Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1988, Publication: 75th ILC session (1988)

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

The Government has communicated the following information:

According to the Constitution of the ILO and the spirit of noninterference in the political affairs of independent member States, involvement in political affairs deviates from technical, professional and progressive objectives of the ILO. Unfortunately, the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, acting beyond its competence, has protected groups which plot to prejudice the national security and overthrow the legitimate and lawful Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This approach has led the members of the Committee of Experts to make unjust observations, which is unexpected from such an experienced and high-level legal body. This attitude is also partially followed in tripartite discussions at the Conference.

Laws and regulations in the Islamic Republic of Iran are compatible with the national Constitution, of which article 3, paragraphs 9 and 14 and articles 19, 20, 23 and 28 prohibit all forms of discrimination and are completly applied.

Also, article 173 of the Constitution provides that "in order to review appeals, complaints and grievances of people against authorities, public departments and rules, and to enjoy their rights, the Court of Administrative Justice is established under the auspices of the Supreme Judicial Council...". Fortunately, these bodies have been performing their duties successfully for years. Further, Article 174 provides that "based on the supervision right of the Judicial Power to ensure the proper performance and application of laws and regulations in the public administration sector, an organisation entitled the Organisation of Inspection of the Country is also organised under the auspices of the Supreme Judicial Council..." This Organisation has carried out its responsibilities since 1981. It will be noted that essential guarantees are thus provided to review the appeals, complaints and grievances of misguided groups such as the Bahai'is; cases have been considered, and complainants may, if they desire, appeal to the competent courts. Legal procedures recognised around the world require that the identify and other particularies of plaintifs bringing lawsuits to a court should be publicly known and that the defendant be informed of it before a case is determined. The anonymity of those who have referred their cases to the ILO makes those cases suspicious; reviewing such cases, even allowing preliminary examination of them by the Experts of the Committee, is far from expected. Notwithstanding the competence of national courts, these complaints have been appealed to the ILO; they are wholly motivated by policics.

The misguided group of Bahai'is not only patronised the former regime in Iran but also benefited from the oppression of elements within our nation during the beginning of the Islamic Revolution in 1963. It should be known that more than 15,000 Moslems were martyred and massacred in that revolt. Since then, this misguided group has collaborated and assisted in holding the anniversary ceremonies of 2,500 years of the notorious Imperial dynasty in Iran in 1971, during which billions of dollars were spent for ceremonies and festivities with the financial support of the Bahai'i group. These sums were spent despite the large population of disadvantaged persons living in rural areas of the country, who are deprived, for example, event of drinking water. In addition to propagating corruption and sedition in our country, this group has been directly involved in arresting, depressing and torturing revolutionaries and agents of the revolution. Further, they have been at the head of the ruling party of the former Iranian Government, a government which prejudiced the country's sovereign independence and, during the last days of the deposed regime in 1979, caused severe deterioration of the national economy by the illegal transfer abroad of hundreds of millions of dollars.

At the international level, this misguided group has had, from the beginning, illegitimate relationships with Great Britain; its founder was one of the obedient servants of the King of Britain, who granted him the title of "Sir".

An article of the Bahai'i group's constitution promotes relations with the regime occupying Palestine, as evidenced by a letter written by the Leader of the Group (Shoqi Afandi) to Ben Gurion (founder of Israel). Along with these developments, during the Arab-Israeli Wars, Bahai'i pilots intended to shell Arab positions. New documentary evidence indicates close and friendly relationships between the Bahai'i and the United States (great Satan). Current international assistance provided to this misguided group by arrogant world powers should not be ignored by the ILO.

Today, the above-mentioned group is a serious threat to Islam and Moslem people in all Islamic countries. Along with combating the atheistic group, the organisation of Islamic countries has called on the affiliated International Council for Islamic Theology to investigate the threat posed by Bahaism. Fortunately, this Council, in a recent session, adopted resolution (9) D4/8/88 on Condemnation of the Bahai'i Group.

The provisions of Convention No. 111, in particular Article 4, provide that measures taken against those who prejudice the security of the State ought not be regarded as discriminatory. The Bahai'i Group has so acted and is acting against the security of millions of Moslems. Unfortunately, the Committee of Experts has not carried out investigations of the nature of this group and has thus unintentionally supported their aims in a manner which is unexpected for such experienced experts. Before the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, arbitrary dismissals, employment terminations and actual discrimination during the ex-regime were considered fair by the Committee of Experts. Matters such as these raise questions about the Committee's activities.

At present, there are no restrictions applied to education in the Islamic Republic of Iran; all are entitled to a free education without any discrimination. In the Iranian system, through a system of divided powers, the principle of non-discrimination is enforced in all fields by the Court of Justice, as well as the Court of Administrative Justice and National Inspection Organisation.

Hasty decisions by the Committee of Experts (including some with a Western-bias), made in absentia and without a view of the conditions and practices in the Islamic Republic of Iran, will not resolve existing problems or help maintain justice in member countries.

On the other hand, the Islamic Teachings, the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran and other laws are founded on abolition of all forms of discrimination based on colour, race, sex, creed and on other material advantages.

In addition a Government representative expressed the opinion that the discussion on discrimination in employment and occupation in the present Committee had gone beyond the normal technical and legal grounds that otherwise formed the basis for discussion. He felt that the issue had originally been raised with political motives behind it which had made it difficult to engage in a normal dialogue. Nevertheless, he was prepared to engage in a debate on grounds of common understanding. He noted that the Committee of Experts' report had been drawn up on the basis of three major sources of reference, namely the Government's report on the application of the present Convention, the discussions held at the Conference Committee in 1987, and the Economic and Social Council report on the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, document A/42/C48. He felt that since a direct reference had been made to document A/42/C48 the Committee of Experts should have made direct reference also to the statements made by the Government to the same United Nations organs and which had been documented by them. Referring to the Committee of Experts' request that his Government should supply full particulars to the Conference Committee, he stated that this had been done through the written communication which was presently available. The speaker then turned to Section 3 of the Committee of Experts' report in which the Committee had requested the Government to provide copies of any statutory instruments concerning the exclusion of certain categories of persons from governmental organisations. In another section of the report, however, the Committee had considered that the general provisions of the laws and regulations of the country indicated clearly that the dismissal of certain persons from their posts in the public service and State controlled bodies was based on their adoption of and holding onto a certain faith. The Committee had then requested the Government to repeal all the statutory provisions which were inconsistent with the policy of non-discrimination. To the Speaker, it was not clear on what grounds the Committee of Experts had come to the conclusion that certain statutory provisions of the national laws were not consistent with the present Convention. For if the national legislation had been available to the Committee of Experts there would have been no point in requesting the Government to supply copies of other texts; and if these texts had not been available to the Committee of Experts its judgements have been passed in vacuum or on the basis of certain preoccupations. In the same part of the report reference had also been made to article 163, paragraph 1, of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran under which, according to the Committee of Experts, women were barred from serving as judges. The speaker informed the present Committee that there was no such stipulation in that article and that the text of the Constitution could be made immediately available. He added that in practice women were engaged in and pursued their occupations in the national juridical apparatus. Referring to Section 2 of the report according to which primary and secondary schools were gradually being opened to Baha'i children but that the latter were subject to pressure unless they renounced their faith, and that admission to universities or any other higher education establishment was prohibited to Baha'is, the Government representative affirmed that no primary or secondary, nor any other levels of training and education, had ever been closed to any children on the grounds of their holding to a certain opinion and that no measures of harassment based on religion had been or were intended to be taken by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Turning to Section 1 of the report, the Government representative stated that the directive of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs according to which "the courts were bound to withhold the issuance of any judgment in favour of dismissed employees whose membership of the "misguided Baha'i group" or the organisations whose constitution implied atheism had been ascertained", had been misunderstood by the Committee of Experts. In fact, following the victory of the Islamic Revolution, in a considerable number of productive undertakings certain persons mostly holding key positions had decided to leave their jobs. These resignations and arbitrary work stoppages had resulted in a difficult situation for the national economy and were later coupled with a large number of appeals to the conciliation and arbitration bodies claiming compensations under the pretext of dismissal from work. This had resulted in even more economic and political pressure against the newly established Government. Under these circumstances, the Ministry issued the said circular to ascertain that claims under the guise of appeal for the consideration of dismissal from work would not distract its affiliated organs from their work. He stressed that the right of appeal did exist in accordance with constitutional provisions as well as other international laws and regulations and that pertinent organs had been created and were available to all those who chose to petition to them. The decision to maintain ratification of the present Convention was made by the Islamic Republic of Iran once it was established that the Convention called for non-discrimination, which fell in line with the objectives and the text of the Constitution. He considered that the Committee of Experts' request to repeal the terms of the Constitution was therefore tantamount to undermining the basis upon which the decision to remain a party to the Convention was made and that the Committee was not legally or constitutionally in a position to decide or impose on governments to recognise certain groups as religions. In view of what was said, the report of the Committee of Experts is unsubstantiated as regards the compatibility of the present Convention with the national laws, regulations and practice. Nevertheless the criterion of his Government is to invite the Committee to create appropriate grounds for constructive dialogue; a proposal aiming at establishing direct dialogue with the Committee of Experts was accepted by his Government. The Government representative requested that the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran be removed from the special clause in the Report of the Committee.

