A debate started earlier today during the adoption of Iran's Report of the Working Group on the reasons given by the delegation for rejecting recommendations. Paragraph 92 of draft Report A/HRC/WG.6/7/L.11 lists the 45 rejected recommendations stating that they are "inconsistent with the Institution-Building text and/or not internationally recognized human rights, or not in conformity with its existing laws, pledges and commitments". After the introduction of the Report by the troika, the United Kingdom, Brazil, France, the United States, Austria, Australia and Canada took the floor to ask why their recommendations, referring, inter alia, to invitation of special procedure mandate-holders, protection of minorities and the fight against impunity, were considered as inconsistent. They commented that they were based on actual pledges by Iran and treaties to which it is a party and thus in full conformity with the basis of the review. It was also underlined by the United States that making recommendations contrary to national laws was the actual purpose of the process. Mexico, on behalf of the troika, explained that it was not responsible for putting those recommendations in that paragraph and that it only ensured that the Report was duly reflecting Iran's position. The Report was then adopted and the floor was given to the State under Review. The delegation declared that those recommendations were rejected because of the "language and the poisonous tone".
Before Iran, Pakistan rejected recommendations because they were "neither universally recognized human rights nor conform to its existing laws, pledges and commitments" and Uzbekistan because they were "not part of Uzbekistan's obligations under internationally agreed human rights standards" and were "factually wrong". However, it was the first time States that made the recommendations challenged the reasons for rejecting them.
Read Iran's draft Report of the Working Group here