REPORT on the Annual Report on Human Rights in the World 2005 and the EU's policy on the matter
2.5.2006 - (2005/2203(INI))
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Rapporteur: Richard Howitt
MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION
on the Annual Report on Human Rights in the World 2005 and the EU's policy on the matter
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the seventh EU Annual Report on Human Rights (2005),
– having regard to Articles 3, 6, 11, 13 and 19 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 177 and 300 of the EC Treaty,
– having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to all relevant international human rights instruments[1],
- having regard to the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and its Optional Protocol,
– having regard to the United Nations Charter,
– having regard to the entry into force on 1 July 2002 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and to its resolutions related to the ICC[2],
- having regard to the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings and the 2005 Action Plan on trafficking in human beings, developed and adopted by the Council and the Commission in accordance with the Hague Programme,
– having regard to Protocol No 13 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances,
– having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union[3],
– having regard to the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement and its recent 2005 revision[4],
– having regard to its previous resolutions on human rights in the world,
– having regard to its resolution of 24 February 2005 on the EU's priorities and recommendations for the 61st session of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva (14 March to 22 April 2005)[5],
– having regard to its resolution of 14 February 2006 on the human rights and democracy clause in European Union agreements[6],
- having regard to all urgency human rights resolutions adopted by it,
– having regard to the Commission Communication entitled “Tenth Anniversary of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership: A work programme to meet the challenges of the next five years” (COM(2005)0139),
- having regard to the resolutions of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, and particularly that voted on 21 November 2005 in Rabat,
- having regard to its resolution of 17 November 2005 on the Council's Sixth Annual Report on the European Union's Code of Conduct on Arms Exports[7],
– having regard to the conclusions of the EU Human Rights Discussion Forum, which took place in December 2005,
– having regard to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or punishment,
– having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (A6‑0158/2006) ,
A. whereas the EU Annual Report on Human Rights 2005 is a general overview of activities of the European Union institutions regarding human rights inside and outside the European Union,
B. whereas the 2005 European Parliament Annual Report sets out to examine, evaluate and, where appropriate, offer constructive criticism of the human rights activities of the Commission, the Council and the overall activities of the Parliament,
1. Welcomes the fact that the EU is playing an increasingly active role on the world stage to improve human rights globally; considers that the last enlargement of the EU to 25 Member States with 455 million inhabitants (soon to be supplemented by the accession of Bulgaria and Romania) has increased the global importance of the EU and has thus given it greater weight in international human rights politics;
2. Considers that, despite vigorous activities to advocate the promotion of human rights, such efforts are largely confined to specialists and to one-off representations, and that there is a general failure by the European Union systematically and continuously to address human rights concerns with respect to third countries and to mainstream human rights policy with respect to the Union's trade, development and other external policies with such countries;
3. Emphasises the need for a common, consistent and transparent policy implemented by all EU Member States in their bilateral relations with third countries having poor human rights records, and calls upon the EU Member States to conduct their bilateral contacts with those countries in compliance with the common EU position;
4. Considers it essential that the European Union should establish an integrated framework of rules and institutions to confer binding force on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, ensure compliance with the system provided for in the European Convention on Human Rights, and form the basis of a single European front in the battle for a worldwide culture of rights; calls on European political institutions to mobilise their energies in support of these objectives;
The Council's Annual Report
5. Underlines the importance of "the EU Annual Report on Human Rights" in raising the visibility of human rights issues in general;
6. Strongly welcomes the Council’s public presentation of the 2005 Report at the December 2005 plenary, in parallel with Parliament’s award of its annual Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought to three joint winners, namely Ladies in White, Reporters without Borders, and Hauwa Ibrahim; urges the continuation of this practice in the future so that the December European Parliament plenary session becomes a focal point for the EU’s activities on human rights;
7. Welcomes the increased clarity and conciseness of the Report; asks the Council, however, to further focus on the assessment of the EU instruments and initiatives in third countries, to deal with the results achieved in this matter and to include impact studies on the activities reported while defining a clear methodology for such work, as well as strategic analyses of key goals for the forthcoming year;
8. Considers it a positive development that this report for the first time endeavours to do justice to the activities of the European Parliament, but invites the future Finnish Presidency in its drafting of the Eighth EU Annual Report on Human Rights to consult actively with the European Parliament, to report on the way that Parliament's resolutions have been taken into account by the Council and the Commission, and to include, as a fundamental element, a role for the Parliament in the drafting of the report in some suitable form so that the final version will be representative of the views of the Council, the Commission and the Parliament;
9. Suggests that a key priority for the Council in future Human Rights reports should be the analysis and implementation of the EU's guidelines, as well as the production of impact assessments for each of the guidelines, weighing up their effectiveness in forging change in third countries;
10. Asks that future annual reports on human rights should analyse how human rights are dealt with within the external dimension of other EU policies, such as development and trade, including by reporting on the extent to which human rights and democracy clauses have been utilised in the EU's relationships with third countries; calls in addition in this connection for future annual reports on human rights to assess actual compliance with the human rights and democracy clause in EU agreements, as endorsed by Parliament in its resolution of 14 February 2006;
European Union activities during the two Presidencies
11. Welcomes the cooperation-focused approach of the Luxembourg and UK Presidencies and looks forward to seeing this continue during the Austrian and Finnish Presidencies through the adoption of a joint annual programme; considers that such cooperation should increase the coordination and consistency of EU action and hopes that this trend will continue and be further enhanced in the future;
12. Welcomes the efforts and commitment of the Luxembourg and UK Presidencies to develop a methodology and criteria for more effective implementation of the EU Guidelines, including demarches to third countries regarding individual cases, public statements and declarations; and emphasises the importance of setting up a special mechanism for a systematic compilation of practices at local level by the heads of EU missions and EC delegations, in order to identify examples of “best and bad practices” of implementation on the ground, which could permit an assessment of local implementation;
13. Welcomes the initiatives taken by the Luxembourg Presidency to overcome the problem of limited resources through burden-sharing, early negotiations, the pooling of resources and informal troikas with other Member States on particular issues; calls on the Council to develop this approach during other Presidencies;
14. Appreciates the approach of the UK Presidency regarding the death penalty, in line with the EU Guidelines on the Death Penalty, undertaking demarches in countries where either a moratorium on the death penalty was in danger of being de jure or de facto lifted or where internal steps aimed at introducing a moratorium were under consideration; asks the Austrian Presidency and all future Presidencies to follow this example to demarche such countries regularly; requests all Presidencies to follow up on demarches previously carried out, as appropriate; calls on the Commission to instruct its delegations in third countries which have the death penalty to support the Council’s moves to secure a moratorium and to redouble their efforts in cases of European citizens under sentence of death; welcomes the resolution adopted by the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly in Rabat on 21 November 2005, which calls on the Barcelona Process partner countries to support the moratorium on the death penalty;
15. Welcomes the priority given to compliance with human rights obligations as part of the steps taken during the UK Presidency to open accession negotiations with Turkey and Croatia, to grant the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia candidate-country status and to open negotiations for Stabilisation and Association Agreements with Serbia- Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina; asks the Commission to ensure that real progress is made by the candidate countries in the field of the human rights, and in particular regarding protection of minorities, religious freedom and freedom of expression, displaced and refugee populations, people with mental health problems and/or intellectual disabilities and cooperation with international justice, in accordance with European principles and the Community acquis; urges the Council and the Commission to include compliance with UN Conventions in contractual relationships with candidate countries and countries in the Stabilisation and Association process as a key issue; underlines the importance of the association and accession process in providing the impetus to carry out necessary human rights reforms.
