Human Rights Council Hears Alarming Updates On Executions In Iran And Global Civic Space Crackdown
At least 975 people were executed in Iran in 2024, the highest number reported since 2015, according to a report Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, Nada Al-Nashif, presented to the Geneva-based Council on Wednesday.
Of the total executions, just over half were for drug-related offenses, 43 per cent for murder, two per cent for sexual offenses, and three per cent for security-related charges. At least four executions were carried out publicly.
'These cases are marked by serious allegations of torture and due process violations, including lack of access to a lawyer,' said Ms. Al-Nashif.
Violence and discrimination against women
At least 31 women were reportedly executed in Iran last year, up from 22 in 2023. Of the 19 women executed for murder, nine had been convicted of killing their husbands in cases involving domestic violence or forced or child marriage, areas in which Iranian women have no legal protections.
Some executions were reportedly linked to protests that began in September 2022 under the banner 'Women, Life, and Freedom.'
Beyond executions, femicide cases surged, with 179 reported in 2024 compared to 55 the year before. Many stemmed from so-called 'honour' crimes or family disputes, often involving women and girls seeking divorce or rejecting marriage proposals.
Ms. Al-Nashif also warned that the suspended Chastity and Hijab Law, if enacted, would pose a serious threat to women's rights. Penalties for violations such as improper dress could include heavy fines, travel bans, long-term imprisonment, or even the death penalty.
In addition, of the 125 journalists prosecuted in 2024, 40 were women, many reporting on human rights and women's rights issues.
Religious and ethnic minorities
'In 2024, the death penalty continued to have a disproportionate impact on minority groups,' Ms. Al-Nashif told the Council.
At least 108 Baluchi and 84 Kurdish prisoners were executed in 2024, representing 11 and 9 per cent of the total, respectively.
The report also raised concerns over the lack of official data on the socioeconomic conditions of ethnic and ethno-religious minorities and non-citizens, which hampers efforts to assess their situation and measure the impact of targeted policies and programmes.
Looking ahead
While Iran continued engagement with the Office of the UN High Commissioner and other human rights mechanisms, it denied access to the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran.
'Our Office remains ready to continue and build on its engagement with the Iranian authorities on the range of issues highlighted in the report of the Secretary-General for the promotion and protection of all human rights,' Ms. Al-Nashif concluded.
Global 'Super Election' cycle undermined democratic participation
In the Council's afternoon session, Gina Romero, UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, presented her report on how the 2023–2025 'super election' cycle has affected civic space around the world.
In 2024, half of the world's population elected their local, national and international representatives. While Ms. Romero's report on this cycle does not assess the integrity of the elections, it identifies troubling global patterns of systematic repression of the exercise of peaceful assembly and association.
'The misuse of restrictive laws, smear campaigns, disinformation targeting civil society intensified globally in the super electoral cycle, undermining electoral participation and freedom of association,' she said.
Political repression and violence
As criminal justice systems are used to repress the opposition, leaders and members of political parties faced undue restrictions and political persecution. Civil society activists and election observers have also faced harassment, arbitrary detention, torture and murder.
'When political parties, civil society, and peaceful assemblies are suppressed, genuine political pluralism and competition cannot exist,' argued Ms. Romero. 'I stress that these conditions are incompatible with free and genuine elections and risk legitimising undemocratic rule.'
Minority representation
Ms. Romero also underscored that women's political leadership remains severely underrepresented, while LGBTIQ individuals and their organizations faced attacks during the super electoral cycle.
Both groups experienced physical and online political violence, restricting their electoral participation and accelerating the decline of their rights after the elections.
Calls to protect freedoms
Amid global crises and a rapid democratic decline, Ms. Romero emphasized the urgent need to protect the rights to peaceful assembly and association throughout the entire electoral cycle.
She outlined key recommendations, including strengthening legal protections before elections, ensuring accountability afterward, regulating digital technologies and promoting non-discriminatory participation throughout.
