Index 
Texts adopted
Thursday, 5 October 2017 - StrasbourgFinal edition
Situation of people with albinism in Malawi and other African countries
 The cases of Crimean Tatar leaders Akhtem Chiygoz, Ilmi Umerov and the journalist Mykola Semena
 Situation in Maldives
 Enhanced cooperation: European Public Prosecutor's Office ***
 Prison systems and conditions

Situation of people with albinism in Malawi and other African countries
PDF 173kWORD 47k
European Parliament resolution of 5 October 2017 on the situation of persons with albinism in Africa, notably in Malawi (2017/2868(RSP))
P8_TA(2017)0381RC-B8-0543/2017

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to its previous resolutions on albinism in Africa, in particular that of 7 July 2016 on the situation of persons with albinism in Africa, notably in Malawi(1), and of 4 September 2008 on the killing of albinos in Tanzania(2),

–  having regard to the reports of the UN Independent Expert on the enjoyment of human rights by persons with albinism of 24 March 2017 and 18 January 2016,

–  having regard to the European External Action Service (EEAS) statement of 13 June 2017 on International Albinism Awareness Day,

–  having regard to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) press releases of 19 September 2017, entitled ‘Ground-breaking step to tackle impunity for witchcraft related human rights violations’, and of 28 July 2017, entitled ‘Tanzania: “Reported attacks against persons with albinism decline, but root causes still rife in rural areas” – UN expert’,

–  having regard to UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 69/170 of 18 December 2014 on International Albinism Awareness Day,

–  having regard to UNGA resolution 70/229 of 23 December 2015 on persons with albinism,

–  having regard to resolution 263 of 5 November 2013 of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) on the prevention of attacks and discrimination against persons with albinism,

–  having regard to the Regional Action Plan to end attacks on persons with albinism in Africa for period 2017-2021, and ACHPR resolution 373 of 22 May 2017 thereon,

–  having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948,

–  having regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

–  having regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,

–  having regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,

–  having regard to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,

–  having regard to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities of 18 December 1992,

–  having regard to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights,

–  having regard to the Cotonou Partnership Agreement,

–  having regard to Rules 135(5) and 123(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas albinism is an inherited genetic condition affecting about one in 20 000 people worldwide, and a considerably higher proportion of people in sub-Saharan countries, specifically Tanzania, Malawi and Burundi, which have the highest concentrations of persons with albinism (PWAs);

B.  whereas the greatest threat to persons with albinism in the majority of Africa is posed by misleading and superstitious beliefs regarding the condition; whereas the false association between albinism and magical powers poses the most severe threat to PWAs; whereas such myths motivate violence and the trafficking of their body parts to bring luck, health and fortune; whereas PWA women are subjected to rape, owing to the misconception that sexual intercourse with them can cure HIV/AIDS;

C.  whereas according to human rights groups, in the past decade, more than 600 attacks against PWAs have been reported in Africa, although this is most likely an underestimate; whereas these attacks have become considerably more frequent over the past years, notably in Malawi, Tanzania and Mozambique;

D.  whereas in 2016, 172 murders and 276 other attacks against PWAs occurred across 25 African countries; whereas this year, aside from in Malawi, cases of attacks against PWAs have also been reported in Burundi, Mozambique, Zambia and Tanzania, in which the majority of the victims were reportedly children;

E.  whereas since the beginning of 2017, a new wave of killings and attacks targeting PWAs has been fuelled by systemic failures in Malawi’s criminal justice system, which leave members of this vulnerable group at the mercy of criminal gangs; whereas since January 2017, at least two PWAs have been killed, while seven more have reported crimes such as attempted murder or abduction;

F.  whereas despite stronger legislation being introduced in Malawi in 2016, including reforms to the Penal Code and the Anatomy Act, this has not prevented the resurgence of killings and attacks against this vulnerable group, mainly due to poor law enforcement and judicial capacities, root causes and the social and cultural environment, perpetrators are rarely identified, brought to justice or convicted;

G.  whereas PWAs are facing extreme violations of human rights, ranging from harassment, persecution, societal discrimination and exclusion, to abduction, rape and murder;

H.  whereas women and children with albinism are particularly vulnerable to social exclusion; whereas babies are abandoned as a result of their condition; whereas children’s education suffers as a result of bullying, stigmatisation and overall fear of attack;

I.  whereas the Tanzanian Government has engaged in serious and tangible action to tackle witchcraft in the country, including the suspension of traditional healers’ licences and numerous arrests of witchdoctors; whereas the Tanzanian President appointed the first Member of Parliament with albinism in 2008 and the first albino deputy minister in December 2015;

J.  whereas Mozambique, Nigeria and Kenya have adopted an action plan to respond to attacks, focusing on promoting public education on albinism and raising awareness of the issue among families and communities, guaranteeing protection and social assistance to PWAs, ensuring legal assistance, procedural celerity and the prevention of attacks, sharing and publishing judicial decisions as a means of deterrence, and conducting further research to improve measures identified in the plan and support evidence-based policymaking;

K.  whereas in June 2017, the ACHPR adopted a Regional Action Plan to end attacks on persons with albinism for the period 2017-2021, endorsed by the UN and various regional and international stakeholders; whereas this Action Plan aims to foster joint efforts and actions to combat violence against PWAs and to protect their rights and those of their families;

L.  whereas, despite increasing international visibility and the adoption of new legislation in the countries affected, prosecutions and convictions remain very few in number and crimes and torture continue to be committed with total impunity in many African countries;

M.  whereas killings, mutilation, discrimination, harassment and stigmatisation have uprooted hundreds of PWAs to areas of refuge in temporary shelters; whereas this situation has caused greater precariousness and insecurity for PWAs, limiting their access to basic services, such as healthcare and education, employment opportunities and participation in society; whereas appropriate medical care, including preventive medication for skin cancer, is restricted by the challenges PWAs face, which could be overcome with the development of medical facilities and knowledge in the region;

N.  whereas long lasting and even permanent psychosocial damage is caused by life-long fear and discrimination;

O.  whereas in March 2015, the UN appointed its first Independent Expert on the enjoyment of human rights by persons with albinism, Ikponwosa Ero, and officially proclaimed 13 June as International Albinism Awareness Day;

P.  whereas the EU has carried out public advocacy campaigns to generate wider awareness of the issue and has supported the engagement of civil society organisations and the capacity-building efforts of local authorities in the fight against PWA killings;

Q.  whereas PWAs are disproportionately affected by poverty, owing to the violence, discrimination and marginalisation they face;

1.  Expresses its deep concern at the continuous and widespread discrimination and persecution faced by PWAs in Africa, in particular following the recent rise in violence in Malawi; strongly condemns all killings, abductions, mutilations and other inhuman and degrading treatment suffered by PWAs and expresses its condolences and solidarity to the families of the victims; condemns, in addition, any speculative trading in PWA body parts;

2.  Remains highly concerned that the introduction of stronger legislation in Malawi has not prevented a recent resurgence in attacks against PWAs; welcomes the reforms to the Penal Code and the Anatomy Act; calls, however, on the Malawian authorities to fully investigate the recent spate of crimes against PWAs and bring the perpetrators of albinism-related crimes to justice;

3.  Recalls that the primary responsibility of a state is to protect its citizens, including vulnerable groups, and calls on the Government of Malawi to offer effective protections for PWAs so as to uphold their right to life and personal security, in accordance with Malawi’s international human rights obligations and commitments;

