The ICC at 10 Years: Crises of Cooperation, Capacity and Legitimacy

Chelsea Purvis and Awaz Raoof, lawyers who are currently assisting MRG’s Legal Cases Team, report back from a panel discussion in London hosted by the Coalition for the International Criminal Court.

Members of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC) held a panel discussion on 16 May 2013 at the School of Oriental and African Studies.  CICC Convenor William R. Pace, former ICTY and ICTR prosecutor Judge Richard Goldstone, ICC Deputy Prosecutor James Stewart, and REDRESS’ Interim Director Dadimos Haile presented their thoughts on “Current Challenges Facing the International Criminal Court” on its tenth anniversary.

Three major themes emerged from the discussion.  The first related to the need for more cooperation between the ICC and State governments. Judge Goldstone stressed that the success of the ICC depends on the cooperation of States, which it relies on for the contribution of resources and the enforcement of its decisions.  The non-implementation of the ICC’s arrest warrants against Sudanese President Omar Al Bashir, Judge Goldstone argued, is an example of this dependence.  In addition to the Sudanese government refusing to recognise the jurisdiction of the ICC, various State Parties to the Rome Statute have also allowed President Al-Bashir on their territory without arresting him. However, other countries have warned that they will arrest Al Bashir if he visits their territories, in effect placing significant restrictions on his travel.

The panellists also emphasized the ICC’s need to develop capacity – particularly with regard to victim assistance.  Deputy Prosecutor Stewart, discussing Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda’s plans to improve the ICC, said that the ICC needs to use the most sophisticated investigative tools in order to meet threats to the integrity of its investigations.  Stewart said that the Office of the Prosecutor is committed to supporting victims.  Dadimos Haile elaborated on the challenges faced by victims in accessing the ICC and ways that the ICC can continue to simplify its application process and better support victims.

The most dominant theme of the evening – certainly during the Q&A – was the ICC’s perceived lack of legitimacy in Africa.  Several audience members sharply criticized the panelists for the ICC’s record of bringing cases solely against Africans, and charged the ICC with being a “political court” that did not serve the interests of justice.  Haile responded by asserting that we must be careful to explore the content of allegations by African leaders that the ICC has an “Africa bias.”  We all have a “desire to see the ICC reach its full potential” and explore crimes committed throughout the world, he said.  But, in a salient response to the criticisms from the audience, he reminded the audience that some leaders hide behind this allegation as a way to escape culpability for genocide and crimes against humanity. Judge Goldstone also highlighted the fact that many cases are being referred to the ICC by African States themselves – a point which should not be eliminated from the debate. He further stressed the cornerstone principle of the ICC – that of complementarity – which states that the ICC is a court of last resort to be used only when the relevant domestic authorities are unwilling or unable to investigate the criminal allegations themselves.

Its critics doubtless have a mix of motivations, but the ICC must engage with the criticisms regarding its perceived illegitimacy in Africa if it wants to tackle this pressing challenge over the next decade.  Calls from the audience for a more concerted approach by the ICC to tackling this precise issue were left unaddressed by the panel. The ICC’s investigation of Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta and Deputy President William Ruto provides a clear example of why the ICC’s legitimacy is so important, and of the danger of allowing such criticisms to eclipse the underlying issues at stake.  Kenyatta and Ruto are under investigation for crimes against humanity committed during the 2007-2008 post-election violence in Kenya.  The investigation has been controversial, partly because former ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo referred the cases on his own authority, rather than by referral of the UN Security Council or an ICC statute member State.

During their campaign for the presidency, Kenyatta and Ruto portrayed the ICC investigation as neocolonial, running on a slogan that a vote for them was a “referendum against the ICC.”  Although Deputy Prosecutor Stewart highlighted that Kenya is continuing to cooperate with the investigation, Kenya has now asked the ICC to drop the case.  The African Union (AU) also recently spoke in favor of dropping the investigation, accusing the ICC of “race hunting.”

The collapse of the ICC’s case against Kenyatta and Ruto could be a disaster for the victims of the post-election violence, which killed an estimated 1,500 people, and displaced approximately 600,000 more.  Indigenous peoples like the Ogiek of Kenya were among those attacked and displaced during the post-election violence.  Kenya’s Truth Justice and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC) has found Kenyatta and Ruto among those accused of “planning and financing violence” during the post-election period, but they recommend that no action be taken against them because they are under investigation by the ICC.