'Dissent is a fundamental element of democratic societies,' she concluded in Spanish. 'Rather than being suppressed, it should be welcomed and permanently protected.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
20 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Zuru nappy trial: Grant Taylor testifies on deleted emails, settling under ‘duress', and whether $40m buys happiness
The court heard how Taylor and his family founded Rascals in 2014 and spent two years developing the product and organising a manufacturer in China. It had only shipped one container of nappies to New Zealand by 2016 when Mowbray took a 40% shareholding and secured supermarket distribution that led to sales skyrocketing. Taylor had attended the private St Peter's School, Cambridge, alongside Mowbray, and both have told the court they had considered themselves good friends until the Rascals deal soured. This souring seems to largely stem from a 2020 buyout, which the Taylors claim was accompanied by commercial threats from the Mowbrays if their offer to take over the business was refused. Taylor's evidence at this hearing is both pivotal and problematic as he is no longer on trial. Zuru allege he was the conduit for confidential information that flowed between Rascals and the JJK group, a trio of businessmen who bought out the Treasures brand in 2021. Taylor also appears to have been Zuru's chief target in initial litigation, but he is no longer the subject of proceedings after settling on the eve of trial for $1 million. Taylor admitted to misusing Rascals information, diverting a corporate opportunity, and breaching confidentiality, restraint terms and fiduciary duties. JJK group is the sole remaining defendant, with Zuru seeking more than $75m in compensation and damages. JJK deny and is defending the claims. Unusually for a witness in the High Court, Taylor has two significantly different sworn affidavits submitted as evidence: One signed in early July when he was contemplating trial and mounting a defence that has been filed by JJK; and another signed at the end of that month provided as a condition of his settlement with Zuru. The court heard that providing new evidence for his recent opponents in court saw Taylor directly negotiate proposed testimony with Mat Mowbray, the Hong Kong-based Zuru co-chief executive. Campbell Walker KC, acting for Zuru, summed up the negotiations: 'The proposition was: 'We'll settle for $4m with no affidavit, or $1m with an affidavit.' Is that correct?' 'Correct. I couldn't raise $4m on short notice like that. They [Zuru] needed to go down that path, and I needed to get out. My family were very keen on getting it settled,' Taylor said. Taylor contested some parts of his new evidence prepared as part of the settlement, and claimed he had been under 'settlement duress'. A key point of contention emerged over how he characterised what Walker called a 'deletion session' where Taylor purged some of his electronic records after becoming aware the Mowbrays were going to sue him. 'I impulsively deleted those because I was scared, and I think I hoped that would make things go away. I knew that I had done nothing wrong, but I also knew that the Mowbrays would latch on to anything they could,' Taylor said. Taylor said further discovery of other parties had recovered 'most' of what he believed he had deleted. Walker queried how a Rascals pitch document referenced in other communications could not be discovered, and put it to Taylor that he had provided it to JJK and then covered his tracks. 'No one amongst the defendants has a record of you providing it to them, and I put it to you that's because you conspired to delete that document so her honour would not have it?' Walker said. 'I did not conspire to do anything,' Taylor responded. Walker drew attention to Taylor's earlier affidavit filed when he was a defendant that said he hadn't discussed deleting evidence with JJK, and his later evidence which confirmed such a discussion had taken place. Grant Taylor and Nick Mowbray were high school friends and later business partners, and then legal opponents. Photo / Supplied Taylor gave further details of buyout negotiations with the Mowbray brother, including a March 5 meeting at their Coatesville mansion where he said Nick Mowbray outlined what would happen if their buyout offer was refused. 'Nick then told us [if] we went down that path he would look forward to buying Rascals off us for $1, after he and his brother had ruined us and our business. He named a number of other companies that had been brought back for nothing in similar circumstances,' Taylor said. 'We no longer trusted the Mowbrays, and they had threatened to destroy our business if we did not agree to sell. It was toxic and painful.' He cited communications at the time with colleagues that said: 'I was only going through with the deal to get away from the Mowbrays, and it sucked, because I had lost both my business and my mates.' Taylor's evidence said a valuation from their accountant valued his family's share in Rascals as being worth $51m, and a separate assessment by Deloitte at $59.7m. They agreed to sell to the Mowbrays for $30m, and claimed a restrictive restraint clause was inserted late in negotiations that they felt they had no leverage to contest. Taylor said he had disengaged from negotiations to sell the business in early 2020 as 'I was struggling with the toll these events were taking on my mental health'. Towards the end of yesterday's testimony, Walker questioned Taylor on what his family had got out of its dealings with the Mowbrays. With dividend payments included, Taylor said they had earned more than $40m from Rascals. Walker asked: 'I have the figure of $44m, but whatever the figure was, your family became extremely rich as a result of this?' Taylor was philosophical: 'I've learned that money doesn't buy you happiness, that's for sure.' Walker pressed, 'I appreciate you might have a different view now, but that would have been a source of pride for you?' 'A source of pride, which I learned afterwards - very much so - was actually from building the business. That's what I didn't realise until after I had sold it, that I had cherished the most.' The trial, and Taylor's testimony, continued and is scheduled to run until the end of next week. Matt Nippert is an Auckland-based investigations reporter covering white-collar and transnational crimes and the intersection of politics and business. He has won more than a dozen awards for his journalism – including twice being named Reporter of the Year – and joined the Herald in 2014 after having spent the decade prior reporting from business newspapers and national magazines.