4.  Urges the Malawian authorities to act proactively against any criminal organisation active in witchcraft and human trafficking, give the police adequate training and resources, thoroughly investigate crimes related to albinism, put an end to impunity, and seek, as a matter of urgency, international support to conduct impartial and effective investigations into all reported attacks against PWAs, in order to bring those responsible to justice and hold them accountable;

5.  Calls on the African countries affected to extend legislation where necessary, in order to criminalise the possession and trafficking of body parts;

6.  Calls on the Malawian Government to meet the medical, psychological and social needs of PWAs more effectively by guaranteeing them equal access to healthcare and education, as part of inclusion policies; recalls that access to healthcare and education remains a considerable challenge for PWAs which needs to be tackled; calls for greater investment in creating adequate social, care and counselling structures for victims, in particular for women and children, and a better response to their medical and psychological needs; insists that policies should be put in place to facilitate their reintegration in their communities;

7.  Underlines that the general lack of understanding of and health information on albinism tends to aggravate the health condition of PWAs; stresses the need to ensure that they have access to healthcare, in particular in rural and remote areas; considers that healthcare workers should be given sensitivity training on albinism; calls for the improved training of teachers and school administrations on albinism and for the Malawian authorities to facilitate PWAs’ access to and enjoyment of education;

8.  Welcomes the efforts made by the Tanzanian Government to combat the discrimination of PWAs and its decision to outlaw witchdoctors in a bid to stop the killing of this group, while acknowledging that too few cases are brought to justice; welcomes, in addition, the efforts made by Mozambique, Kenya and Nigeria;

9.  Reiterates that more effort should be put into addressing the root causes of discrimination and violence against PWAs through public awareness campaigns; stresses the crucial role of local authorities and civil society organisations in promoting the rights of PWAs, informing and educating the population, and shattering myths and prejudices with regard to albinism;

10.  Is concerned at the specific challenges faced by women and children with albinism, which leave them more exposed to poverty, insecurity and isolation; insists that all victims should have access to appropriate medical and psychological care, and that adequate policies should be put in place to facilitate their reintegration into their communities;

11.  Calls on the authorities of the countries affected, in cooperation with their international and regional partners, to commit to tackling the harmful superstitious beliefs perpetuating the targeting of people with albinism, taking all necessary measures to prevent and tackle the illegal trade in PWA body parts, revisit cases of suspected grave robberies, trace and identify the source of demand for such body parts, and bring ‘PWA hunters’ to justice;

12.  Recalls that violence against PWAs is often of a cross-border nature and insists on the need to strengthen regional cooperation on the matter; welcomes, therefore, all initiatives taken at regional and international level to fight violence against PWAs and, in particular, the recent adoption of the Regional Action Plan on albinism for the period 2017-2021 by the African Union and the UN, which is a positive and concrete sign of commitment from African leaders; calls for its immediate and effective implementation;

13.  Calls for the EU and its Member States to keep engaging with the countries affected, in order to effectively support their efforts to formulate policies addressing the specific needs and rights of persons with albinism, on the basis of non-discrimination and social inclusion, by providing the necessary financial and technical assistance;

14.  Calls for the EU to continue closely monitoring the human rights situation of PWAs in Africa, in particular through regular reporting and follow-up work by its delegations, and to continue to promote significant improvements to their protection and social integration;

15.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Governments and Parliaments of Malawi and Tanzania, the African Union and the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

(1) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0314.
(2) OJ C 295 E, 4.12.2009, p. 94.


The cases of Crimean Tatar leaders Akhtem Chiygoz, Ilmi Umerov and the journalist Mykola Semena
PDF 171kWORD 47k
European Parliament resolution of 5 October 2017 on the cases of Crimean Tatar leaders Akhtem Chiygoz, Ilmi Umerov and the journalist Mykola Semena (2017/2869(RSP))
P8_TA(2017)0382RC-B8-0545/2017

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement and the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area,

–  having regard to its previous resolutions on Ukraine and on Crimea, on the European Neighbourhood Policy and on the Eastern Partnership, and in particular to its resolution of 21 January 2016 on the Association Agreements and the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine(1), its resolution of 4 February 2016 on the human rights situation in Crimea, in particular of the Crimean Tatars(2), its resolution of 12 May 2016 on the Crimean Tatars(3) and its resolution of 16 March 2017 on the Ukrainian prisoners in Russia and the situation in Crimea(4),

–  having regard to the report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights of 25 September 2017 on the ‘Situation of human rights in the temporarily occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine)’,

–  having regard to UN General Assembly Resolution 68/262 of 27 March 2014 entitled ‘Territorial integrity of Ukraine’ and to the UN General Assembly Resolution 71/205 of 19 December 2016, entitled ‘Situation of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine)’,

–  having regard to the Council decisions continuing the sanctions imposed on the Russian Federation in relation to the illegal annexation of the Crimean peninsula,

–  having regard to international humanitarian law and, in particular, to its provisions on occupied territories and the treatment and protection of civilians,

–  having regard to Rules 135(5) and 123(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas numerous credible reports, including the most recent by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, offer evidence of the increasing abuse of human rights in Crimea affecting representatives of the Crimean Tatars, journalists, media workers, bloggers and ordinary people who speak up against the Russian occupation or simply try to document the atrocities of the de facto authorities;

B.  whereas the report of the UN Office for Human Rights of 25 September 2017 on the ‘Situation of human rights in the temporarily occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine)’ states that ‘grave human rights violations, such as arbitrary arrests and detentions, enforced disappearances, ill-treatment and torture, and at least one extra-judicial execution were documented’;

C.  whereas Ilmi Umerov, Crimean Tatar Leader and Deputy Chair of the Mejlis, was sentenced to a period of two years in prison for voicing dissent against the illegal annexation of the Crimean peninsula under Article 280.1 of the Russian criminal code on ‘public calls to action aimed at violating Russia’s territorial integrity’;

D.  whereas Akhtem Chiygoz, Deputy Chair of the Mejlis, was sentenced to eight years of imprisonment for ‘organising mass disturbances’ on 26 February 2014;

E.  whereas journalist Mykola Semena received a suspended prison sentence for a period of two-and-a-half years and a three-year ban on conducting journalistic work on the basis of Article 280.1 of the Russian criminal code on ‘public calls to action aimed at violating Russia’s territorial integrity’;

F.  whereas the recent court rulings prove that the judicial system is being instrumentalised as a political tool to repress those opposed to the Russian annexation of the Crimean peninsula;

G.  whereas abductions, enforced disappearances, as well as the use of torture and cruel and degrading treatment in detention facilities, have been reported in various cases; whereas torture has been used to obtain false evidence of guilt; whereas these allegations have not been appropriately investigated to date;

H.  whereas in Crimea large-scale expropriation of public and private property has been conducted without compensation or regard for international humanitarian law provisions protecting property from seizure or destruction;

I.  whereas the space for civil society to operate in Crimea has been considerably diminished as media outlets have been shut down, disproportionately affecting the Crimean Tatar community, their right to information and their right to maintain their culture and identity;

J.  whereas the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation is illegal and in violation of international law and European agreements signed by both the Russian Federation and Ukraine, notably the UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Act and the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and the 1997 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation;

K.  whereas throughout the duration of the annexation the Russian Federation is to be held responsible for the protection of the people and citizens of Crimea, through the de facto authorities present in the region;

1.  Condemns the sentencing of Ilmi Umerov, Crimean Tatar Leader and Deputy Chair of the Mejlis, Akhtem Chiygoz, Deputy Chair of the Mejlis, and journalist Mykola Semena; demands that these convictions be reversed and that Mr Umerov and Mr Chiygoz are immediately and unconditionally released and all charges against Mr Semena are immediately and unconditionally dropped;

