodies dealing with labour relations disputes. Despite the Government's preoccupation with international developments and the difficulties posed by the country's "no war, no peace" situation, another significant development had been the introduction of the first five-year national development plan. This plan was already operational and had been endorsed by legislation. The overall directives and policies of the plan were aimed at ensuring social justice and judicial security. This meant strengthening existing provisions and practice to ensure equality of all before the law as well as "the enforcement of justice and the protection of legitimate individual and social rights". The plan also specifically referred to "further participation of women in the social, cultural, educational and economic affairs...". The Government representative considered that this information should be sufficient to convince the present Committee of the Government's good faith in wishing to comply with the Convention and looked forward to constructive co-operation and dialogue within this Committee. While more detailed technical clarifications had been prepared and could be supplied if so re quested, he considered that these should be left for the detailed response in the Government's annual report on the application of the Convention, in accordance with normal procedures.

The Employers' members recalled that this Committee had often over the past years had to deal with the application of this Convention by Iran; for the first time in many years, there now appeared to be some shift in the Government's position. Some progress was reflected in the UN report quoted by the Committee of Experts; other points remained unchanged. The most important point concerned the treatment of the members of the Baha'i sect, freemasons and religious minorities. According to the UN report, these minorities were still excluded from the civil service and agricultral co-operatives. Many former civil servants among these minorities were still denied their pension rights. At the same time the Government had stated that members of these minorities had been able since 1988 to attend both primary and secondary schools but not yet universities, but that now more than 500 persons previously discriminated against had been allowed to take university entrance examinations. There appeared to be further change here which was to be noted with interest. It had also been stated that former shopkeepers had been allowed to reopen their shops and that under an agreement between the Prime Minister and the President, nobody henceforth could be divested of his rights, including social rights, unless classified as a spy by the competent authorities. Thus, there appeared to be a formal procedure under which no longer every Baha'i was a priori considered a spy. The Committee of Experts had asked about the practical application of the new rules; some details had now been given concerning the universities, and the Employers' members wished to be given more recent facts also on the other points. Actual practice was always the key to observance or violation of the Convention. One question was how the said agreement between the Prime Minister and the President affected persons not professing any religious faith, who were not mentioned here. The Employers' members agreed with the Committee of Experts that it was important for the Government to communicate the text which was supposed to have repealed the directive of 8 December 1981 requiring courts never to issue judgements in favour of practising members of the Baha'i group who had been dismissed. The statement of the Government representative seemed to refer to this text, which needed to be supplied for consideration by the Committee of Experts. The Employers' members also supported compensation for those who had been discriminated against in the past. A further point which required classification was the question of eligibility for workers' councils, as here again it seemed that there was discrimination on the basis of religion. All these points had been discussed by the present Committee many times. However, the information communicated by the Government representative seemed to intimate that at long last change was taking place for the first time in many years and that the long-lasting stalemate would seem to be coming to an end. The Employers' members would never accept that people should be globally discriminated against for belonging to a religious community without any regard to the individuals concerned. They hoped this violation of the Convention would now come to an end. Much remained to be done; the Employers' members were prepared to be patient, but further progress needed to be seen. They hoped that the Government would submit a detailed report and that substantially greater change could be noted next year.

The Workers' members considered the case under discussion to be one of the most serious cases to ever come before this Committee. They were fully aware that many difficulties in the application of the provisions of the Convention had been aggravated by the aftermath of revolution and war. Despite this situation, the Government representative had managed to show that positive progress had been made in aligning legislative provisions with the Convention. The Workers' members agreed that the United Nations report had contained many positive elements. While agreeing with the Employers' members that practical implementation was essential, the first hurdle was to bring the country's laws into conformity with the Convention. The Government representative had indicated that he had submitted the full report made by the UN to this Committee and was also submitting further legislation to the Committee of Experts. The legislation seemed promising and they hoped that the Committee of Experts would find that the provisions were in conformity with the Convention and would report back to the present Committee along these lines next year. The Workers' members agreed with the Employers' members that signs of progress could be seen and also agreed on the need for the texts mentioned by the Government representative to be examined by the Committee of Experts. If progress was confirmed by such an examination, the present Committee might at last be able to close the case.

A Workers' members of Liberia was pleased to note that the night sittings of past years had been replaced by a new positive approach based on genuine dialogue.

A Workers' member of France was pleased to see the changed attitude of the Government representative in his approach and in the replies that were being given. He felt that the Committee would respond positively to the Government representative's appeal for it to take a realistic and constructive approach to the situation in his country. He asked the Government representative for supplementary information on two key points mentioned in the report of the Committee of Experts. First, there was the question of whether or not workers could now stand for election to the Islamic Labour Councils irrespective of religious belief or cultural background, so that the sole qualification needed for being a candidate was that of being a "wage earner". Secondly, he would like to have more details on provisions authorising the appointment of women not only as judges and in the civil service but also in all other economic sectors.

A Government member of the United States acknowledged that the statement of the Government representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran indicated some improvements and in particular a more co-operative attitude. This had been one of the most difficult cases ever examined by the present Committee. It had been discussed every year since 1983 and during five of those years Iran had been cited in a special paragraph, four times for continuing to implement this Convention. While it was clear that there was a long way to go in both law and practice, it was also clear that proper dialogue had been established.

The Government representative appreciated the understanding shown by this Committee. He noted the various points that had been raised for further information and stated his willingness to provide supplementary details. The speaker pointed out that under article 13 of the Iranian Constitution all Iranian citizens were free in personal matters to act in conformity with their own religious beliefs and that this also included those persons not professing any faith. This was also quite clear under the 1989 directive. In this connection, a government survey showed that no claims of religious discrimination had been received by any conciliation or arbitration board. As to the questions raised by the Workers' member of France, he stated that women were not only entering the civil service but also a whole range of other occupations and professions. At present at least 52 women were employed in the judiciary of his country. Equality of opportunity and treatment was also reflected in the legislative measures being taken. As for the Islamic Labour Councils, he stressed that these Councils dealt primarily with welfare rather than employment conditions and that their function was to advise on such matters as training, promotions, wage rates and the allocation of housing. They were all tripartite bodies that had been constituted with the full participation of the workers. He questioned whether the eligibility of candidates for election to such Councils came within the scope of this Convention.

A Workers' member of Pakistan appreciated that Iran was going through a very difficult period of transition. However, he agreed that there had been some very positive developments including women's participation in all walks of life, the protection of individuals' social rights and the assurances that had now been given by the Government representative in relation ot the protection of minority groups.

A Workers' member of France repeated his request for more detailed explanations concerning discrimination permitted under section 2 of the 1985 Act on Islamic Labour Councils as regarded workers not practising any of the faiths mentioned under this section, and he hoped that this question would be reflected in the conclusions.

Both the Employers' and Workers' members felt that there were difficulties in discussing detailed questions relating to the five year development plan which contained some new fundamental principles of law, without having those texts in front of the Committee. They agreed that the correct course was to have these documents submitted to the Committee of Experts for examination. Precise questions could then be put to the Government representative of Iran in 1991.

The Committee noted with interest the information supplied by the Government. It welcomed the constructive attitude of the Government representative which had enabled a dialogue to take place within the Committee in accordance with the true spirit of the ILO. The Committee also noted the developments which had been mentioned and that further improvements seemed to be called for. It expressed the firm hope, based on the progress mentioned, that the Government would be in a position to report further positive developments and to provide the texts of measures that had been taken as well as those which were under consideration.