A/HRC/21/18 he was obliged, despite continuing security concerns, to leave the protection programme as it refused to cover his family members. On 13 March 2012, OHCHR in Colombia requested the Attorney General to implement protection measures for Mr. Ortiz Jiménez, but on 30 April 2012, the Attorney General‟s Office communicated to him that the protection programme had decided to deny his incorporation into the programme. Iran (Islamic Republic of) 28. As noted in my report to the General Assembly at its sixty-sixth session on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the intimidation, harassment and in some cases, detention and ban on the travel of women‟s rights activists, female journalists and lawyers remains a matter of serious concern (A/66/361, para. 22). According to information received, members of the Campaign for Equality, also known as the One Million Signatures campaign, have been specifically targeted. Maryam Bahrman, an Iranian women‟s rights activist and member of the One Million Signatures campaign, was reportedly arrested on 11 May 2011 at her house in Shiraz and charged with national security offences. Ms. Bahrman‟s arrest appears to be linked to her work as a women‟s rights activist and her participation in the fifty-fifth session of the Commission on the Status of Women in New York in March 2011. Faranak Farid, another One Million Signatures campaigner who participated in the Commission‟s session in 2010, was arrested in Tabriz on 3 September 2011. She was charged with having undertaken propaganda against the State, and during her trial in February 2012 the court cited her attendance at overseas conferences on women‟s rights. These incidents have raised serious concerns among Iranian women activists, who allegedly decided as a consequence not to attend the fifty-sixth session of the Commission on the Status of Women, held in New York from 27 February to 9 March 2012. Kazakhstan 29. On 24 May 2012, the Committee against Torture adopted a decision on communication No. 433/2010, Gerasimov v. Kazakhstan. The complainant alleged that he had been subjected to torture by the police, who wanted him to confess to murder. The Committee determined that the State party had interfered with the complainant‟s right of petition and reaffirmed that a State party is required to abstain from any acts of intimidation or reprisal against complainants, their families and/or authorized representatives. Such acts may include, but are not limited to, any forms of direct or indirect threats, coercion, and other improper acts aimed at dissuading or discouraging complainants or potential complainants from submitting their complaints or pressuring them to withdraw or modify their claims, as any such interference would render the individuals‟ right of petition under article 22 meaningless.6 30. The Committee noted that the complainant had sent a notarized withdrawal letter with a copy to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with a translation from Russian into English, and that the complainant and his family were subjected to pressure at national level in connection with his communication. The Committee concluded that it had substantial reason to doubt that the withdrawal letter was prepared voluntarily and that the State party had interfered with the complainant‟s right of petition. 7 6 7 8 Gerasimov v. Kazakhstan, paras. 12.9-12.10. Ibid., paras. 11.3 and 12.10.