16. Notes with approval that combating human trafficking is regarded as a priority of the Council's Presidencies; urges the EU to adopt an integrated, human rights-centred approach to tackling this growing phenomenon;
17. Welcomes the choice of freedom of expression as a major human rights theme during the UK Presidency; is concerned at the high number of journalists worldwide being convicted for alleged defamation of public officials or politicians; asks the Council to advocate a worldwide moratorium on such imprisonment of journalists as a first step; stresses, however, that freedom of expression does not exclude mutual respect and understanding between different civilisations;
18. Expresses dismay at the failure of the UK Presidency to organise a third meeting of the EU Network of contact points for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes (Council Decision 2003/659/JHA of 18 June 2003*), which represents an invaluable means of strengthening cooperation among EU Member States in investigations and prosecutions of international crimes at national level;
_____________________________
* OJ L 245, 29.9.2003, p. 44.
Performance of Council and Commission activities on human rights in international fora
19. Welcomes the active involvement of the EU and its Member States on human rights issues in a variety of international fora in 2005, including the UN Commission on Human Rights, the UN General Assembly, the Ministerial Council of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the Council of Europe and the WTO Ministerial;
20. Appreciates the result-oriented approach of the EU Presidency and the Council in the 61st United Nations Commission for Human Rights; in this context welcomes the key role of the EU in securing critical and constructive resolutions on human rights in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nepal, North Korea, Sudan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, and on human rights and counter-terrorism and the appointment of Special Rapporteurs to develop principles and guidelines on discrimination based on work and descent; equally welcomes the support given to the appointment of a Special Representative to contribute to the strengthening of standards on human rights at work;
21. Reminds the Council, however, of its resolution of 24 February 2005, which called on the EU to present resolutions on a certain number of priority issues; regrets, in particular, the EU's refusal to sponsor resolutions on human rights abuses in China, Zimbabwe and Chechnya; recalls, in this regard, the commitments entered into by the Council in the context of the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Dialogues, which clearly state that a human rights dialogue with a third country cannot prevent the Council from sponsoring a resolution on that specific country in the UN Human Rights Council; in this context, also takes account of the statement in the 2005 Report that the African group in particular has not been cooperative when discussing the human rights situation in specific African countries during the proceedings of the UN General Assembly's Third Committee; therefore calls on the Commission and the Council to use all means at their disposal to persuade the African group to cooperate with the UN General Assembly in the future by conducting dialogue and providing information on the African countries concerned, especially those with whom ACP-EU cooperation is suspended under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement or with whom political dialogue is conducted under Article 8 thereof; suggests that the European Parliament should in future, when submitting its proposals for resolutions to the Council, limit them to those relating to key countries of concern, and that it should support more strongly the Council's work in this regard;
22. Calls on the Council and the Commission to make significant efforts to continuously link their discussions conducted in international fora with the European Union's bilateral political dialogues, development and trade policy, and to avoid the current situation in which countries opposing EU human rights initiatives in international fora can do so with little expectation that they will suffer any adverse consequences in respect of bilateral relations;
23. Specifically reminds the Council and the Commission that most human rights abuses would be impossible in countries with stronger traditions of freedom of speech and press freedom; therefore calls on the Council and the Commission to emphasise this key point as strongly as possible in all political dialogues, as in the case of development and trade policy;
24. Welcomes the Council's continued support for the establishment of a strong, forceful and effective UN Human Rights Council, with the following essential characteristics: it must be a standing body with a sufficient number of sessions of adequate length to enable it to properly perform its mandate, it must be capable of responding to urgent situations, the system of Special Procedures must be retained and the Committee of NGOs should be reformed so as to permit a strong level of independent NGO participation; asks the Council to continue to take action to set standards for the membership of the future Council, including election procedures, involving direct and individual votes by an absolute majority of members, which seek to guarantee the credibility and efficacy of the future body; regrets that during the latter months of 2005 EU Member States appear to have been out-manoeuvred in the negotiations by a small group of UN members composed of countries which themselves have suspect human rights records; nevertheless welcomes the final agreement secured in New York and looks forward to strong and effective EU representation in the agreed UN Human Rights Council;
25. Calls on the Council and the Commission to systematically oppose the conferment of the presidency of the UN Human Rights Council on countries which fail to respect human rights;
26. Calls for continued support from the Council and the Commission for the speedy agreement of the proposed UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, welcomes the outcome of the 7th Ad Hoc Committee session including agreement on strengthening the draft text in relation to violence against disabled people, the human rights of people with complex dependence needs and the right of deaf people to use sign language; calls on the Member States, the Council and the Commission to support a further strengthening of the existing draft text in relation to the involuntary treatment of people with disabilities and in respect of its implementation, calls for support for current efforts regarding international cooperation aimed at supporting disabled people in developing countries, and for a strong and independent monitoring and enforcement mechanism capable of receiving and handling individual complaints;
27. In general, considers that EU activities in the UN with respect to human rights are too introverted; asks the Council to endeavour to speed up the consultation process so as to allow more time for consultation with non-EU partners; asks the Council to consider having COHOM provide only a negotiation framework to EU representatives present at international forums and to delegate to those representatives authority to make ad hoc decisions as necessary;
28. Welcomes the fact that, in general, at International Labour Organization (ILO) meetings, the EU takes a forceful stance in discussions about trade union rights and other fundamental human rights of workers, including under the Luxembourg Presidency, when the EU for instance took a strong position concerning alleged violations of human rights in relation to Colombia’s trade unionists, which then in a show of consistency translated into a strong EU statement at the June 2005 Session of the International Labour Conference; in this context, is surprised that it was possible for a country such as Belarus to be elected in June 2005 to the Governing Body of the ILO despite the fact that Belarus is not a democracy with free trade unions and four major EU countries are permanent members of the Governing Body; asks the Council to explain its diplomatic demarches prior to that election and whether it considered opposing Belarus' membership; maintains that it is essential to strengthen the EU-backed special programmes to protect vulnerable sectors in third countries;
29. Congratulates the Council and the Commission for the substantial diplomatic success in achieving the referral by the UN Security Council of the case of Darfur in Sudan to the International Criminal Court, as called for in Parliament's resolution of 16 September 2004*; however, concerned at the deteriorating security situation in Darfur, urges the international community, the UN, the Council and the Commission to act immediately to stop the violence, while providing substantial support to the African Union as well as a sufficient level of humanitarian aid to the affected population; encourages speedy progress in the prosecution of high-ranking officials from the military or civilian hierarchy of the Sudanese government for crimes in this regard, in particular the use of rape as a weapon of war; urges the EU to actively support the transition of the present African Union Mission towards a fully-fledged UN peace-keeping mission in order to provide increased security in the region; urges the EU to continue its support for the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the various parties;
* OJ C 140 E, 9.6.2005, p. 153.
30. Calls on the Council and the Commission to continue their vigorous efforts to promote universal ratification of the Rome Statute and the adoption of the implementing legislation of the International Criminal Court, in conformity with the EU Common Position on the ICC and the Action Plan; calls on the Council and the Commission to redouble their efforts in this regard in their démarches to the United States, a key partner of the EU, notably in the war against terror; requests that each EU Presidency present to Parliament a report concerning actions taken under the Common Position;
31. Welcomes the inclusion, following the recent revision of the Cotonou Agreement, of the promotion and strengthening of peace and international justice, giving due regard to the Rome Statute, as an objective of cooperation between the EU and ACP countries; regrets, therefore, the lack of reference to the ICC in the final UN outcome document in September 2005; welcomes the fact that references to the ICC have been included in several European Neighbourhood Action Plans, notably those relating to Ukraine and Moldova, and in the draft action plans concerning Azerbaijan, Lebanon, Armenia and Georgia; calls on the EU and its Member States to reaffirm their commitment to the ICC whenever possible;
32. Calls on the US Administration and Congress to end the delay and ratify the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court; considers that no legal exception can be made for the United States on this point; condemns the fact that certain countries, including a number of EU Member States, have entered into ‘bilateral agreements’ with the American Administration granting de facto impunity to US soldiers;
33. Considers it essential to establish a close relationship between the European Union and the Council of Europe and points to the difficulties still posed for such a relationship: the fact that cooperation is of a technical nature instead of being organised at the political level, the lack of communication between the Commission and Council of Europe bodies, overlapping, and the failure to clarify areas of activity; calls on the Austrian and Finnish presidencies to ensure that the memorandum of understanding now being drafted serves to resolve these difficulties; points out that the relationship between the European Union and the Council of Europe is a vitally important ‘meeting-place’, open also to third countries sympathetic to a culture of human rights, and helps to ensure the success of neighbourhood policies and other special relations founded on partnership;
Scrutinising EU political and human rights dialogues and consultations as well as general political dialogue with third countries
34. Welcomes the fact that the Annual Report makes a balanced assessment of the effectiveness of the EU's human rights dialogues; takes note of the evaluation of these dialogues in 2004, and notes that initial moves are being made by the Council to develop an overview document on human rights dialogues and consultations; is looking forward to receiving this document once it has been adopted; asks the Council, in particular, to closely associate the European Parliament in this work as well as in the process of evaluating the dialogues; in this regard, informs the Council that an own-initiative report will be drafted on the evaluation of human rights dialogues and consultations with third countries;
35. Points to the need for the Union and each and every Member State to act coherently and in accordance with Treaty and acquis obligations where human rights are concerned, in order to avoid inconsistencies that would diminish the moral authority of the Union in the international system;
36. Takes note of the evaluation in the Council's Annual Report of the Human Rights Dialogue with China, with continuing reports of a long list of human rights abuses including continuing reports of political imprisonment, particularly of members of minorities, allegations of torture, widespread use of forced labour, frequent use of the death penalty and systematic repression of freedom of religion, freedom of speech and expression (including in the context of the treatment of people in Tibet) and the freedom of the media including the internet; regrets that no substantial progress was made on the ratification and implementation of the ICCPR or the release of prisoners connected with the 1989 events in Tiananmen; regards the Dialogue as a valuable instrument and an important element of the overall strategic dialogue between the EU and China where human rights must be treated as a priority concern; calls on Council and Commission to undertake strenuous efforts even if they can bear fruit only in the medium-term; asks China and the Council to consider improving the Dialogue by the simple practical decision of introducing simultaneous interpretation; is hopeful that innovations such as holding the high level political dialogue as well as the legislative seminar directly after one another could lead to stronger synergies; stresses that an increasingly positive trade relationship must be contingent on human rights reforms; asks the Council to invite Members of the European Parliament in the same way that Chinese parliamentarians have been invited;
37. Condemns the Iranian President’s call for Israel to be wiped off the map; expresses its concerns about the human rights situation in Iran and the fact that the human rights dialogue with Iran – due to Iran’s lack of engagement – has been interrupted since its last round in June 2004; calls on Iran to re-engage in the dialogue and, drawing on input from the EU, to define benchmarks aiming at real improvements in the field; welcomes the clear statement in the Council conclusions of 12 December 2005 to this effect; calls on the Council to continue in particular its démarches towards Iran on individual cases and welcomes in this regard the Austrian Presidency’s commitment; expresses its regret at Iran's poor human rights record during the first six months of President Mahmouh Ahmadinejad's term of office and calls upon the Commission to take all the necessary measures within the framework of the European human rights' initiative to intensify contacts and cooperation with Iranian civil society and further support democracy and human rights;
38. Expresses concern about serious human rights abuses in Iraq, including in Iraqi prisons, nevertheless welcomes EU support for the new government in Iraq; calls for increased EU engagement in bringing about stability in Iraq and for making the Commission Delegation office fully operational, provided that security concerns can be addressed; calls on the Council and Commission to support the continuing efforts of the Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights to uphold high standards
39. Welcomes the start of the EU human rights consultations with Russia; supports the Council in its intention to develop these consultations into a frank and genuine EU-Russia Human Rights Dialogue and calls for the involvement of the European Parliament in such a process; calls on the Council to continue urging Russia to agree that European and Russian NGOs be associated with the consultations given the example of other dialogues on human rights issues; welcomes the Council's debriefing of NGOs on the consultations, however, regrets that there are no systematic consultations with the European Parliament; asks the Council to press Russia to agree to have this dialogue also take place in Russia in an alternating manner and not only when the summits take place in the EU; is concerned that the new Russian NGO legislation will inhibit human rights organisations from carrying out their activities properly whenever respect for human rights is at stake or even from functioning at all; asks the Commission and Council to raise this issue persistently with Russia, not least in international forums and, in particular, in the Council of Europe, of which Russia is due to take over the presidency in May 2006; asks Commission and Council to raise the issue of extrajudicial killings, disappearances and torture in custody in Chechnya, as well as attacks faced by human rights defenders engaged in investigating and speaking out about human rights violations in Chechnya;
40. Welcomes the Joint Action Plan adopted at the sixth India-EU Summit which includes discussions on human rights issues based on the commitment to work together to uphold human rights in a spirit of equality and mutual respect; expects that these discussions will include the rights of minorities; expects that within this framework, both sides can also discuss the problematic social situation of the Dalits; calls on the Council and the Commission to emulate such dialogue with the governments of other caste-affected countries; welcomes that Commission and Council regularly consult Indian NGOs in the framework of an EU-India civil society roundtable; recommends that discussions in the region also discuss human rights in Kashmir;