2.  Strongly condemns the harsh sentences handed out to leaders of the Crimean Tatar community and others opposing the Russian annexation, such as Uzair Abdullaev, Teymur Abdullaev, Zevri Abseutov, Rustem Abiltarov, Muslim Aliyev, Refat Alimov, Ali Asanov, Volodymyr Balukh, Enver Bekirov, Oleksiy Bessarabov, Hlib Shabliy, Oleksiy Chirniy, Mustafa Degermenji, Emil Dzhemadenov, Arsen Dzheparov, Volodymyr Dudka, Pavlo Gryb, Rustem Ismailov, Mykola Karpyuk, Stanislav Klykh, Andriy Kolomiyets, Oleksandr Kolchenko, Oleksandr Kostenko, Emir-Usein Kuku, Sergey Litvinov, Enver Mamutov, Remzi Memethov, Yevhen Panov, Yuri Primov, Volodymyr Prisich, Ferat Sayfullayev, Eider Saledinov, Oleg Sentsov, Vadym Siruk, Oleksiy Stogniy, Redvan Suleymanov, Roman Sushchenko, Mykola Shiptur, Dmytro Shtyblikov, Viktor Shchur, Rustem Vaitov, Valentyn Vygovsky, Andriy Zakhtey and Ruslan Zeytullaev, following farcical court proceedings and questionable charges; demands the repeal of their court rulings and the immediate release of those detained;

3.  Condemns the discriminatory policies imposed by the so-called authorities against, in particular, the indigenous Crimean Tatar community, the infringement of their property rights, the increasing intimidation in political, social and economic life of this community and of all those who oppose the Russian annexation;

4.  Considers that the rights of the Crimean Tatars have been gravely violated through the banning of the activities of the Mejlis and declaring it an extremist organisation on 26 April 2016, and through the ban on their leaders re-entering the peninsula; strongly reiterates its call for the immediate reversal of the related decisions and their effects and for compliance with the International Court of Justice Order on provisional measures in proceedings brought by Ukraine against the Russian Federation, issued on 19 April 2017, which concludes that the Russian Federation must ‘refrain from maintaining or imposing limitations on the ability of the Crimean Tatar community to conserve its representative institutions, including the Mejlis’;

5.  Recalls that the reality of repression and the application of legislation on extremism, terrorism and separatism has led to a severe deterioration in the human rights situation on the Crimean peninsula and to the widespread violation of freedom of speech and association, and that forced imposition of Russian citizenship has become systematic and fundamental freedoms are not guaranteed on the Crimean peninsula; demands that discriminatory legislation is revoked and emphasises the urgent need for accountability for human rights violations and abuses in the peninsula;

6.  Strongly condemns the prevailing practice of transferring detainees to distant regions of Russia, as this severely hinders their communication with their families and friends and the ability of human rights organisations to monitor their wellbeing; underlines that this practice is in breach of the Russian legislation in force, in particular Article 73 of the Criminal Enforcement Code, according to which sentences should be served in the region in which convicts reside or in which the court sentence was handed down;

7.  Calls on the EEAS and the EU Delegation in Russia to closely follow the ongoing trials and to pay attention to the treatment of those detained; expresses particular concern over reports of the use of punitive psychiatric treatments; expects the EU Delegation, the EEAS and Member States’ embassies to closely follow these proceedings and to seek access to those detained before, during and after their trials;

8.  Calls on the European Court of Human Rights to consider all applications for redress from Crimea with the highest priority possible, as the Russian domestic judicial system cannot and does not provide legal remedies in these cases;

9.  Condemns the repression of independent media outlets representing minority communities and urges the Russian authorities to refrain from placing legal and administrative obstacles to their operation;

10.  Calls for international human rights observers, including specialised structures of the UN, OSCE and Council of Europe, to have unhindered access to the Crimean peninsula in order to investigate the situation on the peninsula, and for the establishment of independent monitoring mechanisms; supports the initiatives led by Ukraine with a view to addressing these issues within the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly; calls on the EEAS and the European Union’s Special Representative for Human Rights to pay constant attention to the human rights situation in the Crimean peninsula and to keep Parliament informed;

11.  Calls on the Commission to support projects and exchanges aimed at improving people-to-people contacts, as well as those promoting peace-building, conflict resolution, reconciliation and intercultural dialogue, including within Crimea; encourages the avoidance of bureaucratic obstacles and encourages more flexible approaches that will allow easier access of international observers in the peninsula, including parliamentarians, with the agreement of Kiev and without this being interpreted as recognition of the annexation;

12.  Underlines that restrictive measures should be imposed on all individuals responsible for gross human rights violations, including those Crimean and Russian officials directly responsible for charging and sentencing Akhtem Chiygoz, Mykola Semena and Ilmi Umerov, and these should include the freezing of assets in EU banks and travel bans; reiterates its support for the EU’s decision to prohibit imports from Crimea and the export of certain goods and technologies, investment, trade and services to Crimea;

13.  Deplores the plight of Crimean children growing up without their fathers who have been illegally deprived of their liberty as de facto political prisoners, including those transferred to distant parts of the Russian Federation; considers this to be a blatant violation of international human rights, children’s rights and the international obligations of the Russian Federation, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; calls on the Russian authorities and the de facto Crimean authorities to allow the abovementioned persons regular contact with members of their families, particular the minors;

14.  Reminds the Russian authorities that in their de facto capacity as an occupational power exercising effective control over Crimea, they are fully responsible for the protection of Crimean citizens from arbitrary judicial or administrative measures, and in the same capacity they are bound by international humanitarian law to ensure the protection of human rights on the peninsula;

15.  Supports the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders and reiterates its condemnation of the illegal annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol by the Russian Federation; supports the policy of the EU and its Member States not to recognise the illegal annexation of the Crimean peninsula and to impose restrictive measures taken in this respect; expresses deep concern about the ongoing large-scale militarisation of the Crimean peninsula by Russia, which threatens regional and pan-European security;

16.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Member States, the President of Ukraine, the governments and parliaments of Ukraine and of the Russian Federation, the Parliamentary Assemblies of the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People and the Secretary General of the United Nations.

(1) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0018.
(2) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0043.
(3) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0218.
(4) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0087.


Situation in Maldives
PDF 170kWORD 46k
European Parliament resolution of 5 October 2017 on the situation in the Maldives (2017/2870(RSP))
P8_TA(2017)0383RC-B8-0549/2017

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to its previous resolutions on the Maldives, particularly those of 16 September 2004(1), 30 April 2015(2) and 17 December 2015(3),

–  having regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the Maldives is a party,

–  having regard to the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion and Belief of 1981,

–  having regard to the EU Guidelines on the Death Penalty,

–  having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, in particular Articles 2, 7 and 19 thereof,

–  having regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989,

–  having regard to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,

–  having regard to the statement of the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, of 27 July 2017,

–  having regard to the mission report of the 5th EU-Maldives Interparliamentary Meeting of 8 and 9 February 2016,

–  having regard to the statement issued on 25 July 2017 by the EU Delegation to the Maldives, together with the Embassies of EU Member States and the Embassies of Canada, Norway, Switzerland and the United States accredited to the Maldives, on the situation in the Maldives,

–  having regard to the statement of 14 March 2016 by the Spokesperson of the Vice-President of the European Commission / High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) on the conviction of the former president of the Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed,

–  having regard to the statement of 3 August 2017 of the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Agnès Callamard, on the ‘imminent’ resumption of executions in the Maldives,

