Case No Country Mandate(s) Summary of the allegation transmitted IRN 20/2014 03/10/2014 Iran (Islamic UA Republic of) Arbitrary detention; Alleged arbitrary arrest, detention and sentencing to 11 years imprisonment of an Iranian-British dual national following a trial that did not comply with international standards. According to the information received, a 75-year-old Iranian-British dual national was arrested on 5 May 2011 by five individuals who identified themselves as “Entezami” officials and detained without charges during 45 days in Evin Prison, Tehran. The five individuals did not show an arrest warrant or provide a reason for the arrest. Two years later, in 2013, the person in question was tried by the Revolutionary Court of Tehran and sentenced to 11 years imprisonment, including eight years for espionage and three years for possessing alcohol at home. The individual was detained several months without charge or trial, with only irregular access to legal counsel and limited contact with family members. Even after having been charged, the individual was not able to grasp the reason for such a detention and trial, and no evidence was reportedly brought against the individual. . Grave concern has been expressed about the individual’s physical and mental integrity. MDV 2/2014 03/10/2014 Maldives JAL Human rights defenders; Independence of judges and lawyers; Allegations of serious criminal charges brought against all five members of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) in reprisal for their cooperation with the United Nations, its mechanisms and representatives in the field of human rights. According to the information received, on 14 September 2014, HRCM submitted a report to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in view of the upcoming Universal Periodic Review of the Maldives in 2015. The report, among other issues raised, reportedly criticised the judiciary and the Supreme Court. On 22 September 2014, the Supreme Court initiated a case against the five members of the HRCM, under its suo moto procedure. The members were reportedly presented with charges of “spreading wrongful information and giving a wrongful impression of the constitutional mandate of the Supreme Court”. Grave concern is expressed regarding what is seen as an act of reprisal against HRCM and its members for their cooperation with the United Nations, its mechanisms and representatives in the field of human rights. Reply A/HRC/28/85 92 Date Type