The Worker member of the Islamic Republic of Iran described the useful contacts that he had had with other members of the Workers' group. With respect to the present Convention, in his opinion, the real situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran could only be tangibly realised by persons who could witness the actual events. In fact, there was no discrimination at all in the country. At present, Baha'i children were studying like others and Baha'i workers were working in factories and other workplaces. He stressed the readiness of the workers of the Islamic Republic of Iran to receive some members of the Workers' group to ascertain these facts. However, he explained his understanding for the Government's inability to officially declare any positive measures in relation to the Baha'is and the Freemasons' organisations since these groups, in the last 120 years, had committed innumerable acts of treason and crime. Under these circumstances, it was not easy to change the prevailing negative atmosphere in the country. This would be noted as one of the major difficulties facing the Government in connection with the present Committee's discussion.

The Employers' members recalled that this Committee was dealing with this question for the seventh consecutive time. Basically the Committee's questions were always the same and always based on the report of the Committee of Experts which guided all their discussions. The matter here concerned discrimination and employment, access to professions, training, and working conditions. Those who suffered from discrimination were the Baha'is, the Freemasons and the atheists. The Employers' members recognised that the Government had always accepted discussion but that is where the positive aspect of the matter stopped. The Government never gave the Committee any information beyond the statements made to date, particularly concerning the most discriminated group, the Baha'is. The Government had given different versions for its accusations against the Baha'is. First they accused them of being a political organisation then they said they were spies and finally that they only had to give up their religion for discrimination to cease. For the Government the Baha'is' friendly relations with the United States constituted proof of the danger that the Baha'i group represented. The Committee of Experts had repeatedly proved that this discrimination was on religious grounds and that the Baha'is lacked constitutional guarantees to defend themselves because the courts were bound by a decree of the Ministry of Labour. The same applied to Freemasons and atheists. There was no change in the statement of the Government representative of the Republic Islamic of Iran. Further, his arguments focused on the last part of the report of the Committee of Experts while the heart of the matter appeared at the beginning of it and concerned the discrimination against the Baha'is which had become a long-standing tradition with the consequence that they were also discriminated against in training. The Government representative corrected the statement concerning the access of women to the position of judge and claimed that the Constitution had been misquoted. This proved that some things could be clarified if they were made clear. The Committee's questions and conclusions had remained unchanged but unfortunately so did the answers of the Government. The Employers' members felt that one could talk reasonably to every man, but had the impression that this was not yet the case today. The continued stalemate made the discrimination all the more serious, and the Employers' members concerns were not the lesser for it.

The Workers' members stressed the principles of the Convention and the uncooperative approach of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Government has stated that it would do nothing, that it disregarded the Committee of Experts' conclusions, and the Conference Committee's views. The Government believed that its ideological values had precedence over the values professed by the Conventions and it regarded the information of the Committee as partial merely because it came from Western sources. Furthermore, as regards the ability to judge the conformity of Islamic legislation and practice with the Convention, the Government had argued that the Committee of Experts should have Islamic members. The Workers' members believed that this would result in arbitrary interpretations of international Conventions, and strongly rejected this idea. They recognised only one interpretation for International Labour Conventions, that issued by the ILO supervisory bodies. The present Convention had existed for 30 years, long enough to create a solid basis for its interpretation. One should accept it or reject it but not compromise over it. The Workers' members could not but disagree with the reiterated statements, that the Constitutions was entirely in line with the principles of the ILO Convention, and responded completely to the aspirations of the Iranian people. Discrimination against any group and on any grounds is inacceptable. In their view, it was clear that the present Convention was not applied either in legislation or in practice. They requested the Government representative to give a clear answer on three questions: would the Government recognise the contradiction between the Convention and national legislation and practice? Was the Government ready to change legislation and practice? If so, would the Government inform the Committee of Experts accordingly?

An adviser wished to add some brief comments with reference to the application of the present Convention. Before the Islamic Revolution, Baha'is, Freemasons and Zionists monopolised the issue of certificates for the establishment of industrial enterprises and dominated every sphere of public life, including banking and credits, government facilities and public services. After the revolution, all Iranian people regardless of their ethnic or social origin, had gained access to all public services and social and economic activities. He himself established a modern factory after the revolution and there were now hundreds of modern factories run by people who had formerly been discriminated against. Before the revolution many workers in Iranian factories had been fifth columnists, and had sabotaged the Iranian economy. Having gradually been identify by revolutionaries, the fifth columnists had to leave their jobs, and they chose to do so freely. Later they began lodging false complaints with the authorities. However, under article 34 of the Labour Code those who left their jobs freely were not entitled to any dismissal compensation from the employers. If the Committee compared the situation before and after the revolution, would is still interpret this as discrimination, taking account of the above facts? As an answer, he extended an invitation to some of the Committee members to come to his country and see for themselves how modern production units were operating with the cooperation of devoted revolutionary workers without any discrimination.