–  having regard to Rules 135(5) and 123(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas the EU has long-standing relations with the Maldives and hundreds of thousands of European tourists travel to the Maldives every year;

B.  whereas the human rights situation in the Maldives has deteriorated dramatically since the country’s first democratic elections in 2008 and since its first democratically elected president, Mohamed Nasheed, was ousted in 2012;

C.  whereas political and civil freedoms have been eroded, opposition leaders have been arbitrarily arrested, the media have been attacked, and growing religious conservatism is blamed for a decline in religious freedom and tolerance as President Abdulla Yameen, former leader of the Progressive Party of the Maldives, and his government seek to tighten their grip on power;

D.  whereas on 22 August 2017 security forces forcibly closed the Parliament (Majlis) in what opposition parliamentarians described as an attempt to block a motion to impeach the Speaker of the Parliament;

E.  whereas opposition party members, independent journalists and human rights defenders report increased threats and attacks from authorities, police and extremist groups;

F.  whereas in March 2015 Mohamed Nasheed, the Maldives’ first democratically elected president, was sentenced to 13 years in jail on charges of terrorism; whereas of the 85 members of parliament, 12 opposition members are on trial, at least three have had their passports confiscated, and at least one remains arbitrarily detained; whereas presidential elections are scheduled for 2018;

G.  whereas concerns have been raised over the highly politicised Maldivian judiciary, which over the years has abused its powers and acted in favour of the current ruling party and against opposition politicians; whereas the right to a fair trial is still not guaranteed and the principles concerned constitute fundamental elements of the rule of law;

H.  whereas on 9 August 2016 the Maldivian Parliament adopted the ‘Bill on Protection of Reputation and Good Name and Freedom of Expression’, which imposes a number of restrictions on freedom of expression and gives the government the power to revoke or suspend the licenses of broadcasters, publications, websites and other media sources;

I.  whereas in August 2016 the President of the Maldives ratified a number of amendments to the Freedom of Assembly Act which restricted the designated areas for lawful protests;

J.  whereas the Maldives has been identified by the Inter-Parliamentary Union Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians as one of the worst countries in the world for attacks against opposition members of parliament, with opposition politicians routinely being intimidated, arrested and imprisoned; whereas freedom of expression, freedom of the media, freedom of association and democratic pluralism have been increasingly under threat, with the arrest and charging of hundreds of anti-government protesters; whereas there is mounting evidence indicating that criminal charges brought against political opponents of President Yameen may have been politically motivated;

K.  whereas President Yameen has repeatedly declared his intention to resume the practice of state-sanctioned executions, ending a 60-year moratorium; whereas in the Asia-Pacific region twenty states have abolished capital punishment and seven others are abolitionist in practice;

L.  whereas at least 20 individuals are currently under sentence of death in the Maldives, at least five of whom were aged under 18 at the time of their arrest; whereas Maldivian law, in contravention of international law, allows minors to be sentenced to a delayed death penalty to be carried out when the minor reaches the age of 18; whereas the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has urged the Government of the Maldives not to resume executions;

M.  whereas in at least three cases, namely those of Hussein Humaam Ahmed, Ahmed Murrath and Mohamed Nabeel, the Supreme Court of the Maldives has confirmed death sentences following trials which failed to uphold internationally recognised standards; whereas the three are now at risk of imminent execution;

N.  whereas the International Commission of Jurists has recently condemned the suspension of 56 Maldivian lawyers, a third of the country’s practising lawyers, all of whom took part in calls for judicial reforms intended to secure the independence of the judiciary;

O.  whereas there are also concerns about increasing radical Islamist militancy and about the number of radicalised young men and women alleged to have joined IS/Da’esh;

P.  whereas blogger and vocal government critic Yameen Rasheed was murdered on 23 April 2017; whereas journalist Ahmen Rilwan has been missing since August 2014 and is feared dead; whereas blogger Ismail Rasheed was stabbed and wounded in 2012;

1.  Expresses its deep regret at the deteriorating political and human rights situation in the Maldives and the increasingly authoritarian rule of President Abdulla Yameen and his government, which has created a climate of fear and jeopardised the gains made in the country in recent years in the areas of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, particularly in the light of the elections to be held in 2018;

2.  Condemns the passing in 2016 of the Defamation and Freedom of Speech Act, which seeks to clamp down on freedom of expression, and the amendments in 2016 to the Freedom of Assembly Act restricting the right of assembly; calls on the Government of the Maldives to bring all national laws into line with international human rights law, and to repeal or reform the aforementioned acts;

3.  Deplores the crackdown on political opponents in the Maldives, and calls on the government to drop all charges against former president Mohamed Nasheed and to release, immediately and unconditionally, all those being held for political reasons, including Jumhoory Party leader Qasim Ibrahim; reminds the government of its international obligations to respect fundamental freedoms and rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which include minimum fair trial guarantees;

4.  Calls on the Supreme Court of the Maldives to immediately revoke the suspension of those of the 56 lawyers suspended in September 2017 to whom the measure still applies; reiterates its call on the government to ensure the full independence and impartiality of the judiciary and to guarantee all citizens the right to fair and transparent justice free of political influence;

5.  Reiterates the EU’s firm opposition to the death penalty, in all cases and without exception; calls for the universal abolition of capital punishment; strongly condemns the announcement of the reintroduction of the death penalty in the Maldives and urges the Government and Parliament of the Maldives to respect the moratorium on the death penalty which has been in place for more than 60 years;

6.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to publicly urge President Yameen and the Government of the Maldives to review all death row cases in order to ensure that internationally recognised and constitutionally safeguarded rights of fair trial are respected; calls on the Government to immediately revoke all capital punishment charges against juveniles and to prohibit the execution of juvenile offenders;

7.  Believes that the only way to resolve the deterioration in democracy, human rights, and freedoms in the Maldives is through a process of genuine dialogue involving all political parties and other civic leaders;

8.  Calls on the Government of the Maldives to respect and fully support the right to protest, freedom of expression, association and assembly, and freedom of conscience and freedom of religion and belief, irrespective of the majority religion;

9.  Calls on the Government of the Maldives to end impunity for vigilantes who have used violence against people promoting religious tolerance, peaceful protesters, critical media and civil society;

10.  Condemns the forcible closure of the Maldivian Majlis to its members and the harassment, intimidation and arrest of elected members of parliament;

11.  Condemns the continued intimidation of and threats against journalists, bloggers and human rights defenders in the Maldives, the arrests of reporters, and the raids on and forced closures of news organisations;

12.  Calls on the government to guarantee an impartial and independent investigation into the death of Yameen Rasheed and the abduction of Ahmed Rilwan in order to identify all those responsible and bring them to justice;

13.  Calls on the Maldivian authorities to ensure that the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives, the National Integrity Commission and the electoral commissions can operate independently and without government interference; calls on the Government of the Maldives to fully cooperate with UN human rights mechanisms, including Special Procedures and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights;

14.  Calls on the EU to make full use of all instruments at its disposal in order to promote respect for human rights and democratic principles in the Maldives, including by considering introducing temporary individual targeted sanctions against those undermining human rights;

15.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the European External Action Service, the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the OSCE/ODHIR, the Council of Europe and the Government of the Maldives.

(1) OJ C 140 E, 9.6.2005, p. 165.
(2) OJ C 346, 21.9.2016, p. 60.
(3) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2015)0464.