Should the ICC abandon its investigation of Kenya, minority and indigenous communities have little confidence in a domestic investigation.  As the TJRC concluded, discrimination against minorities and indigenous peoples in Kenya is “systemic,” and the state has throughout its history “demonstrated no genuine commitment to investigate and punish atrocities and violation committed by its agents against innocent citizens.” Emmanuel Lemis of the Ogiek Peoples’ Development Programme argues, “Internally displaced peoples have hope for justice from the ICC but no confidence in local courts.”

Prosecutor Bensouda has been working with the AU to improve the ICC’s strained relationship with African States.  This is a welcome move, but the panel discussion highlighted that it is vital for the ICC to take further steps to engage directly with its critics and tackle its perceived lack of legitimacy in the region.  Only this way can it help bring justice to communities like the Ogiek in Kenya.  As Lemis explains, “Internally displaced people are still in camps five years down the line, waiting for justice to be done.”

Image of the Ogiek community by Ishbel Matheson

‘Don’t be vague, go to The Hague’

MRG’s Head of Programmes, Shobha Das, is in Nairobi helping to set up our new Somalia Gender Project. Along with what seems like the rest of the country’s electorate, she tuned into the first televised presidential debate ahead of Kenya’s hotly anticipated March 4 elections.

Kenya had its first televised presidential debate this evening and the whole country seemed to be watching; for over 3 hours…

An impromptu gathering of voters discusses the elections while shielding from the afternoon sun

It was an impressively organised event. All candidates got equal chances to speak, the moderators did a very competent job of maintaining the pace and flow, and they even managed a discussion about the International Criminal Court (ICC) indictments (Uhuru Kenyatta and his running mate William Ruto will face trial in The Hague in April for planning and funding the 2008 post-election violence) without any outbursts.

Kenyatta insisted he wasn’t going to change his mind about running for office. He said he was confident that if he won, the case would not ‘interrupt the business of government’. Raila Odinga asked wittily that he didn’t understand exactly how a country could be run by Skype from The Hague. He added that there had been such chaotic discussions leading up to the indictment that finally someone had thrown their hands in the air and said, ‘Don’t be vague, go to The Hague.’

Ironically, just as Kenyatta was getting heat for being indicted, Odinga was also getting the heat for NOT being indicted. Many seem to believe that he too was responsible directly, in some measure, for the deaths that resulted in the post-election violence. Neither of them rose to the occasion brilliantly, but Odinga seems to have come off a little better, going by Facebook postings, media sound bites, and the reactions in the bar I was sitting in.

Many foreign diplomats in Kenya are saying that if Kenyatta wins, it will affect the country’s relationship with the international community. Britain has echoed Obama’s statement that it’s not about who wins, but the process. However, in a slightly self-contradictory manner, the British envoy to Kenya said that it is the policy of Britain and other European countries not to have contact with ICC indictees. Kenyan officials have formally written to the EU to seek clarification of what exactly this means.

Some Kenyan NGOs have expressed fears about Kenyatta and Ruto contesting the elections. They argue that the country will be leaderless if the two have to head off to The Hague in April to face trial. There is a fear that the president may then defy the ICC, which will bring a whole different set of consequences.

There were many references in the debate by all candidates to the new constitution and the importance of implementing it fully and immediately. They all spoke of the need to make Kenya a country for all its citizens. Though there was some time spent on discussing the question of ethnicity and politics, this seemed mostly about ethnic voting patterns. All candidates said citizens should not vote by ethnicity of candidates, but their campaigns appear to be highly ethnicised. Almost everyone I’ve spoken to in Nairobi has said they will vote according to ethnicity.

The loudspeakers on this campaign van blare political messages to the streets

The debate on ethnicity turned for a moment to the question of inequality. One candidate, Martha Karua, addressed this but not in a very positive way. Her position was that there were poor in every community and that there were no structural or systemic connections between ethnicity and marginalisation. Karua is the only woman candidate and while many women I spoke to said she would be good for the country, they said they’d nevertheless vote for someone from their own community; partly because they felt Karua has no chance of winning, but also because they said that was what was ‘expected’ of them.