41. Notes the Council conclusions on Colombia adopted on 3 October 2005; recommends that, for future Council conclusions, consultation with civil society and with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights should be a priority and should also involve debate in the Council Human Rights Working Group (COHOM); asks the Council to monitor the ongoing impact of the Justice and Peace Law on human rights defenders; notes that the Justice and Peace Law applies to all illegal armed groups in Colombia (not only the AUC but also the FARC and the ELN);
42. Calls on Council and Commission to consistently raise in all political dialogues with third countries that these countries should issue standing invitations to all Special mechanisms, Special Rapporteurs and Special Representatives of the United Nations and should submit all outstanding reports to UN treaty bodies;
43. Takes note of the policy instrument of an official EU list of 'prisoners/detainees of concern' in the policy vis-à-vis one particular country, as mentioned in the Council's Annual Report; encourages Commission and Council to establish such an official EU list vis-à-vis each third country where there are human rights concerns and to raise this list at each political dialogue meeting; asks the Commission to inform Parliament on all such existing lists;
44. Furthermore calls on the Council to consider adopting the approach taken by governments of some Member States and by certain international NGOs to identify a list of "Countries of Particular Concern" with respect to human rights violations in the context of its Annual Report each year; suggests that these countries should be highlighted according to concrete and transparent criteria, based on the themes of the EU's Human Rights Guidelines, the treaties and commitments they have entered into and the countries selected by the Parliament to be the subject of urgency resolutions, in order to effect greater attention to human rights in the implementation of all EU policies with respect to the countries identified, including the imposition of aid or trade sanctions if those breaches persist; considers that criteria such as the independence of the judiciary and the media, and the status of civil society organisations, are essential from the point of view of assessing the state of human rights;
45. Welcomes the fact that the Council of Ministers maintained its Common Position on Burma/Myanmar in 2005; takes particular note of the Haval/Tutu report issued in September 2005, which called for the actions of the State Peace and Development Council to be regarded as a risk to international security and for the regime therefore to be referred to the United Nations Security Council; acknowledges the support of EU countries for the UN Security Council briefing on ongoing violations; notes with concern that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi continues to be kept under house arrest and that the UN Special Rapporteur, whose mandate will end this year, has been denied access to the country since 2003; encourages the EU to take a more proactive role in this country (with particular regard to the urgency human rights resolution on Burma/Myanmar adopted by the European Parliament on 17 November 2005[8]*);
46. Welcomes that Council and Commission have introduced human rights, democracy, the rule of law and good governance concerns with specific benchmarks in all National Action Plans drawn up in the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP); accepts that the strength of the Action Plans is that they constitute a binding commitment and that this also represent their weakness, because they must be negotiated with the partner country; urges the Council therefore to hold such countries to their commitments and to consider measures to be taken in the event that they do not fulfil them within an agreed timeline; draws specific attention to the weakness of human rights engagements in this respect with Morocco and the Western Sahara, Tunisia, Syria, Israel and the Palestinian Authority, Algeria and Egypt, the Action Plans of the latter two countries still being under negotiation, looks forward to examining the reports on the first year of implementation of the first seven action plans and the priorities for the ENP set for 2006; calls, in this spirit, on the setting up of sub-committees on Human rights dealing with among others individual cases so as to further improve the human rights dialogue with all partner countries;
47. Calls upon the Council and Commission to incorporate the rights of the child in all their actions, in order effectively to combat child labour, with the main focus on teaching and educating children, one of the Millennium development goals;
General scrutiny of Council and Commission activities
48. Takes note of the information that during the UK Presidency the EU has made demarches on 26 individual human rights cases and has issued 49 statements on human rights issues;
49. Understands that especially in the area of human rights, EU activities, such as demarches to third countries, must sometimes be confidential; however believes that a list of those activities should be included in the Annual Report;
50. Therefore asks Council and Commission to develop, together with the Parliament, a confidential system through which selected Members of the European Parliament can be kept informed of the demarches of Member States, the Presidency, the High Representative for CFSP, the Personal Representative on Human Rights, the Special Representatives or the Commission regarding individual human rights cases or situations raised in resolutions of the European Parliament; suggests that such a system could be modelled on the system to inform selected MEPs on classified material regarding security and defence;
51. Welcomes the fact that the General Affairs Council of 12 December 2005 adopted the provision that the Council's updated EU human rights fact sheets are to be made available to all EU institutions and is looking forward to receiving the current version of these as soon as possible[9];
52. Asks the Council to consider making COHOM a working group with Brussels-based representatives; considers that this would enable more meeting time, better coordination and thus possibly a tighter grip on EU human rights policies in the wider sense;
53. Welcomes the establishment of working groups on institution building, administrative reform, governance and human rights between the EU and, respectively, Bangladesh, Laos, and Vietnam; dependent on an evaluation of their effectiveness, calls on Council and Commission to extend this approach to other third countries such as Cambodia and Nepal;
54. Insists that all human rights instruments, documents and reports including the Annual Reports need to address explicitly discrimination issues including the issues of ethnic minorities, religious freedoms including discriminatory practices towards minority religions, human rights of women, the rights of children, the rights of indigenous peoples, disabled people including people with intellectual disabilities, and people with all sexual orientations, fully involving their organisations, both within the EU and in third countries where appropriate;
55. In consideration of gender discrimination insists that the protection and promotion of womens' rights should be a cross-cutting policy in the European Union human rights agenda;
The Commission's external assistance programmes
The European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
56. Calls on the Commission to take seriously into consideration the position of the European Parliament seeking a specific Human Rights instrument for 2007-2013; looks forward to receiving the Commission's communication in this matter;
57. Underlines the importance of the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights as one of the chief instruments which the EU has at its disposal; underscores in particular the advantage that EIDHR programmes do not require governmental approval in the country of implementation and that the majority of EIDHR funding is available for civil society organisations;
58. Underlines its position that human rights must be streamlined throughout the four external action financial instruments and a 5th specific instrument for human rights needs to be created in order to complement the thematic programming;