Enhanced cooperation: European Public Prosecutor's Office ***
PDF 232kWORD 41k
European Parliament legislative resolution of 5 October 2017 on the draft Council regulation implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (“the EPPO”) (09941/2017 – C8-0229/2017 – 2013/0255(APP))
P8_TA(2017)0384A8-0290/2017

(Special legislative procedure – consent)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Council regulation (09941/2017),

–  having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8‑0229/2017),

–  having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0290/2017),

1.  Gives its consent to the draft Council regulation;

2.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.


Prison systems and conditions
PDF 270kWORD 61k
European Parliament resolution of 5 October 2017 on prison systems and conditions (2015/2062(INI))
P8_TA(2017)0385A8-0251/2017

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Articles 2, 6 and 7 of the Treaty on European Union and to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, particularly Articles 4, 19, 47, 48 and 49 thereof-

–  having regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) (Article 3, Article 8), the protocols to the ECHR and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the European Convention of 1987 for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment, and the reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT),

–  having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 3 and 5), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 7), and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,

–  having regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted in New York on 20 November 1989,

–  having regard to the following General Comments of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child: No 10 (2007) on children’s rights in juvenile justice, No 13 (2011) on the right of the child to freedom from all forms of violence, and No 17 (2013) on the right of the child to rest, leisure, play, recreational activities, cultural life and the arts (Article 31),

–  having regard to the UN minimum rules on the treatment of prisoners and the declarations and principles adopted by the UN General Assembly; having regard to the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules) adopted by the General Assembly; having regard to the Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on child-friendly justice; having regard to the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, particularly Recommendation CM/Rec (2006)2 on European Prison Rules, Recommendation CM/Rec (2006)13 on the use of remand in custody, the conditions in which it takes place and the provision of safeguards against abuse, Recommendation CM/Rec (2008)11 on the European rules for juvenile offenders subject to sanctions or measures, Recommendation CM/Rec (2010)1 on the Council of Europe Probation Rules, and Recommendation CM/Rec (2017)3 on the European Rules on community sanctions and measures; also having regard to the recommendations adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,

–  having regard to its resolutions of 18 January 1996 on poor conditions in prisons in the European Union(1), of 17 December 1998 on prison conditions in the European Union: improvements and alternative penalties(2), of 25 November 2009 on the multiannual programme 2010-2014 regarding the area of freedom, security and justice (Stockholm programme)(3) and of 15 December 2011 on detention conditions in the EU(4),

–  having regard to Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States(5),

–  having regard to Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union(6) (‘transfers of prisoners’),

–  having regard to Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions(7) (‘probation and alternative sanctions’),

–  having regard to Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the EU, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention(8) (‘European supervision orders’),

–  having regard to Directive (EU) 2016/800 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings(9),

–  having regard to the report of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights entitled ‘Criminal detention and alternatives: fundamental rights aspects in EU cross-border transfers’,

–  having regard to the Commission Green Paper of 14 June 2011 entitled ‘Strengthening mutual trust in the European judicial area – A Green Paper on the application of EU criminal justice legislation in the field of detention’ (COM(2011)0327),

–  having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in joined cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU, Pál Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru,

–  having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2015 on the prevention of radicalisation and recruitment of European citizens by terrorist organisations(10), and to the UNODC Handbook on the management of violent extremist prisoners and the prevention of radicalisation to violence in prisons(11),

–  having regard to the written declaration 0006/2011 of 14 February 2011 on infringement of the fundamental rights of detainees in the European Union,

–  having regard to the conventions, recommendations and resolutions of the Council of Europe on prison matters,

–  having regard to the Council of Europe’s white paper on prison overcrowding of 28 September 2016,

–  having regard to Recommendation CM/Rec (2012)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to Member States concerning foreign prisoners, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 October 2012,

–  having regard to Recommendation CM/Rec (2012)5 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to Member States on the European Code of Ethics for Prison Staff, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 12 April 2012,

–  having regard to the Council of Europe handbook for prison and probation services regarding radicalisation and violent extremism,

–  having regard to the studies of the European Penal Observatory (EPO), ‘From national practices to European guidelines: interesting initiatives in prisons management’ (2013) and ‘National monitoring bodies of prison conditions and the European standards’ (2015),

–  having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A8-0251/2017),

A.  whereas in 2014 prisons across the EU were holding over half a million inmates, including both convicted persons serving their definitive sentence and persons accused of a crime who were on remand;

B.  whereas prison conditions and prison management are responsibilities of the Member States but the EU also has a necessary role to play in protecting the fundamental rights of prisoners and in creating the European Area of Freedom, Security and Justice; whereas it falls within the remit of the EU to encourage the exchange of good practices between Member States which face common problems raising real security issues across Europe;

C.  whereas the situation in the prisons and the at times degrading and inhumane conditions of detention existing in certain Member States are cause for extreme concern, as demonstrated by reports such as those of the Council of Europe’s European Committee for the Prevention of Torture;

D.  whereas prison overcrowding is a recurrent problem in the Union, as recognised by more than a third of Member States and demonstrated by reports such as the most recent edition of the Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics (SPACE), published on 14 March 2017; and whereas the European Court of Human Rights has regarded overcrowding as a breach of Article 3 ECHR;

E.  whereas overcrowding obstructs the extradition or transfer of sentenced persons because of concerns regarding bad prison conditions in the receiving state; whereas the situation in certain Member States is continuing to worsen, to the point of becoming untenable in some of their prisons;

F.  whereas prison overcrowding is seriously detrimental to the quality of detention conditions, may contribute to radicalisation, has adverse effects on the health and wellbeing of prisoners, is an obstacle to social rehabilitation, and contributes to an unsafe, complicated and unhealthy working environment for prison staff;

G.  whereas in its judgment of 6 October 2005 in the case Hirst v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights confirmed that the generalised and automatic removal of prisoners’ right to vote is not compatible with democracy; whereas in Poland in 2011 58,7 % of prisoners entitled to vote participated in the parliamentary elections;

H.  whereas there is no correlation between severity of sentences and a drop in the crime rate;

I.  whereas imprisonment is a particularly inappropriate situation in which to place certain vulnerable individuals, such as minors, the elderly, pregnant women and people suffering from serious mental or physical illness or incapacity; whereas such persons require an appropriate tailored approach;

J.  whereas Article 37 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child stipulates that the detention of a child ‘shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time’ and that children ‘shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child’s best interest not to do so’;

K.  whereas, according to Eurostat data, over 20 % of the total prison population in 2014 consisted of pre-trial detainees;

L.  whereas pre-trial detention should be used only as a measure of last resort; whereas children should never be held in a facility where they are vulnerable to negative influences; whereas account should always be taken of the needs specific to the child’s phase of development;

M.  whereas imprisonment, including pre-trial detention, should be used only in legally justified cases and the application of sanctions as alternatives to imprisonment – such as home detention or other measures – should be prioritised in the case of prisoners who do not present a serious danger to society, thus keeping them in an open or familiar environment and giving them better access to social services, care and reintegration;

N.  whereas juvenile offenders should in principle always be entitled to alternatives to detention, regardless of the offence they have committed;

O.  whereas, according to Council of Europe figures for 2015, on average as many as 10,8 % of inmates in European prisons are foreigners – the corresponding figure in 2014 being 13,7% – and whereas they are most often remanded in custody because of the supposed greater risk of absconding associated with them;

P.  whereas penitentiary staff carry out an essential function on behalf of the community and should enjoy conditions of employment befitting their qualifications and which take account of the demanding nature of their work; whereas considering the difficult and delicate nature of their activity, measures such as better initial and continuous training of prison staff, an increase in dedicated funding, the sharing of best practices, decent and safe working conditions and an increase in staffing levels are essential to ensure good detention conditions in prisons; whereas continuous training would help support prison staff in addressing new and emerging challenges such as radicalisation in prison;