The issue of corruption came up in the debate but apart from the predictable platitudes on how it should be rooted out, nothing substantive emerged. People on the street were, in conversation with me, comparing candidates for their levels of corruption to decide whom to vote for if they were undecided. One was 50% corrupt, but the other was only 25% corrupt. One had grabbed a lot of land to make his millions, the other had grabbed only a little land and made fewer millions. So the one with less corruption and land-grabbing would get their vote (usually if they were of the right ethnicity).

Sadly, very little direct reference was made to minorities or indigenous peoples in the debate. Resource-based conflicts were mentioned a few times, and one candidate seemed interested in giving pastoralists better access to water and grazing land – that was as close as it got to the issues MRG is working on in Kenya.

There will be a second debate in 2 weeks, perhaps minority issues and land rights will feature more in that. MRG will be following the situation closely. In the meantime why not check out our most recent publication on the upcoming elections: Taking diversity seriously: minorities and political participation in Kenya.

Latvia’s ‘aliens’

Julia Babahina, MRG’s former Fundraising Intern who was born into a Russian family from Latvia, reports from a very personal perspective on the current situation of the Russian minority in her country. Almost a third of Latvian Russians are given non-citizen/alien status, which has drawn widespread criticism from international organisations. The rejection of a referendum in February 2012 to amend the Latvian Constitution to include Russian as an official language proved once again the ethnic split in the country.

Latvia’s citizenship policy, which assigns almost a third of Latvian Russians non-citizen/alien status, prohibits non-citizens from taking part in many aspects of society, such as seeking employment, travelling abroad, or voting during national elections. Even though the Latvian government ratified the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities on 6 June 2005, there is still a considerable part of the Russian population who cannot freely participate in Latvian economic, political and cultural life.

The policy has been severely criticised by the Council of Europe, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Knut Vollebekk, OSCE’s High Commissioner for National Minorities, recently said that all children of non-citizens who were born after Latvia’s independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, must be granted citizenship automatically.

According to data from the Population Register of the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs in Latvia, as of 2011, 27.3 per cent of the Latvian population are Russian and 34.6 per cent of these are designated as ‘non-citizens’ or given ‘alien’ status. According to the Citizenship Law of Latvia, a non-citizen ‘is a person who, in accordance with the Law on the Status of those Former U.S.S.R. Citizens, do not have the Citizenship of Latvia or that of any Other State, has the right to a non-citizen passport issued by the Republic of Latvia.’

An “alien’s passport” of Latvia. Credit: Tina Remiz (http://www.fotovisura.com/user/tinaremiz/view/krievi)

Being born into a Russian family from Latvia myself, I have been granted citizenship through my father, whereas my mother was a non-citizen until 2006. My uncle and my grandmother are still non-citizens. I asked my grandmother how it feels.

‘It is heartbreaking and unfair. It is like you have been born into a family and they don’t accept you as their child. The state, the government, and society is the family, and we, non-citizens, are unwanted and alienated children.’

Though all the members of my family were born in Latvia and have lived there for most of their lives, they have no right to vote or work in many state-employed organisations and often have trouble crossing the border. For many Russians in Latvia it is a matter of principle not to apply for citizenship as they think it is absurd given the fact they were born in the country.

Tatjana Zdanoka, one of Latvia’s nine members of the European Parliament and a Latvian Russian, argues that if the Russian community is under-represented in society it is discriminated against, and has urged the international community to support Baltic Russians to claim their rights. Thanks to Zdanoka’s and others’ hard work, in 2007 non-citizens were allowed to benefit from the Schengen Agreement.

On May 2011, 122 recommendations were made to Latvia during the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the UNHRC in Geneva. The Latvian government rejected seven of these recommendations, including Russia’s recommendation to eliminate the system of non-citizenship. Russia claimed that Latvia’s refusal proved that it does not recognise the severe human rights problem in the country and stated that it violated international human rights law. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Latvia replied that Latvia meets its international obligations in terms of minority rights and held that the non-citizen system is purely an internal affair.

Latvians voting in the February 2012 referendum on whether to introduce Russian as a second official language. Credit: Pablo Andrés Rivero

The Russian government then suggested Latvia accept the human rights recommendations laid out during the UPR so that the call for a referendum, initiated by the Russian speakers’ movement in February 2012 to make Russian language a second official language, would be avoided. The referendum was an unsurprising consequence of people’s dissatisfaction with minority rights in Latvia. Even though 75 per cent of citizens voted against introducing Russian as an official language, it showed the existence of an ethnic divide in Latvian society.