59. Asks the Commission to ensure that the current reform of the Financial Regulation and its accompanying implementing rules are sufficiently far-reaching, so as to reduce the excessive administrative burden and the slowness in delivering funds that currently plague the EIDHR, to make it easier for smaller, grassroots NGOs to access and manage funds and in turn to increase the impact of the EIDHR;
60. Welcomes the conclusions of the evaluation report on the campaign against racism, xenophobia and discrimination, stating that the projects funded under EIDHR target the most marginalised communities not reached by governments and that they show substantial results;
61. Is content that in 2005, the Commission was able to make commitments of over EUR 125 million but is concerned about the possibility that not all the projects contracted in 2005 will be implemented fully and thoroughly;
62. Takes note of the fact that EIDHR funds used for European Union election observation missions in 2005 amounted to more than one-fifth of the total and such missions were conducted to 12 countries including Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Liberia and the Palestinian Authority; commends the increasing effectiveness of EU electoral observation activities but believes that this cannot be achieved at the expense of decreasing budget commitments to human rights projects at grassroots level in countries worldwide;
63. Requests the Commission and the Council to systematically follow up the EU Election Observation Missions, closely monitor the post-election situation and take political action if necessary;
64. Takes note that a large proportion (50.9 %) of the total EIDHR funding for projects contracted in 2005 went to large projects organised by theme and only a small proportion (27,68%) went to micro projects implemented by EC Delegations; reiterates that a significant proportion should be devoted to smaller, grassroots projects; calls on the Commission to pay particular attention to those NGOs which play a key role in the promotion of human rights in their countries but which are not legally recognised by the authorities in those countries; regards it as crucial that the Commission should propose, in this regard, a review of the financial regulation including the financing of such NGOs;
65. Fully supports the EU contribution to intergovernmental organisations, as these organisations can make fundamental contributions to the promotion of democracy and human rights, considers however that this contribution should not be to the detriment of NGOs, but should rather take place through strategic long-term partnerships;
66. Welcomes the fact that the Commission has changed its procedures regarding new calls for proposals for 2006, in that the new calls which are based on 'concept notes' appear to favour a greater quality assessment of project proposals as a first major criterion;
67. Asks the Commission to make available to the Parliament all impact assessment reports carried out regarding projects produced by external or internal evaluators in order to assure proper scrutiny; asks the Commission to make Human Rights Impact Assessments an integral and fully implemented part of all European Union project cycle management, both ex-ante and ex-post so influencing both future policy making and programmes, as well as the evaluation of on-going programmes;
Assistance programmes in general
68. Considers it necessary to develop substantive mainstreaming of issues related to the respect of human rights, democratic principles, the rule of law and good governance (as expressed in the Cotonou Agreement) within actions financed from the European Development Fund; asks the Commission to produce an annual overview of all the related spending of the EDF across all geographic, regional and thematic programming in order to increase the visibility of EU activities in this area;
69. Asks the Commission in its policy programming to base development objectives, indicators and plans on agreed, universal international human rights instruments, fully involving human rights organisations from the conception of policies and programmes to implementation, monitoring and evaluation;
70. Calls for follow-up to the June 2005 seminar on human rights in relation to EU humanitarian assistance, including by devoting EU resources to justice issues in the wake of massacres and crimes against humanity;
Consideration of the implementation of the human rights and democracy clauses
71. Recalls its resolution of 14 February 2006 regarding future EU policy on the application of human rights clauses in all EU agreements, including the setting-up of an effective mechanism for monitoring respect for human rights and the reinforced involvement of the European Parliament in the evaluation and consultation processes in respect of those clauses; is looking forward to the Austrian Presidency responding together with the Commission to Parliament's proposals;
72. Takes note of the fact that the EU's 4th-generation agreements with third countries as a matter of course include political dialogue as an essential element of the agreement incorporating human rights and democracy issues; emphasises its determination to strengthen ex-ante control of the newest position in such political dialogues;
73. Agrees with the position in the 2005 Report that the human rights clause is a basis for positive engagement on human rights and democracy issues with third countries; emphasises, however, that this cannot exclude the possibility of the temporary suspension of cooperation on the grounds of a breach of the clause; reiterates its call for a sliding scale of measures and a clear system of sanctions to be used with respect to violations of the human rights clause by third countries, and calls on the Council to consider extending qualified majority voting to the decision to adopt restrictive measures at a future appropriate time; reiterates its demand for a better monitoring and consultation mechanism of the clause, and calls on the Commission and the Council to report annually on breaches of human rights clauses, including those of the Cotonou Agreement, to the Human Rights Subcommittee of the European Parliament;
74. Reiterates its support for the Council's decision of 3 October 2005 to impose sanctions on Uzbekistan following the events in Andizhan on 13 May 2005, when a high number of civilians were shot dead by government security forces and many people were arrested and afterwards put on trial in a process which did not meet international fair trial standards in order to cover up the truth; takes this as an example of a coherent EU measure against a government which is bound by commitments on human rights and democracy under a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the EU; regrets that, in the case of Uzbekistan, the sanctions took six months to enact; hopes, however, that this precedent will prove to strengthen the human rights clause in all agreements; ; calls on the Council to roundly condemn the violation of human rights in Turkmenistan;
75. Reiterates its resolution of 15 December 2005 on the clear violation of human rights and the freedom of the press in Tunisia in the context of the World Summit on the Information Society held in Tunisia
76. Welcomes the monitoring and review of the Guidelines on Implementation and Evaluation of Restrictive Measures in the framework of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy[10];
77. Welcomes the role which the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly plays as a platform for open and transparent discussion on human rights issues and encourages it to continue its work, thus contributing to the political dialogue foreseen by Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement;
78. Regrets that the Human Rights Clause contained in Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement is too rarely applied in the event of flagrant violations of human rights in the ACP countries, and urges that political dialogue in the spirit of the Cotonou Agreement be stepped up;
79. Welcomes, as a very positive example, the EU activities in terms of demarches and declarations after violent repression in Ethiopia in June 2005; is concerned that when similar human rights violations occurred in November 2005, the EU appears not to have followed this up sufficiently; considering the high number of opposition leaders and human rights defenders currently in prison and facing the death penalty, believes that the government of Ethiopia is failing to meet its obligations under Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement and calls on the Commission and the Council to respond to the European Parliament's call for a coordinated stance in line with Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement as requested in its resolution of 15 December 2005;