Q.  whereas motivated, dedicated and respected prison staff are a precondition for humane detention conditions and hence for the success of detention concepts designed to improve the management of prisons, successful reintegration into society, and the reduction of risks of radicalisation and recidivism;

R.  whereas self-harm and violent behaviour by prisoners are often provoked by overcrowding and deplorable detention conditions; whereas an additional factor is that staff are not properly trained or qualified; whereas in many prisons the level of tension is creating particularly difficult working conditions for staff, leading in several cases to industrial action in Member States;

S.  whereas an efficient penitentiary administration must be adequately funded and staffed if it is to carry out its security and rehabilitation mission;

T.  whereas the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is a universal norm, applicable to adults as well as children, and any violation of the fundamental rights of prisoners which does not result from restrictions that are vital for the deprivation of freedom is detrimental to human dignity;

U.  whereas the suicide rate in prisons in the EU is particularly alarming;

V.  whereas radicalisation in many prisons in the EU is a phenomenon of major concern requiring particular attention, and needs to be tackled by appropriate means, on a basis of full respect for human rights and international obligations; whereas the factors behind the rise in this phenomenon can include inhumane detention conditions and overcrowding, which can encourage the influence of recruiters for violent extremism;

W.  whereas the Union has made funding available under the European Agenda on Security in order to tackle radicalisation in prisons; whereas, in view of the security context in Europe, each Member State should, as a matter of urgency, take measures to prevent radicalisation in prisons; whereas the exchange of good practices at European level is crucial;

X.  whereas some of the current prison systems and facilities, and a significant proportion of the buildings currently in use as prisons in a number of European countries, date from the nineteenth century; whereas some of these buildings are no longer suitable for use in the twenty-first century, offering deplorable conditions that violate fundamental human rights;

Y.  whereas research has concluded that the development of a representative democracy and of a constructive dialogue inside prisons has been beneficial for prisoners, staff and the wider society, helping to improve staff-prisoner relationships;

1.  Is alarmed about prison conditions in certain Member States and the state of a number of European prisons; calls on the Member States to comply with the rules on detention derived from the instruments of international law and Council of Europe standards; notes that deprivation of liberty does not equate to deprivation of dignity; calls on the Member States to adopt independent prison monitoring mechanisms as laid down in the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT);

2.  Calls on the Member States to strengthen their judicial systems and invest in training for judges;

3.  Reaffirms that detention conditions are a decisive element in the application of the principle of mutual recognition of judgments in the European Union Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, as the Court of Justice held in the Aranyosi and Căldăraru cases; recalls the fundamental importance of the principle of mutual recognition of judgments provided for in the Treaty on European Union;

4.  Deplores the fact that prison overcrowding is very common in Europe; is alarmed at the new record levels of overcrowding in some Member States; highlights that according to the latest edition of the annual penal statistics of the Council of Europe of 14 March 2017, the number of detainees continues to exceed the number of available places in a third of European penitentiary institutions; calls on the Member States to follow the recommendations of the Council of Europe’s white paper on prison overcrowding of 28 September 2016 and Recommendation R(99) 22 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of 30 September 1999 concerning prison overcrowding and prison population inflation;

5.  Points out that Member States calculate prison capacity and, therefore, overcrowding rates, in accordance with spatial parameters that differ radically from one Member State to another, making it difficult, if not impossible, to make Union-wide comparisons;

6.  Deplores, further, the fact that in many cases prison overcrowding has a serious impact on the safety of staff and prisoners, affecting living conditions and health, the activities available, medical and psychological care, and the rehabilitation and monitoring of prisoners; urges Member States to set up systems and databases for the real-time monitoring of inmates’ detention conditions, and to ensure an efficient distribution of their prison population;

7.  Considers that increasing prison capacity is not the sole solution to overcrowding; calls nonetheless on Member States to allocate adequate resources to the refurbishment and modernisation of prisons in order to prioritise small units with accommodation for a restricted number of prisoners, provide dignified detention conditions, create collective spaces that meet the objectives of activity provision and socialisation, encourage rehabilitation and reintegration into society, develop further educational facilities, and ensure a more secure environment for both prisoners and staff;

8.  Considers that detention rules that vary in line with the prisoners and the level of risk they pose constitute a good method for preventing recidivism and encouraging reintegration into society; points out, once again, that reintegration measures must be internalised and must start during the period of detention; encourages Member States to take into account the type of crime committed when deciding how to distribute the prison population, preventing short-term inmates and those convicted of minor offences from coming into contact with long-term inmates;

9.  Calls on the Member States to provide inmates with a balanced programme of activities and to allow them to spend as many hours a day outside their cells as are necessary for an adequate level of human and social interaction and to lower frustration and violence; stresses that the accommodation provided for prisoners, and in particular sleeping conditions, shall respect human dignity and privacy and meet health and hygiene requirements, due regard being paid to climatic conditions and especially to floor space, cubic content of air, lighting, avoiding high levels of noise, heating and ventilation; calls on all Member States to adopt a common definition of the ‘minimum space’ to be provided for each detainee; recalls that the Commission recently mentioned the possibility of funding for Member States from the EU Structural Funds;

10.  Calls on the Member States to consider recruiting volunteers, within the context of the delivery of sanctions, to support the professional staff, with a view to creating links that will promote the reintegration of individuals into society; considers that the tasks of the volunteers should be clearly distinct from those carried out by the professional staff, and should fall within the limits of their competences;

11.  Suggests that Member States should establish inspectorates for detention premises (as is already the case in some), thus being able to draw on the work of independent bodies in evaluating prison conditions;

12.  Is concerned about the increasing privatisation of prison systems in the EU, and recalls that the privatisation of penal systems often leaves many questions unanswered as regards its impact on detention conditions and on respect for fundamental rights; deplores the fact that very few comparative studies have been carried out to evaluate costs and quality of management as regards public and private prisons; stresses that the main tasks of guidance, monitoring and court administration must remain under the authority of the state;

13.  Stresses that remand in custody must remain a measure of last resort, to be used only in cases where it is strictly necessary and for the shortest possible period of time, in line with the national criminal procedure code applying; deplores the fact that in many Member States, in practice remand is used systematically, which, combined with poor prison conditions, but not only, entails a violation of the fundamental rights of prisoners; considers that solving the problem of the overuse of pre-trial detention needs innovative solutions, including through the modernisation of criminal procedure codes and the strengthening of the judiciary;

14.  Recalls that the European Prison Rules, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, underline that that prisoners should be able to participate in elections and referenda and in other aspects of public life, in so far as their right to do so is not restricted by national law; recalls that participation in electoral activities allows prisoners to become again active members of society, which helps in their reintegration path; urges Member States to facilitate the practical access to electoral rights for prisoners, such as setting up voting booths inside prisons on election days;

15.  Insists that an efficient long-term management of penitentiary systems should be implemented, reducing the number of prisoners by more frequent use of non-custodial punishments – such as community service orders or electronic tagging – and minimising recourse to pre-trial detention;

16.  Calls on Member States to ensure that, in addition to the punitive aspect of imprisonment, attention is also devoted to the development of practical skills and the rehabilitation of prisoners, in order to enable punishment to be managed better, make a success of social reintegration and reduce recidivism; points out that by comparison with alternative measures imprisonment leads to more reoffending for short sentences;

