Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 45kWORD 19k
18 April 2019
E-002095-19
Question for written answer E-002095-19
to the Commission
Rule 130
Agnieszka Kozłowska-Rajewicz (PPE)

 Subject:  Human and women's rights violations in Pakistan

Taking into consideration Question E-000494/2019 and Commissioner Malmström’s answer and Question E-005012/2018 and Commissioner Thyssen’s answer;

Taking into consideration the Commission’s biannual report (COM(2018)0036), which mentions that Pakistan receives the majority (74%) of preferential treatment under the GSP+, yet notes that the situation there is ‘mixed’ and requires further work;

Taking into consideration that although legislation on honour killings was reformed in 2016, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan has found that the number of honour killings continues to increase, recording 737 such crimes between June 2017 and August 2018, creating doubts as to whether Pakistan is able to effectively implement laws and conventions it has ratified:
1. In the GSP+ monitoring procedure, does the Commission employ statistical measures to analyse the implementation of the laws and conventions adopted (and if so, are there any ‘red lines’ or benchmarks that cannot be exceeded?); or, if only qualitative measures are used, who determines compliance?
2. As legislation has been ineffective in protecting victims of honour killings, will Pakistan face any legal consequences for these failures, such as restrictions on preferential treatment?
3. Which red line would have to be crossed in order for the Commission to consider withdrawing GSP+ preferences if serious and systematic violations of GSP+ principles, especially CEDAW, fail to produce meaningful progress?
Last updated: 8 May 2019Legal notice