According to Rita Izsak, the UN independent expert on minority issues, the referendum did not prove the superiority of one community over another, but demonstrated that the Latvian government should bring the two communities together and assist them in overcoming fear, mistrust and historical prejudices. However, Latvian nationalists claimed that the referendum was Russia’s attempt to weaken Latvia’s independence.

Today, when Latvian integration issues threaten to polarise the country even further along political and ethnic lines, it is time for the Latvian government to realise that the country’s ethnic diversity does not weaken, but strengthens the country. Latvian integration policies should bring Latvians and Latvian Russians together for a brighter future.

What’s in store for Egypt?

MRG’s Communications Intern Sofia Nazalya attended a panel discussion marking the first anniversary of the Egypt uprising and found some interesting perspectives and a decidedly mixed, but healthy, atmosphere of scepticism and hope for the future.

What is the pulse of the Arab revolt? Where is the revolution in Egypt headed and why did it happen in the first place? These were the themes of ’The Pulse of the Arab Revolt’, an event hosted by the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) to mark the launch of their new publication of the same name, and indeed to commemorate the first anniversary of 25 January, a day that Egyptians the world over will not soon forget.

Since the results of the Egyptian election that saw the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party capturing 47% of the seats, and the Salafist Al-Nour party taking 25%, much has been said in the media regarding the ‘rise of Islamism’ in Egypt, ranging from a cautious yet anxious wait-and-see approach, to a categorical rejection of Islamists across the board. There are those who argue that the latter approach oversimplifies the more moderate Muslim Brotherhood, and risks spurring the more extreme.

Egyptian Copts praying at Tahrir Square. Credit: Wikimedia

In my last blog on the Amazigh in Libya I wrote about the importance of protecting indigenous rights in Libya and the danger a hyper-nationalist state would pose to these rights. Is Egypt heading towards hyper-nationalism? Mariz Tadros, one of the panellists at the event and a Research Fellow at IDS, reflected on this question. She noted that there were instances where both the Army and the Islamists have accused Copts of being ‘divisive’ forces and those who champion women’s rights as ‘agents of Western imperialism’. Even though Egypt’s revolt began with calls for social justice, Tadros notes that the current framework for social justice still excluded certain elements of society – notably women and the minority Copts.

And indeed this exclusion has meant the ongoing repression of the Copts. Copts have had a turbulent history within Egypt, having faced discrimination for decades. Just a month before the fall of the Mubarak regime, 21 people were killed and 70 injured in a suspected suicide bombing during a New Year’s Eve church service in Alexandria.

But while there is now a freedom from fear in the region, as noted by Ramy Aly, a panellist and a Research Fellow in the School of Global Studies, the same cannot be said for the Copts. The death of 27 protestors, mostly Copts, during the Maspero demonstrations in October 2011 against the demolition of a church, spelled a new wave of fear for the minority community. It must be noted however that it was the Army that inflicted the violence in this instance.

Maspero demonstrations in October 2011, which led to the death of 27 protestors, mostly Copts. Credit: Gigi Ibrahim

How do we understand this situation of intolerance and violence coming from both secular and religious forces? Aly points to an embedded culture of militarism as the underlying problem. He argues that the removal of Mubarak has not removed the laws and social norms that have existed in Egypt for years, with the reality on the ground seeing the extension of war-based values, practices and ideologies. Any mention of minority rights is seen through the prism of ’national security’, as though by ensuring the victory of minorities and the empowerment of women, the revolution would ultimately fail.

One common thread ran through all the panellists’ arguments: Even though the dictator has been wrestled out of power, policy has yet to change. Without legislative development Aly argues, a vacuum of rights and freedoms will continue to exist. So what now is the shape of things to come for minority rights? The answer depends on several things, not least how one construes the term ‘Islamists’ – in itself perhaps a counterproductive term since it makes little attempt to recognize the many differences between the various camps.

With the  Muslim Brotherhood gaining such strong support amongst Egyptian voters, they have the mammoth task of doing Egypt’s revolution justice. Tadros argued that the Muslim Brotherhood may be forced to open their terms of social justice, being the majority party in Parliament. Aly points to the current move away from militarism, best demonstrated with united calls for the end of military rule, as a reason for hope for the protection of rights and freedoms. Maha Abdel Rahman, another panellist and professor at Cambridge University, observed that the past year had seen high levels of politicization amongst the Egyptian people, the foundation for a people-powered democracy.

This perhaps is the new framework for Egypt, away from the out-dated model of entrenched elitism. Whatever one’s opinion is of the Muslim Brotherhood, the reality is that the question of minority rights will be a litmus test to prove that they are capable of leading a true democracy.

‘The media is part of the problem, not the solution!’

Ara Iskanderian, a British-Armenian interning in MRG’s publications department, reflects on the media’s influence on racist attitudes

It’s a rare hot, sunny day in Sheffield, United Kingdom. Young delegates representing organizations from across the length and breadth of Europe are taking their seats ahead of the afternoon’s plenary session. This is the bi-annual United conference, an opportunity for European anti-racism activists to network and share strategies with which to combat the far right. This afternoon’s topic: “How does the media contribute to combating racist attitudes?”.

Everyone’s a little tired, but the first guest speaker immediately rouses us as he declares loudly, “The media is part of the problem, not the solution!” His passionate speech sits people up straight in their seats. Around the room people from countries ranging from France to Georgia start nodding in agreement.

The speaker, who preferred not to be identified, was fresh from campaigning against the far right British National Party (BNP) in the run up to the June 2009 European elections. Frustrated with what he termed “sloppy” reportage by mainstream media outlets he called for a return to forceful investigative journalism. Against which the far right’s assertions don’t hold up.

Take the recent BNP electoral pamphlet I recently had shoved through my letterbox. Photos of ‘genuine’ British workers complaining about job losses turned out to be American models posing as the real thing. Similarly, spitfire airplanes used in the same pamphlet to protest against immigrants coming from Eastern Europe in fact belonged to a Polish RAF squadron. These discrepancies were eventually picked up by the mainstream British media, but the actual research had been carried out by anti-racism activists like our speaker, and not by journalists.

I find myself joining the chorus of nodding heads. As an ethnic minority, a British-Armenian, I feel let down by the media in Britain. I often read pieces where journalists rather emptily use words such as ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘diversity’ as stand alone terms, failing to elaborate what they mean by them. The result being that whilst multiculturalism is celebrated, not enough time is spent explaining as to why it should be.

When the speaker emphatically declares, “We need to realize that we are on the defensive against the far right”, I find my mind racing. Personally I would like to see journalists proactively challenging racist opinions with solid, well-researched articles that provide balanced images of minorities. This would certainly attach more weight to the concept of multiculturalism.

Merely reporting facts isn’t enough. However, time and space restraints often dictate this to be the case. In such instances issues become simplified. For example there is an inadequate separation of issues such as immigration and job security. When in 2003, following Poland’s entry to the EU, thousands of Poles migrated to the United Kingdom it was reported as threatening British jobs, more often than not though Poles were filling areas of labour shortages.

When these issues are linked with commentaries on “Britishness” it’s a little hard as an ethnic minority to not feel as though what’s occurring is really veiled criticism of minorities in general. Journalists argue that what’s occurring is in fact a legitimate debate about immigration to Britain. But how can it be described as a ‘debate’ when those journalists conducting it are not representative of the communities themselves? There is a distinct lack of ethnic minority journalists commenting in the British print media.

As an ethnic minority reader it’s easy to feel a little bit ignored and unrepresented. What’s worse however is the tenuous connection made in some papers between immigration, job security and ‘Britishness’ – and it’s not difficult for the far right to play upon these links to its political advantage.

The speaker finishes up and receives a standing ovation. He looks humbled by the response.

In the proceeding comments one delegate suggests establishing media monitoring agencies. I don’t think regulation is a solution, its too open to criticisms of restricting free speech. Part of the problem is that media outlets lack accountability, so monitoring their impact is difficult. It’s equally difficult to know whether the media creates or reflects an issue. Can journalistic styles change, though? Balanced reporting should be the goal.

Delegates in a workshop at the United conference

We break for coffee. Conversations start amongst people from countries across Europe as they share their incredulity at the state of affairs in Britain. But it seems the British experience is far from unique.