17.  Encourages Member States to introduce sentence adjustment measures, particularly for the shortest sentences, including the use of day release, allowing sentences to be served during holidays in order to avoid the prisoner losing his or her job, community service orders, and increased use of home detention and electronic tagging; also considers that sentencing should be more individually tailored so that it can be delivered better;

18.  Considers that, in order to be effective, the introduction of new, non-custodial measures should be accompanied by other measures such as penal, educational and social reforms aiming at promoting reintegration and contact with the external society and economy; in this respect, believes that penitentiary administrations should establish strong bonds with local communities, producing explanatory documents and statistical evidence aimed at persuading public opinion that non-custodial measures are necessary to reduce recidivism as well as to ensure long-term security in our society; draws attention in this connection to the good practices which exist in the Scandinavian countries;

19.  Calls on the Commission to carry out a comparative study to analyse Member States’ alternative measures and support the dissemination of national best practices;

20.  Calls on all Member States to introduce stronger measures for monitoring prisoners after their release from prison where they have been convicted of serious crimes; suggests that follow-up measures after release be put in place, by convening a hearing chaired by a judge and attended by probation and reintegration officers to evaluate reintegration into society and the risk of reoffending;

21.  Stresses that the Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions provides for mutual recognition arrangements applicable to measures used by the Member States, such as restrictions on travel, community service orders, restrictions on communication and removal measures. and that the Framework Decision on European supervision orders similarly provides for remand in custody;

22.  Calls on the Member States to abide by the specific recommendations concerning prison conditions for vulnerable detainees; deplores the fact that people who are mentally ill sometimes are, and remain, imprisoned simply because of the lack of appropriate services elsewhere, and recalls that, according to the European Court of Human Rights, the inadequate treatment of people who are mentally ill may constitute a breach of Article 3 ECHR and Article 2 ECHR (the right to life) in the case of prisoners who are suicidal;

23.  Deplores the fact that the vulnerable situation of elderly and disabled prisoners is not fully taken into account in some Member States; calls on the Member States to ensure that elderly prisoners who become incapacitated are released and that disabled prisoners are provided with the necessary infrastructures;

24.  Calls on Member States to take action against any form of discrimination in the treatment of prisoners on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, and to guarantee prisoners’ rights to their sexuality;

25.  Emphasises that women prisoners have specific needs and must have access to adequate medical services and medical examinations, and to appropriate sanitary measures; calls on Member States to abide by the recommendations in force concerning the treatment of female prisoners, avoiding all gender discrimination;

26.  Considers it essential that special attention is paid to the needs of women in prison during pregnancy and also after they have given birth, by providing adequate spaces for breastfeeding and qualified and specialised nursing care; considers it appropriate to reflect on alternative models that take into account the wellbeing of children in prisons; maintains that the automatic separation of mother and child creates major emotional disturbances in the child and can amount to an additional penalty affecting both mother and child;

27.  Expresses its concern at the high level of suicides in prison; calls on each Member State to produce a national action plan to prevent suicide of persons in detention;

28.  Encourages Member States to ensure that prisoners have regular contacts with their families and friends by allowing them to serve their sentences in establishments close to their homes and by promoting visits, telephone calls and use of electronic communications, subject to authorisation by the judge and monitoring by the prison administration, for the purposes of preserving family ties; recalls that the notion of family should be interpreted broadly to include non-formalised relationships; considers it important that appropriate conditions be provided for those ties to be maintained;

29.  Condemns the prison dispersal policy applied by some Member States, since it represents an added penalty affecting prisoners’ families; urges that measures be put in place to allow all prisoners being detained far from their homes to be moved closer, unless the judicial authority decides otherwise for legally justified reasons; recalls that according to the European Court of Human Rights, detaining a person in a prison which is so far from his or her family as to render family visits very difficult or even impossible may constitute a breach of Article 8 ECHR (the right to respect for private and family life);

30.  Reaffirms the importance of ensuring that children in prison are treated in a manner that takes into account their best interests, including being held separately from adults at all times, also during prison transfers, and having the right to maintain contact with their families unless a court rules otherwise; regrets that in some Member States juvenile offenders are detained in facilities together with adults and are thus exposed to risks of abuse and violence and deprived of the specific care that a vulnerable group needs; recalls that Directive (EU) 2016/800 on procedural safeguards for children states that alternative measures are preferable; calls on the Member States to establish attendance centres for adolescents;

31.  Recalls that children in detention should receive care, protection and all necessary individual assistance – social, educational, vocational, psychological, medical and physical – that they may require in view of their age, gender and personality; encourages the Member States to promote secure educational centres with child psychiatric care facilities for the most difficult children, rather than imprisonment; calls on the Member States to extend particular care and special protection to children in detention;

32.  Calls on the Member States to provide appropriate educational facilities for juveniles in prison; notes that children in detention must have access to programmes that prepare them in advance for their return to their communities, with full attention paid to them in respect of their emotional and physical needs, their family relationships, housing, schooling and employment possibilities and socio-economic status;

33.  Encourages the Commission to establish specific working groups composed of representatives of Member States’ ministries of justice and national authorities, as well as of NGOs operating in the field, in order to facilitate the exchange of best practices;

34.  Stresses that children in detention should maintain regular and meaningful contact with parents, family and friends through visits and correspondence, except where restrictions are required in the interests of justice and of the child; recalls that restrictions of this right should never be used as a punishment;

35.  Asks the Commission to promote policies aimed at overcoming the discrimination that could be suffered by the children of imprisoned parents, from the viewpoint of strengthening social integration and building an inclusive and fair society;

36.  Recognises the right of children to maintain direct contact with a detained parent and, at the same time, reiterates the prisoner’s right to parenting; considers in this respect that prisons should be equipped with a suitable children’s space, where children are looked after by adequately trained prison officers, social workers and NGO volunteers who can assist children and families during prison visits;

37.  Calls on the Commission to evaluate the possibility of drawing up a memorandum of understanding at EU level in order to ensure the preservation of the parenthood relationship with imprisoned parents and allow parents to be present at important moments in their children’s education, thus safeguarding the interests of minors;

38.  Underlines that prisoners who are detained in another Member State than their Member State of residence have more difficulties in keeping in contact with their families;

39.  Calls on the Member States to abide by the recommendations in force concerning the treatment of foreign prisoners, based on their right not to suffer discrimination, and in particular to promote action by cultural mediators;

40.  Calls on the Member States to use solitary confinement only as a last resort and where the prisoner poses a danger to other inmates or to himself or herself, and to create all possible mechanisms to prevent abuse; calls on the Member States to cease to apply solitary confinement to minors;

41.  Calls on the Member States to combat the phenomenon of trafficking in illicit substances and drugs in prisons more effectively;

42.  Recalls the principle of the universal right to health, and calls on Member States to guarantee access to adequate healthcare services and appropriate medical facilities in prison and to ensure that prisoners have access to healthcare whenever needed by having qualified medical practitioners appointed in sufficient numbers to every prison; expresses concern at the difficulties experienced by prisoners in a number of Member States in accessing a doctor or obtaining psychological support;

43.  Urges the Member States to ensure that prisoners with serious or chronic medical conditions including cancer receive the specific treatment they need;

44.  Calls on those Member States that do not already operate such practices to consider adjusting the sentences of seriously ill prisoners on humanitarian grounds, subject to judicial authorisation and taking into account the degree of dangerousness of detainees and the opinion of an expert committee;

