Dr. Lahiji has been devoted to human rights activism for more than five decades. Two years prior to the Iranian Revolution of 1979, in order to promote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Lahiji founded the Iranian Law Association and Iranian Association for Freedom and Human Rights. After the 1979 Revolution, he was one of the first to condemn the executions and other forms of human rights violations committed by the new regime.
In the 58th issue of the Peace Mark Monthly, on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of Human Right Activists (HRA), we asked Lahiji, the current president of International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), for his opinion regarding the performance of HRA and the reason for the continued activism of this human rights organization.
Abdol-Karim Lahiji, while emphasizing how difficult conditions are for the organizations that are defending human rights in Iran, tells a Peace Mark reporter: “In my opinion any group/organization, including HRA, that has gained permanence and has continued its activism, has acted independently of the government. This independence from the government has a positive and negative side, and both sides should be considered. The positive side is the fact that they are independent from the regime and the government; obviously, the organizations that defend human rights need to be independent from the government and should not have any financial or political associations with the government. The negative side is the hostility and the political behavior in human rights activism in the sense that people try to achieve their political motives under the pretense of defending human rights.”
How do you describe HRA and, if it were possible to highlight a positive attribute of the performance of this group, what would it be in your opinion?
Unfortunately, in Iran, political and civil activism do not have a place. The fact that any group could continue its activism despite all the problems such as imprisonment and suppression is a sign that they have done a great work. The human rights defenders’ society was officially and openly active two years before the 1979 Revolution and for two years after it; however, eventually the regime put it under circumstances in which its members could not officially and openly continue their activism in the country. Subsequently, the Centre for the Defense of Human Rights (CDHR) openly started its activism. Unfortunately, it ended up with a similar fate, and these suppressions have continued to this day. In fact, Abdol-Fattah Soltani and Mohammad Seif-Zade, two members of CDHR, who were imprisoned in Iran, and Sotoudeh, who was released after enduring 3 years of imprisonment, have been under complete pressure and could be arrested again if suspected of any kind of activism. Under such circumstances, naturally HRA could not continue its official activism either.
The authenticity of the organization’s news reporting and activism, which is very important, is one of its most positive attributes. If the slightest false report is released, not only would the activism lose its value, but the government would also take advantage of it. Regarding HRA, I have never come across a report or news of its that later has been proven to be false.
As you mentioned, there are many difficulties and obstacles for the civil society and organizations that defend human rights in Iran; this results in many of these groups and organizations not being able to survive for long. With that being said, what do you think are the structural differences that lead to a perpetual existence of a human rights organization and its continued activism? In this regard, what difference could you mention specifically about HRA?
As you may know, human rights consist of a wide range of things, and it includes political and civil rights aspects as well as economic and cultural rights. In other societies, there are many human rights organizations that are openly and freely active whether in pluralism and general level of human rights or in more specific areas, such as women’s rights, religious minority’s rights, children’s rights, or opposing the death penalty. Well, this is how it’s supposed to be.
Certainly, in the societies where human rights organizations are under constant pressure and are not able to be active freely and lawfully, they face more difficulties and are working under harsh circumstances, and they should be cautious in performing any kind of activism; extra efforts are needed in these extraordinary circumstances in both gathering and releasing the news.
I mean that human right activism should not be like political battles which unfortunately in many cases would use any resources to achieve their goals – whether or not rightful and authentic (for instance the recent elections in March). The best guarantee for the permanence and continued activity of a human rights organization is that the public gradually realizes that the news released by the organization is truthful and authentic.
Human rights groups should not fight to replace a government; they should only fight against the violations of human rights by the government. Opposition to the government should not lead to exaggeration in delivering the truth. This has been an issue with some political groups during both the Pahlavi regime and the Islamic regime. For example, during the 1980s, one week, the opposition would announce that there were 30,000 political prisoners in Iran, and the next week, they would announce that there were 50,000 of them. Obviously, in seven to ten days it is impossible to have a sudden increase of 20,000 political prisoners in the country. Unfortunately, opposition groups would take human rights activism hostage to their political battles, and, in my opinion, this negative aspect would lead them to exaggerate the number of human rights victims just because of their political opposition to the government.
Do you see the need for cooperation between human rights organizations? If so, why? How? And to what extent?
Surely, in such circumstances, cooperation and collaboration with other groups and organizations should not be neglected. Of course, there will be competitions in any field, but this competition should not in any way impede cooperation. Cooperation could be as simple as, if HRANA publishes news on its website, other websites and organizations could republish the news, and, if possible, search for more information and documentation on a particular news item from HRANA. Of course, as I mentioned before, this is if the news is authentic and true.
Is there anything you would like to tell the members and colleagues who have been with HRA in over a decade?
As a person who has many years of experience in human rights activism, I would like to say human rights groups should always continue trying to maintain their independence, be sensitive and emphasize the authenticity of their news. I also hope there will be a day that HRA could openly and lawfully be active inside of Iran.