A tap upon the microphone hurried us back to our seats. The next two speakers chart similar situations, but this time showing how sloppy reporting on ethnic minorities and their issues spiraled into violence in their countries. I sat there, in the stuffy warmth of a Sheffield conference hall, rather alarmed at the comparison I was able to draw between the initial stages of these last two speakers’ experiences of alienation and my own. But getting together to discuss these experiences and hear examples of what should and can be done to make a difference, left me hopeful and with plenty of food for thought.

Re-branding Persia

Today, the world is watching as Iranians come out to vote in the presidential elections. MRG’s production editor, Kristen Harrison, suggests the country is in need of some good PR.

Iran is a country desperate for change, not just in terms of the lives of individuals but in terms of its relationship with the outside world. Ayetollah Khomenei’s Islamic revolution 30 years ago was – in the eyes of many Westerners – the start of a downhill slide for Iran’s PR . This was not just a political or religious revolution, it was a cultural revolution that would fundamentally change how the rest of the world perceived the country. Iran went from being seen as a Persian paradise – full of art, history, culture and romance – to being seen as an oppressive society full of censorship, political scarring and angry, grumpy people. Now, to be sure, Iranians suffered greatly under the Shah and there are many who strongly support the Islamic government. And Iranian minorities have suffered discrimination under both regimes. Nevertheless, we need reminding that Iran is still that Persian paradise.

The problem for Iran is the vast divide between its people and its leadership. A rich, colourful world exists but it’s wrapped in a bubble of political and religious rule that prevents anyone from seeing in or out. I recently spent 10 days holidaying in Iran and what was most surprising was the complete disjuncture between my preconceptions and the reality. In no way is Iran intimidating. In no way is Iran dangerous for tourists. In no way is Iran full of miserable, silenced women. In no way is Iran an impenetrable country. I have never visited a country where such warmth just springs from the souls of people. Everywhere we went people wanted to talk to us, take us home and feed us, introduce us to their parents, show us off to friends and proffer all manner of hospitalities. After initial feelings of suspicion (why on earth are they being so nice?) we realised their motivations were completely altruistic. They just  wanted us, as foreigners, to enjoy their beautiful country.

What more can I say. I hope Iran’s future involves bridging the gap between the citizens of the country, the government, and the outside world. It is a country to be embraced, not feared. Here are a few photos to
illustrate some of what Iran is really about. But please, go and see for yourself.

Oh, and on that issue of re-branding, perhaps a return to the name “Persia” is a place to start.

The roof of Jameh Mosque in Esfahan, showing the beautiful geometric designs that persian buildings are famous for.

Azadi (meaning ‘freedom’) monument in Teheran, built in 1971 (pre-revolution) to commemorate the 2500th anniversary of the Persian empire.

The roof of a traditional Iranian restaurant in Esfahan.

This group of schoolboys were keen to practice their English with us.

Sour plums. Popular with Iranians but… well… an acquired taste.

Jameh Mosque in Esfahan was one of the highlights with its impressive architectural symmetry and use of light.

Fatima’s mum is teaching her English. She is 4 years old and can already count to 23.

An example of true architectural genius. These wind towers act as airconditioners to cool the houses in Yazd, a desert city. Why oh why haven’t we adopted this technique?

The flame at this sacred Zoroastrian site has been burning for 1250 years.

Motorbikes are everywhere, even in these narrow backstreets of Yazd.

A now abandoned Zoroastrian village on the outskirts of Yazd.

The nightlife in Teheran is buzzing and it is also very civilized, alcohol-free and family-friendly. This carload are heading to one of the many packed local parks to enjoy an evening picnic.

Your average intersection in Teheran demonstrating another of Iran’s contradictions: all the lovely, warm people turn into maniacs behind the wheel of a car.

An 83-year-old rollerblader in Laleh Park, Teheran.

mmmm… spices.

Pol Bridge, Esfahan.

Zayandeh river in Esfahan is currently experiencing a serious drought.

Pictures on the wall show famous Zurkhaneh athletes. Zurkhaneh is the national sport of Iran and is accompanied by a man with a large drum who sings poetry. Amazing to watch.

These girls enjoy a dip in the main fountain of Imam Square, Esfahan.

An man leaves a market in Esfahan laden with mysterious empty bottles.