80. Expresses its concern at the fact that Eritrea, in spite of serious human rights violations, including arbitrary detentions and the torture of thousands of detainees, is not mentioned in the Council’s annual report on human rights in 2005; regrets that, in spite of resolution P6_TA(2004)0068 in which Parliament condemned the human rights situation in Eritrea and called on the Council and Commission to open the consultation procedure in accordance with Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement, little action has been taken by the Council and Commission on this matter; calls on the Council and Commission without delay to open the consultation procedure under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement with regard to the human rights situation in Eritrea;
Implementation of EU Human Rights Guidelines
81. Takes note of the first biennial review of the EU Guidelines on Children and Armed Conflict under the UK Presidency; welcomes in particular that the EU's human rights fact sheets, adopted in July 2005, contain a section on children's rights and a specific requirement to report under these Guidelines where appropriate; notes that the consultation with stakeholders and NGOs has been exemplary in the process of drafting the review and recommendations; regrets, however, that the European Parliament was not involved in the process of evaluation of these Guidelines, that the opportunity for a wide-ranging review was not seized and that the outcome document was disappointing in its scope and ambition; therefore requests the Council systematically to associate the European Parliament in the biennial review of these Guidelines, so as to be aware of the Parliament's position and recommendations in this field;
82. Welcomes the commitment of the Austrian Presidency to continue the practice of demarches in respect of all of the EU's international partners regarding the ratification of international conventions banning the use of torture; asks the Council and the Commission to consider new and innovative ways to implement the Guidelines on torture; underlines that, although those Guidelines were adopted as long ago as 2001, they are among the least implemented; in view of the current threats facing the absolute prohibition of torture and ill-treatment in the international context of counter-terrorism; calls, in this regard, on the Council to associate the European Parliament in the future evaluation process of these guidelines; in this regard, informs the Council that its sub-committee on Human Rights asked for a study aiming at optimising the implementation of the EU Guidelines on Torture and improving the means provided for by these guidelines; recommends to the Austrian and Finnish Presidency that they conduct demarches on torture in all countries that are signatories to the relevant conventions but appear not to be cooperating; emphasises that the regular presence of the Presidency or the Council Secretariat in the relevant UN Committee on Torture could bring substantial material input into a strategic analysis of which countries to demarche at which point in time; asks the Council to consider if the European Union could not act more forcefully and more convincingly vis-à-vis third countries if all Member States would sign and ratify the UN's Optional Protocol on Torture; is also concerned at the allegations of relocation and outsourcing of torture in third countries and calls on the EU to consider the fight against torture as a top priority of its human rights policy, in particular through an enhanced implementation of the EU Guidelines and all other EU instruments such as the EIDHR;
83. Stresses that high priority must be given to the full implementation of the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders; calls on the Council to take initiatives to protect human rights defenders; calls on the Commission and on the Member States to organise training of their staff in Delegations, Embassies and Consulates on the application of these guidelines; asks the Commission to consider making funds available to cover the expenses of such training; welcomes the elaboration of a handbook by the EU Netherlands Presidency for the implementation of the guidelines; regrets, however, that the Parliament has been denied accurate information of its content; calls on the Council and the Commission to raise the situation of human rights defenders systematically in all political dialogues; calls on the Commission to organise on the level of EC Delegations information seminars on the guidelines with all relevant local NGOs; calls once more on the Council to inform the European Parliament about the implementation of these guidelines on the ground and to involve it fully in the process of evaluating them;
84. Supports the Council in its efforts to mainstream human rights throughout the EU's work, in particular by focusing on the regular review and implementation of a particular set of EU human rights guidelines;
Mainstreaming of human rights
85. Welcomes that Council and Commission are undertaking efforts in order to strengthen the coherence between the EU's human rights policy and other international policies; considers it vital for the pursuit of a credible EU human rights policy that these connections are strengthened;
86. Emphasises the importance of the appointment of Michael Matthiessen as the Personal Representative on Human Rights of the EU High Representative for the CFSP as being an important step forward in the mainstreaming of human rights; welcomes the activities and the personal commitment of the incumbent;
87. Welcomes the fact that working groups dealing with civil and police operations under the CFSP/ESDP pillar, as well as military operations of the EU, have begun to discuss human rights aspects of their operations and to integrate such concerns, including condemnation of the use of violence against women, into instructions given to EU mission personnel on the ground; welcomes the 'Generic Standards of Behaviour for ESDP operations' adopted by the Council on 23-24 May 2005, which gives comprehensive instructions to all categories of personnel operating in ESDP missions; draws attention, however, to the clear need to see these standards implemented in a scrupulous and consistent fashion in the increasing number of military and civil operations of the EU abroad; considers that by acting in this way, the EU can prevent abuses, which have occurred in UN Peacekeeping Missions; asks the Commission to consider to make more funds available for training all personnel in the application of these standards;
88. Welcomes the adoption of European Union Guidelines on Promoting Compliance with International Humanitarian Law, in December 2005; urges the Council to apply them to all relevant statements, declarations and demarches;
89. Calls on the European Investment Bank as one of the agencies implementing EU development policies through lending and the biggest public financial institution in the world, to incorporate fully human rights concerns in all its project evaluations and to ensure adequate internal capacity to mainstream human rights in its operations; calls in particular for the introduction of clear safeguard procedures, based on international standards, to assess and mitigate the human rights-related impact of its projects; calls for safeguard policies on issues not covered by EU legislation to equal those described in the Equator Principles, as a minimum; calls on the Bank to consult with the European Parliament on the matter;
90. Welcomes the fact that the Commission regularly considers whether countries should be added to he 'GSP+'-list of countries which are granted the best customs rates for goods to be imported into the EU; asks the Commission, however, to make sure that for the purpose of its evaluation the Commission should check both on entering into force of international obligations and the effective implementation and enforcement on the ground;
91. Calls on the Commission to apply objective criteria when granting GSP+ benefits to countries which have shown serious flaws in the implementation of the eight ILO conventions relating to Core Labour Standards, in particular to monitor implementation of commitments made by Venezuela, Moldova, El Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia and other specific countries in advance of the Commission decision of December 2005; in general, calls on the Commission to review regularly the implementation of these conventions and to apply, if necessary, the safeguards provisions contemplated in the Regulation.
