- Location of case in SG report
- Relevant SG report
- Year of the report
- From Country
- Country Geolocation
- Country Geolocation (linked Cases)
- From Region
- UN body that raised the case prior to the SG report
- UN Special Procedures: Thematic
- Dates of prior UN action
- 11 June 2014
- Type of record
- Named individual
- Was the victim a foreign national?
- Was the victim a minor?
- Individual's/organization's activity
all human rights defenders, detained in Evin prison
- Type of rights defended
- Unclear in SG Report
- Was the victim a civil servant, member of the security forces or of the judiciary?
- Reported trigger of reprisal
owing to the engagement of some of them with the United Nations human rights mechanisms (A/HRC/28/85, case IRN 9/2014).
- Engagement with UN body
- Dates of engagement
- Type of attempted engagement
- Dates of mentioned reprisals
- 17 April 2014
- Reprisal information
during an inspection of detainees’ personal effects in ward 350 of Evin prison, the six men, together with other detainees, were reportedly severely beaten by prison guards and security agents and transferred to solitary confinement for a period ranging from several days to two months
- Types of reprisals suffered
- Deterioration in detention conditions
- Physical attack: Torture/Cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment
- Alleged/likely perpetrators
- State actors
- Was the reprisal based on new legislation?
- Does the report make general comment about country’s environment for engagement with UN?
- Government response dates
- 22 April 2014
- Government response content
On 22 April 2014, the Speaker of the National Security Committee of Parliament reportedly justified the raid by attributing it in part to “a series of fabricated and unfounded reports” that had been passed on from inside Evin prison to “defiant elements such as the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran” (ibid.). At the time of finalization of the present report, no response had been received from the Government.
- Is the country cited for a "pattern of reprisal" in the context of this case?
- Is a pattern of reprisals mentioned otherwise in the context of this case?
- Does the report cite "self-censorship" as an issue in the context of this case?
- How many times has the case been followed up in subsequent SG reports?