The Government representative stated that this debate, like many previous ones, mentioned the same concerns that the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran had clarified formally, technically, and substantively. He reminded the. Conference Committee that the Committee of Experts requested the Government to provide full details at the 75th Session, In the debate, he had presented a number of technical points and would have expected some logical and technical response, but the judgement that was passed here was unsubstantiated, in the same way as it was done in the report of the Committee of Experts. The comments of the Workers' members were also emotional and unsubstantiated and did not match the technical quality of his own arguments. He wondered how the Conference Committee could discuss the aspects of the phenomena without taking account of the factors that had led to its creation. He reiterated that in the view of his Government, the Committee passed generalised judgements and made vague requests for unspecified information. For example, how would the ILO react to a request of all the literature about employment? The same held for the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran when it was requested by the Committee of Experts to provide unspecified information. He asked the Committee to specify what information was requested from the Government. He wished to reply to the three specific questions asked by the Workers' members. To the first question he replied that there was no contradictions between national legislation and practice and Convention No. 111, because otherwise the Government would have denounced it. To the second question, he replied that the Constitution was the essence of the Iranian people, and that this notion stemmed from the very essence of Convention No. 111 itself, which was meant to be ratified by States according to their individual national laws and practice. In reply to the third question, he stated that a direct contact mission according to ILO terminology was unnecessary in his Government's view because it strongly believed that there was no difficulty in the application of the present Convention. If there had been any difficulty the government would follow ILO procedures, which included direct contacts but was not the case. All of the three replies had been the same before, and remained the same now. He reiterated the invitation by the Employers' member of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Workers' spokesman so that he could see for himself the real situation.

The Workers' members noted that they now had three clear negative replies. It was with great sadness, and great regret that they had to state that for the third time that there was continued failure to apply the Convention and that the Committee's conclusion should be the same as in 1986 and 1987. They nevertheless hoped for an understanding on this matter one day.

The Employers' members wished to make two comments. First, the speaker who claimed he was an Employers' member of the Islamic Republic of Iran was not an Employer member of the Committee, although the Employers' members knew that before he took the floor. Second, the Employers' members noted no change in the situation, so they entirely supported the Workers' members' view, and agreed to state that there was continued failure to apply the Convention and that the legislation and practice in the Islamic Republic of Iran were not in conformity with Convention No. 111.

The Worker representative of the USSR believed that the source of the misunderstanding might be the consideration of two different dimensions of the problem. He himself had a very confused idea of what Baha'is were, and admitted that he did not understand their role before or after the revolution in the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, he shared the views of the Vice- Chairman of the Workers' members that a Convention should be applied. In this case, nevertheless, the Committee should perhaps analyse the situation in greater detail, as the Islamic Republic of Iran was a very special, particular example that could not be compared to any other country as regards its legal system. Perhaps the Committee should establish a special study group that could examine this question, or ask the Committee of Experts to deal with this question in greater depth and provide the Conference Committee with precise definitions so as to enable it to carry out is next discussion in greater precision. In any case, the question required further thought and study.

The Government representative noted that his Government was still waiting for replies to the question asked in his introductory remarks. He wondered whether these questions had been heard at all. He thought that it would be best to ask the Committee of Experts, whose repeated allegations were based on unsubstantiated reports of discrimination, who were those groups that were being discriminated against, and how did the Committee of Experts define a minority group? As far as he knew, there was no such definition in any United Nations literature. He would welcome such a definition in future. In addition, the Government had communicated a sufficient number of documents in its first report to the Committee of Experts. He was surprised to infer from the discussion that those documents had probably not been read or reviewed. In his opinion, the conclusion of the Committee of Experts and of the Employers' and Workers' members was indeed a foregone conclusion.

The Employer member of the Islamic Republic of Iran wished to state that he had asked his adviser to take the floor on his behalf.

The Government representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran put on record his strong objection to the conclusions and the manner in which they were drawn up.

The Committee noted with regret that the written and oral explanations given by the Government had not shown any change in the situation. As in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987, the Committee again expressed its deep concern regarding the problems which continued to exist in connection with the application of the Convention. The Committee again emphasised that the Government should abolish discrimination, particularly discrimination based on sex, religion, political opinion, and national or social origin, since such discrimination contravened the Convention. The Committee decided to mention this case of continued failure to implement in the general part of its report.

The Government representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran put on record his strong objection to the conclusions and the manner in which they were drawn up.