92. Asks Council and Commission to ensure compatibility of trade agreements with existing UN treaties on human rights in accordance with the Parliament's resolution of 14 February 2006, to carry out independent sustainability assessments prior to trade negotiations specifically assessing the impact on human rights, and to monitor, review and reverse any negative impact of existing and proposed trade rules in respect of human rights and social and environmental matters;
93. Points out that all country-specific human rights evaluations should include an analysis of the fundamental rights of workers’, as enshrined in Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 22 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 8 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;
94. Asks the Commission to include systematic human rights monitoring in all country strategy papers, regional strategy papers, national indicative programmes, regional indicative programmes and action plans; asks the Commission to update such documents regularly to always reflect the latest situation regarding human rights on the ground and to organise appropriate consultations with NGOs when so doing;
95. Asks the Commission for a report on how it has implemented its own proposals in the Commission Communication on the European Union’s role in promoting human rights and democratisation in third countries from May 2001, followed by a thorough review;
96. Asks the Commission to develop a strategy for promoting the application of all EU human rights guidelines with transnational corporations, in implementing its recent Communication on Corporate Social Responsibility; asks the Commission and the Council to press for the Special Representative on Human Rights and transnational corporations to analyse in greater depth the gaps in protection of human rights in situations where a host state is unwilling or unable to protect human rights from violations with the involvement of companies;
97. Reiterates that the EU's internal policies must not simply be consistent with but must be exemplary in compliance with international human rights law; expresses concern in this respect that current migration management measures do not always safeguard access to protection for refugees in practice; calls on the Council and the Commission to ensure that migration management does not become a condition for development cooperation with third countries, and that the pilot Regional Protection Programmes remain protection-oriented, are well-resourced and long-term, are fully coordinated with EU humanitarian and development policies, and are based on the principle of international solidarity;
98. Emphasises that in the fight against in human beings a human rights approach with respect to the victims of trafficking should be adopted, and in this regard welcomes the focus on victim protection in the Council's EU plan for combating and preventing trafficking in human beings[11], and urges all Member States to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings;
99. Urges the Council and Commission to set benchmarks for all consultations on human rights, with a view to improving the coherence of policy and political dialogue;
Effectiveness of the European Parliament's interventions in cases of human rights
100. Welcomes Parliament’s increasing role in the human rights sphere, and to safeguard commitments to improving human rights situations throughout the world by scrutinising the activities of other institutions and, in particular, through the Sakharov Prize;
101. Welcomes the first year of activities of the Subcommittee on Human Rights within the Foreign Affairs Committee, which, guided by Parliament’s activities, created a focal point of activities on human rights absent during the last legislature, including regular reports by the Presidency, the Commission, the Personal Representative for Human Rights, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN Special Rapporteurs and the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, numerous hearings, exchanges of views, expertise and studies as well as human rights input into the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee;
102. Stresses the need for human rights concerns to be mainstreamed into the work of all Parliamentary Committees and Delegations dealing with external relations of the European Parliament; in this respect, draws particular attention to the work done by the Development Committee in organising regular human rights debates, and calls on the Commission and the Council to follow up the conclusions of these and other human rights debates conducted in the Parliament;
103. Points out, in this regard, that the Subcommittee on Human Rights focused its 2005 activities on the implementation of the EU human rights instruments such as the EU Guidelines on the protection of Human Rights Defenders and set up, in this respect, a system of coordination with representatives of United Nations human rights bodies; regards it as a priority to continue to work closely together with the United Nations and with Council of Europe representatives and bodies, so as to ensure greater consistency and coordination in the human rights field;
104. Considers that the effectiveness of the Parliament's work on human rights could be strengthened in a number of ways, for example through more intense scrutiny of Council and Commission activities vis-à-vis countries with human rights concerns and consistent follow-up and timely impact assessment of all human rights statements made in resolutions and their implementation; suggests that the Subcommittee should consider setting up small informal working groups to follow each set of Guidelines, to be better able to follow the Council's work in this regard and to submit proposals;
105. Asks the Subcommittee to follow up human rights resolutions adopted pursuant to Rule 115 in a systematic manner, and to strengthen efforts to address actively the external human rights considerations of all activities of the Parliament, including the work of other committees as well as parliamentary delegations;
106. Is of the opinion that the Subcommittee could improve its impact on policy and programming by following more closely the work programmes of the Council and the Commission, particularly the work of COHOM, by being invited by the Members of COHOM on a regular basis, and calls for Members of the European Parliament to be systematically invited to attend de-briefing sessions, such as those organised with NGOs, and de-briefings concerning Human Rights Dialogues with third countries; looks forward to assurances that such invitations will now be issued in a consistent manner;
107. Asks the Bureau of the Parliament as well as the Conference of Presidents to consider whether measures could be taken in order to increase the political support given by members in plenary when voting on urgency resolutions of the Parliament pursuant to Rule 115, possibly by moving the voting time to a more appropriate timeslot;
108. Calls for a more constructive role for the Subcommittee on Human Rights in the development of consistent and transparent criteria for the selection of urgency topics, so as to ensure that parliamentary interventions are timely and have maximum impact; calls for members of the Subcommittee to share their expertise in this field and to play a more active and decisive role in the drafting of urgency resolutions; proposes the creation of a permanent working group of members of the Subcommittee for these purposes;
109. Welcomes the drafting of guidelines for Parliament delegations on visits to third countries; asks Parliament’s Bureau as well as the Conference of Presidents to consider measures that could be taken to increase both the visibility and the systematic use of these guidelines; underlines that any mission to a third country should systematically include human rights concerns as a theme and that all participants should be fully briefed on the human rights situation before and during the visit;
110. Welcomes the active role of the subcommittee, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the President of Parliament in standing up to cases of injustice around the world, especially through the award of the Sakharov Prize; observes on this last point that the prize should be presented in public, at a proper ceremony, to the winners in person;
