The “ United Nations Commission on Human Rights” was principal body within the United Nations system responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights. It was assisted in this work by the “ Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights” . Originally the 'Sub Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities', it was renamed in 1999. The Sub-Commission's main functions were to undertake studies and to make recommendations on human rights issues and to carry out any other functions which may be entrusted to it. After The Human Rights Council replaced the former United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the Council adopted its "Institution-building package" to guide its work and set up its procedures and mechanisms. Among them was the “ Advisory Committee ” . It has been replaced the former Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. The Advisory Committee provides to the Human Rights Council expertise and advice on thematic human rights issues. This article was designed to compares the two institutions and their function and role to protect and promote of human rights and realization UN’ s goals in the files of human rights.

In the current era, human-rights regional organizations, while enjoying appropriate human rights mechanisms, have often placed their priority in monitoring the human rights situation in member states and taking appropriate measures to deal with human rights violations in these countries. In recent years, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, as a regional institution, has seen developments in the field of human rights that can be considered in the form of provision of human rights documents and the designing minimum mechanisms for the promotion of human rights in Islamic states. In addition to the quality of considering the human rights by the organization, this article will examine whether the approach of Organization of Islamic Cooperation has been extrinsic or intrinsic in concern with the documents of human rights and procedure of the organization. Finally, it is concluded the documents and procedure of the organization reveal that it has taken an extrinsic approach with an emphasis on the human rights situation of Muslims in non-member countries; meanwhile besides departing from the traditional approach of the organization, the recent approach to monitoring the human rights situation in some member states is indicative of a tendency towards an intrinsic approach to human rights. However, the organization's discriminatory response to human rights violations in member states is a major concern.

The treatment of aliens has a long history under international law and has always been a controversial Issue. In this context the main issue is to compromise between the sovereignty of states and the protection of human rights of aliens. The expulsion of aliens is one of the most important subdivisions of international law on treatment of aliens. Since the nineteenth century, affected by the process and dialogue of humanization of international law and with Progressive development of Human Rights Law, the laws regulating this domain have been impressively evolved. Recently international law commission (ILC) has adopted the draft articles on the “, expulsion of aliens”,with commentaries. The commentary on draft article 3 point out that the draft articles involve both codification of existing international law and progressive development of international law, twin aspects of the ILC’, s mandate. The goal of this paper is to examine this draft articles from the development of human rights perspective and to analyze that to what extent they progress beyond the status quo in human rights law.

Because of the importance of Human Rights issues, mechanisms and organizations established in this field have an especial importance too. The Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Council substituted the former are two important mechanisms established in this respect by the U. N. The major functions of these organizations are development, promotion, protection and supervising human rights in member states of the U. N such as the Islamic Republic of Iran. The investigation of human rights situation in Iran started when the Human Rights Commission was established and continued when the Human Rights Council substituted in 2006. The main goal of the present research is to compare the practice of these two organizations toward Iran for finding the similarities and differences. Findings of the research show that despite of the organizational changing and developments in the Human Rights Council there are not considerable differences in the practice of the Human Rights Council compared to the Human Rights Commission; this means that the general political atmosphere and criticisms against Iran experienced in Human Rights Commission practice toward Iran continued in the practice of its substituted organization. Meanwhile Iran's attempts in establishing channels to affect the decisions of both organizations have not been successful. Research method in this research is analytical-descriptive and data gathering is based on library way.

In the 21st century, a wide range of human rights systems and their institutions and regulatory bodies does not exclude any of their members from their supervisory jurisdiction in implementing their mechanisms in defense of human rights in order to prove their determination to protect human rights, usually by emphasizing an introverted approach. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), as a regional institution, has shown a tendency toward designing minimal mechanisms for protection of human rights in Islamic states in recent years. The present article, through a descriptive-analytical method, while studying the general attitude of the Organization in the field of human rights, examines its inadequacies and weaknesses on monitoring the human rights situation in member states and the obstacles and challenges facing the recent tendency of the Organization to become a fixed practice. It appears that despite the primary positive assessment, the recent practice of the Organization in reacting to human rights violations and its limitation of the scope of this practice to a few number of states and its discriminative approach of not-reacting to the violation of human rights by other states reveal both the political bias of the Organization and inefficacy of the elements constituting the customary rule for fixation of this practice.