45.  Calls on the Member States to combat the growing phenomenon of radicalisation in prisons while protecting freedom of religion and avoiding discrimination relating to the practice of a particular faith; underlines that any specific programme targeted on a certain group of prisoners, such as those considered as ‘radicalised’, must respect the same human rights criteria and international obligations as apply to any other prisoners; recommends that prison administrations inform the competent authorities regarding the radicalisation of individuals;

46.  Stresses that inhumane detention conditions, ill-treatment and overcrowding can constitute factors that increase the risk of radicalisation;

47.  Considers that radicalisation can be effectively tackled through, inter alia, improving the detection of early signs of the phenomenon (e.g. by training staff and improving prison intelligence), improving mechanisms for dealing with extremist behaviour, developing educational measures, and supporting inter-faith dialogue and communication; considers that better mentoring, greater psychological care and exchanges with de-radicalised individuals are essential in the fight against radicalisation; notes that young people are particularly vulnerable to propaganda circulated by terrorist organisations; encourages the Member States to establish de-radicalisation programmes;

48.  Is of the opinion that Member States’ monitoring activities should include flagging the most dangerous radicalised inmates to the judicial authorities and/or the national authorities in charge of counter-terrorism;

49.  Encourages Member States to exchange best practices with the aim of preventing and combating radicalisation in prisons and in detention centres for minors; recalls that under the European Agenda on Security the EU has made funding available to support training for prison staff with the aim of countering radicalisation in prisons; calls on the Member States to make full use of the Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN) Centre of Excellence, and specifically to further share expertise through the Prison and Probation Working Group therein;

50.  Points out that differentiated detention rules for inmates who are considered as radicalised or have been recruited by terrorist organisations represent a possible measure for curtailing radicalisation in prisons; warns, however, that any such measures should be imposed on a case-by-case basis only and should be based on a judicial decision and be subject to review by the competent judicial authorities;

51.  Stresses that prison staff perform a highly demanding job on behalf of the community, and should therefore receive adequate remuneration and enjoy decent working conditions, which should include free psychological counselling and dedicated helplines designed to provide support to staff facing problems likely to affect their work;

52.  Recalls that social recognition and systematic training of prison staff are essential to ensure secure and appropriate detention conditions in prisons; encourages Member States to share information, to exchange and apply good practices and to adopt a code of conduct and ethics for their prison staff; to this end, calls for a General Assembly of Prison Administrations, which should include representatives of prison staff, to be convened;

53.  Recalls the fundamental role of social dialogue with prison staff as well as the need to involve staff via information and consultation, especially when developing new detention concepts designed to improve prison systems and conditions, including those aiming at containing radicalisation threats;

54.  Calls on the Member States to ensure regular dialogue between prisoners and prison staff, as good working relationships between staff and prisoners are an essential element of dynamic security, in de-escalating potential incidents or in restoring good order through a process of dialogue;

55.  Calls on the Member States to encourage prison governors to commit to the development of prison councils in all establishments;

56.  Calls on the Commission to launch a European Forum on prison conditions, in order to encourage the exchange of best practices between experts and practitioners across all Member States;

57.  Calls for the Commission and the EU institutions to take the necessary measures in their fields of competence to ensure respect for and protection of the fundamental rights of prisoners, and particularly of vulnerable individuals, children, mentally ill persons, disabled persons and women, including the adoption of common European standards and rules of detention in all Member States;

58.  Calls on the Commission to monitor and collect information and statistics on detention conditions in all Member States and on any cases of infringement of the fundamental rights of detainees, on a basis of respect for the principle of subsidiarity; calls on Member States to allow MEPs the right of access to prisons and detention centres without hindrance;

59.  Calls on the Member States to adopt a European Prisons Charter, in accordance with Council of Europe Recommendation 1656/2004 of 27 April 2004;

60.  Calls on the Member States to promote policies for the reintegration of prisoners into civil life, in particular policies aiming at the removal of structural barriers preventing the reintegration of ex-prisoners into society, and to establish policies on monitoring and adjustment of penalties; points out that recidivism is less frequent when prisoners have a staged move from life in prison to life outside prison;

61.  Considers that a restorative and protective view of criminal justice systems automatically entails greater respect for the individual’s human dignity, as it aims at the protection of society and the rehabilitation of the person by making it easier to achieve the re-education objectives of the punishment, to reintegrate prisoners socially and to reduce recidivism; regrets that the development of mediation and restorative practices over the use of disciplinary proceedings is almost entirely absent in the majority of Member States; encourages the Member States to prioritise policies and legislation focusing on restorative and mediation-based justice, which uses social, economic and cultural tools rather than purely punitive measures;

62.  Emphasises the importance of providing access to educational and professional qualifications for prisoners; encourages the Member States to offer meaningful activities such as educational training or work opportunities in accordance with international standards to all prisoners, with a view to re-socialising inmates and providing tools for a crime-free life after their time in prison; encourages the Member States to ensure that inmates work, study for a qualification or attend a training course during detention, so as to better manage their time and prepare their reintegration into society; considers it vital for minors to have access to schooling and vocational training;

63.  Encourages the Member States to develop tools to support prisoners’ return to working life with the aim of identifying job opportunities in relation to local needs, to organise and supervise training and work in as tailored a way as possible, and to be in constant dialogue with employers’ representatives; exhorts the Member States to establish training schemes aimed at encouraging employers and private companies to provide professional training to inmates with a view to recruiting them at the end of the detention period; encourages the Member States to create incentives for employers wishing to employ prisoners or encourage former prisoners to set up their own business, including financial and fiscal incentives; also encourages the Member States to establish contact points for released inmates which offer information and support for jobseeking activities as well as mandatory and strictly supervised distance learning;

64.  Recalls that the European Social Fund is a Union financial instrument aimed at improving job prospects for millions of Europeans, in particular those who find it difficult to get work, including prisoners and ex-offenders; welcomes the setting-up of projects helping prisoners to reintegrate into society and the labour market once they have served their sentence;

65.  Emphasises that no work performed by a prisoner should be considered as a form of punishment and that potential abuse must be combated; stresses that work opportunities offered to prisoners should be relevant to contemporary working standards and techniques and should be organised so as to function within modern management systems and production processes; calls on the Member States to ensure that work in prison is better paid than is currently the case; calls on the Commission to carry out a comparative study of prisoners’ wages in Member States, aiming to identify fair and sustainable remuneration levels allowing every prisoner to work;

66.  Encourages the Member States to share best practices regarding education, rehabilitation and reintegration programmes, particularly in order to improve reintegration after leaving prison and to help prevent recidivism and further radicalisation;

67.  Calls on the EU institutions to support technically and economically, as far as possible, the improvement of prison systems and conditions, especially in Member States facing serious financial difficulties;

68.  Calls on the Commission to publish detailed reports on the situation of prisons in Europe at five-year intervals, following on from the adoption of the present resolution, including in-depth analysis of the quality of the education and training provided to inmates, and assessment of the results (including reoffending rates) of alternative measures to detention;

69.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Council of Europe, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe, and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture.

(1) OJ C 32, 5.2.1996, p. 102.
(2) OJ C 98, 9.4.1999, p. 299.
(3) OJ C 285 E, 21.10.2010, p. 12.
(4) OJ C 168 E, 14.6.2013, p. 82.
(5) OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1.
(6) OJ L 327, 5.12.2008, p. 27.
(7) OJ L 337, 16.12.2008, p. 102.
(8) OJ L 294, 11.11.2009, p. 20.
(9) OJ L 132, 21.5.2016, p. 1.
(10) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2015)0410.
(11) www.unodc.org/documents/brussels/News/2016.10_Handbook_on_VEPs.pdf

Legal notice