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Kiwi woman Sarah Shaw's lawyer says mum back in US home, taking time for herself
'She's recovering at home and taking some time for herself,' she said. This morning she told Herald NOW that recuperating from the ordeal was the top priority before she addressed the detention publicly. 'She's just trying to pick up the pieces right now.' Thorward volunteered for pro-bono work at Dilley Immigration Processing Centre about nine and a half years ago. She described the conditions Shaw and her son would have endured during their detainment. '[They] are overcrowded, there is limited access to medical care, limited access to counsel and the food is horrendous,' she said. 'You are basically locked in a room for a lot of the day. There is nowhere for kids to go outside. There is nothing to do, so they are just really bored.' Sarah Shaw's lawyer Minda Thorward says the conditions in detention centres are "worse than jail". Thorward described detention centres as 'worse than jail'. 'The services are worse, there is less oversight and due processes and protection don't necessarily apply to detention centres,' she said. 'It's difficult to talk to anyone. You can call, but it's always very garbled to so it's very difficult to communicate with anyone in detention. 'It's South Texas so it would have been really hot. It was a really terrible experience for her.' The Dilley Immigration Processing Centre first opened in December 2014 and can hold up to 2400 people. It made headlines this year over alleged inhumane conditions. The Los Angeles Times reported there was concern over water quantity and quality, with some adults reportedly fighting children for clean water at the facility. Shaw and her son were at the facility for more than three weeks. She was returning from putting her two other children on a flight to New Zealand from Vancouver when they were detained. A GoFundMe page set up by family friend Victoria Besancon said: 'Thanks to all of your support and advocating, Sarah and her son have been released! 'While her lawyer's words were 'the war is not over' and there are still legal battles to be had, this portion has been won! 'Thank you to everyone who supported, donated and reached out. We will continue to update the story as it unfolds. But they are home safe and sound. 'Please be praying for the next legal steps, and for a peaceful reintroduction to daily life for the Shaw family.' The GoFundMe has so far raised more than US$60,000 ($101,000). David Williams is an Auckland-based Multimedia Journalist who joined the Herald in 2023. He covers breaking news and general topics.
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Council Must Back Down On Cape Palliser Road Closure Plan
ACT Local Government spokesperson Cameron Luxton is calling on South Wairarapa District Council to ditch its plan to shut off public access to Cape Palliser. Luxton has written a letter to Mayor Martin Connelly urging the Council to withdraw its proposed bylaw, and is encouraging New Zealanders to make a submission to the council before submissions close tomorrow. The bylaw would close an unformed legal road that provides essential access to public land, sparking strong opposition from locals and regular visitors, especially hunters, fishers, trampers, surfers and ratepayers who use the route regularly. 'At the Ngawi public meeting, someone asked whether the Council had actually got legal advice before launching this process,' says Luxton. 'The answer was no. That's staggering, and it tells you everything about how poorly thought through this proposal is. "In his response to my letter, the Mayor doesn't address concerns over the legality of the closure. Instead, he argues that visitors to the cape can make do with 'alternative public routes'. Those familiar with the area make the point that this would mean traipsing for hours o'er hill and dale or across less safe rocky, tidal areas. "The Council's process has completely missed the mark. They've done the bare minimum in order to claim they've consulted with the public, when it's obvious the plan from the outset was to shut us out of land we have legal rights to access. They need to pull the plug and start treating the community with some respect.' Submissions on the proposal close tomorrow, and Luxton is urging everyone who values public access to speak up before it's too late. 'If you reckon this is a stitch-up, and most people do, then get your submission in," says Mr Luxton. "You don't have to live in South Wairarapa. Anyone who wants to visit this stunning piece of coastline has an interest in protecting public access. And if we let one council get away with locking us out of our coastline, others will follow suit. It takes five minutes to tell the Council they've got this one badly wrong.' Links to letters:
