The Weekly Round Up: UN Special Session on Iran, ECSR conclusions on labour rights, procedural duties under Article 3, and MOD policies in the High Court
26 January 2026
In the news
UN Human Rights Council responds to situation in Iran
In its 39th Special Session on Friday, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) called for an urgent investigation into human rights violations by the Iranian state in the context of its repression of nationwide protests beginning in late December last year.
The UNHRC also extended the mandates of the Fact-Finding Mission and Special Rapporteur on Iran. The Special Session was informed of credible reports that thousands have been killed, many more injured, and over 24,000 arrested since the start of the protests, which have been accompanied by a complete internet and mobile services shutdown since 8 January. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, said:
“The only way out of this frightening escalation is through dialogue based on the human rights of all Iranians. The aspirations and ideas in particular of women, girls, young people and ethnic and religious minorities must be allowed to shape Iran’s future. We remain available to support any change in direction that fully respects Iran’s human rights obligations.”
European Committee of Social Rights publishes 2025 Conclusions
On Wednesday, the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) published its Conclusions on Labour Rights for 2025. The Conclusions for the UK make findings of non-conformity with Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the European Social Charter on several grounds, including:
- a lack of a right to disconnect from work;
- a lack of coverage by health and safety regulations for domestic and self-employed workers;
- a failure to promote the freedom of association and collective bargaining of gig economy workers; and
- the denial of the right to strike to the police, prison officers, and members of the armed forces without effective alternative means of negotiating terms and conditions.
In the courts
Court delays, gender-based violence and Article 3 ECHR
In a First Section Chamber judgement, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that severe delays and a “formalistic” approach in domestic abuse proceedings violated Article 3 ECHR on the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The case is JS v Slovakia, no. 35756/23, 22 January 2026.
T was indicted for repeatedly abusing his wife (JS) over a long period of time. The indictment was largely based on allegations made by JS and specified physical attacks, insults, humiliation, death threats, and controlling behaviour. T was eventually acquitted in drawn-out proceedings lasting over 7 years.
On the basis of its previous case law (summarised at [36] and [38]), the ECtHR was satisfied that JS had produced an arguable case of having been subjected to degrading treatment by T. This had triggered the domestic authorities’ procedural duties under Article 3 to conduct an effective investigation and court proceedings.
The ECtHR held that this duty was violated in two respects.
- First, the domestic courts had adopted a “formalistic” approach to the evidence and failed to analyse the case from a gender-based violence perspective ([58]). In the ECtHR’s view, abundant evidence supporting the indictment had been inexplicably disregarded ([55]), and conceded acts of violence towards JS had been improperly dismissed on the basis of alleged reciprocation ([57]).
- Second, the court proceedings had been unacceptably delayed, with 3 re-trials lasting over 7 years, including a 5-year wait for a judgment on appeal which simply repeated earlier reasoning. JS had consequently been exposed to prolonged uncertainty, forced to “relive the painful events a number of times”, and caused “unnecessary suffering and frustration” ([62]).
High Court rejects human rights challenge to MOD public communication policies
In R (EPX and PGH) v Secretary of State for Defence [2026] EWHC 108 (Admin), the High Court rejected a human rights challenge to Ministry of Defence (MOD) policies on public statements by Armed Forces service personnel.
The Claimants were two servicewomen who wished to speak publicly about their experiences of being raped in the Armed Forces. They challenged a set of MOD policies which restrict service personnel from making public statements without prior authorisation, inter alia, on the basis that they violated Articles 8 and 10 ECHR.
Handing down judgment on Friday, Lang J determined that the policies under challenge did not violate the ECHR, although they were unlawful due to a (conceded) breach of the public sector equality duty. Any potential interferences with Articles 8 and 10 were justified and proportionate to legitimate aims, including national security ([179]).
Lang J’s central reasoning was that the policies supplied adequate exceptions to the general requirement of authorisation. Among these, the ‘Raising a concern’ policy expressly extended whistleblower protections under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) to service personnel, effectively excluding the requirement of authorisation for PIDA-protected disclosures. Lang J accepted that the PIDA regime and Strasbourg case law are “broadly congruent”, inferring from the Supreme Court’s decision in Gilham v Ministry of Justice [2019] UKSC 44 that the PIDA regime is “sufficient, of itself, to protect a person’s Convention rights” (at [177]-[178]).
