Seyed Hafez Fazeli, a member of the political bureau of the Democratic Solidarity Party of Al-Ahwaz, told the conference “Iran’s Human Rights Crisis: From Shared Principles to Joint Action”: “We can draft the finest human rights charter and proclaim the noblest principles. But if the political system allows those principles to be violated, rights may remain promises on paper.”
According to Iran Human Rights (IHRNGO), the conference brought together representatives of political parties and organisations in Oslo on 25–26 September 2026. Organised and hosted by IHRNGO, it was the sixth event in its “Iran and the Transition from Authoritarianism” conference series.
Fazeli addressed four questions: the distinction between minimum rights and a minimum agreement on rights; formal and substantive equality; the need to constrain political power; and the scope for cooperation on human rights across political divides.
Political groups could commit to fundamental principles despite their differences, he argued. A limited agreement, however, must not create a hierarchy of rights. “Our political agreement may be limited in scope, but human rights must not be.”
Freedom of expression and political participation could not be recognised for some while restricted or made conditional for others. “If people have the right to preserve their language, culture and identity, that right must not depend on the government’s political interests or the consent of the majority.”
He warned against postponing rights until a more convenient moment. History suggested that later could be a very long time coming. The task was to build a shared commitment to fundamental rights, regardless of the balance of power or the victim’s identity.
Equality before the law was necessary, Fazeli said, but insufficient. Unequal access to power, resources, education and political representation could persist even where legal equality existed. “In such circumstances, equal treatment does not necessarily produce equal outcomes.”
Substantive equality might therefore require specific, temporary measures to address the legacy of discrimination. Their purpose would be to remove barriers to the equal enjoyment of rights, rather than confer permanent privileges on any group.
This was particularly relevant to the rights of Iran’s nationalities and national and ethnic groups, to language and culture, and to women and religious minorities. “Is political participation truly open to everyone? Can different groups preserve and express their identities without fear?”
Rights also needed institutional safeguards. “Human rights must not depend solely on the morality of those in power. Institutions must protect them too.” Citing reports of abuses in Iran by human rights organisations and UN special mechanisms, Fazeli asked who would defend victims when political power itself was responsible for violating their rights.
He called for an independent judiciary, the separation of powers and effective checks and balances, free media, freedom of association, space for civil society, access to justice, a prohibition on torture and fair trials. “No majority should be able to abolish a minority’s fundamental rights simply by winning a vote.”
“The question is not simply who governs,” he added. “The more important question is what anyone who governs must be prevented from doing.”
Turning to cooperation, Fazeli acknowledged substantial differences among Iranian political groups over the structure of government, centralisation and decentralisation, the national question, the economy, foreign policy and religion. Yet these need not prevent joint action. “We do not have to resolve all our political differences before we can work together on human rights.”
He proposed discussions on a common human rights platform. Joining it would require neither accepting another group’s political programme nor forming a coalition. It would instead establish shared red lines. “No prisoner should be tortured, even if they are our political opponent.” Nor should anyone face discrimination or have to deny their identity to secure their rights.
The worth of such a commitment would become clear when defending rights carried a cost. “The true test of our commitment to human rights comes when we recognise the rights of someone whose political beliefs may differ fundamentally from our own.”
Fazeli closed with a question: “Can we conceive of and build a system in which our opponents’ rights are as secure as our own?”
Translated from Farsi via machine translation and lightly edited for clarity.