111. Welcomes Parliament’s undertaking to address the complex issue of upholding human rights alongside the fight against international terrorism; points out that consistency in the approach of the EU to different human rights issues is of utmost importance if the EU wants to be a credible actor internationally;
112. Calls upon the Council and Commission, in view of the EU-US Conference to be held in June 2006, and in accordance with the experts' report of the UN's Human Rights Commission, to call upon the US Government immediately to close the Guantanamo detention centre and insist that all detainees be accorded treatment compatible with humanitarian law and stand trial without delay in a fair public trial before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal;
113. Looks forward to receiving the results of an impact study designed to analyse and evaluate the impact of the activities of the European Parliament in the area of human rights;
114. Notes proposals, still under discussion, to strengthen the role of the Parliament in democracy promotion, which could support the work of key committees and delegations, provide an observatory for political developments in the Neighbourhood countries and beyond, and enhance the information network between national parliaments across the EU;
115. Notes proposals, still under discussion, to establish a European Endowment for Democracy, which would work with other organisations committed to the democratic process, such as the Council of Europe and the OSCE, and consider how to develop a democracy and human rights promotion entity available to the EU;
Resources devoted to human rights work, including in the Council Secretariat
116. Asks the Commission to designate at least one permanent post in each third-country delegation as having responsibility for monitoring the human rights situation in the country concerned, promoting international human rights standards and being in charge of relations with civil society, such as relations with human rights defenders; asks that this post have sufficient seniority to identify and address problems where necessary; calls, in this regard, for official invitations to be issued on a regular basis to civil society representatives by the delegations of the Commission, so as to further support the work of human rights defenders of third countries;
117. Asks the Commission to strengthen the Human Rights Unit in its Directorate General for External Relations, providing for additional personnel to cover all human rights issues, in order to enable it to fulfil its additional function as a resource unit; asks also that one staff member in each geographical unit be given added responsibility for human rights;
118. Requests increased funding for the Subcommittee on Human Rights in order to facilitate the financing of field trips and visits by Committee members to human rights black spots in the world, so that breaches of international human rights law can be highlighted;
119. Asks the Council to strengthen the Human Rights Unit in its General Secretariat and in particular to add new posts for experts with human rights backgrounds and specialist knowledge of international humanitarian and human rights law to assist the Personal Representative on Human Rights and to enable a sensible division of labour in his office, in particular given his increase in responsibilities;
120. Advocates that all Special Representatives appointed by the Council should be assigned one human rights expert to work exclusively in their office; calls on these Representatives to systematically raise human rights issues in their work;
*
* *
121. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the accession countries, the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the OSCE, the governments of the countries mentioned in this resolution, and the offices of the main human rights NGOs based in the EU.
- [1] See Annex to this resolution.
- [2] OJ C 379, 7.12.1998, p. 265; OJ C 262, 18.9.2001, p. 262; OJ C 293 E, 28.11.2002, p. 88; OJ C 271 E, 12.11.2003, p. 576.
- [3] OJ C 364, 18.12.2000, p. 1.
- [4] OJ L 317, 15.12.2000, p. 3; OJ ...
- [5] OJ C 304 E, 1.12.2005, p. 375.
- [6] Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2006)0056.
- [7] Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2005)0436.
- [8] * Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2005)0444.
- [9] Council Conclusions 12 December 2005. 15293/1/05 REV 1 Annex p. 14.
- [10] The Council first approved these guidelines in December 2003. They contain standard wording and common definitions that may be used in legal instruments implementing sanctions. The review took place in December 2005.
- [11] OJ C 311, 9.12.2005, p. 1.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Introduction
The European Union remains the foremost champion of human rights in the world, and the European Parliament the strongest advocate of human rights amongst the EU institutions. However, Europe is better at issuing statements than in following them up. The Union may undertake high quality work on human rights, yet in many cases singularly fails to integrate or mainstream human rights considerations into its other policies and programmes. If we are serious about our values, this has to change.
The European Parliament's Annual Human Rights report has been symbolic of these problems in the past, providing an often excellent though partial commentary on human rights violations across the world, but never undertaking the proper job of Parliament: to scrutinize and hold to account what the European Union as a whole does that actually affects and changes the observation of human rights.
With the support of all of the major political groups in the Parliament, this year's report adopts that approach.
A Response to the EU Annual Report on Human Rights in the World 2005
The starting point must be the Council's own Annual Human Rights Report, this year titled a report of the European Union. Such a single report, drawn together through greater consultation, and presented with greater authority and publicity, can be one way in which the Union can project a stronger voice on human rights in the world.
There have been major improvements in the quality of the Council's Report since the first report was produced in 2000. This year the report includes information on the work of the Commission and Parliament as well as the Council. The procedure through which the section covering the Parliament was produced can be improved for next year, alongside a greater commitment from the Council to use the Report to respond and follow up on EP resolutions.
There is clearly not enough analysis, no real impact assessment, no monitoring. What was the impact of the demarches, or the human rights clauses? No tough questions have been posed, let alone answers sought. Equally, there is no mention of the priority areas for the Council over the coming year.
One initiative that could help with setting priorities would be if the Annual Report identified each year a list of Countries of Particular Concern. The Council already maintains 'watchlists' which are reviewed every 6 months, with the objective of providing short, succinct information on countries either in or with the potential to fall into crises, to encourage joined-up actions within the Council of Ministers and across Member State foreign policies. This information could be used to draw up a CPC list to focus attention, so long as this never precludes action in countries not on the list.
One fact is certain – there is a serious need to improve on the visibility of the report, particularly with journalists and national parliaments.
The conduct of the two Presidencies
Generally speaking, the Luxembourg Presidency (January – June 2005) was a success with regards to promoting and standing up for human rights, notably at the 61st session of the UN Commission on Human Rights. This is particularly true due to the limited means available, which meant the Presidency was reliant on other Member States practically helping with the workload and negotiating early on with others. This system of teams of Member States helping - "informal troikas" - should not just be limited to the Presidencies of small countries. This would enable an expansion of the amount of work the EU can cover and increase Member State involvement in the Council's work on human rights generally.
A number of milestones were reached during the UK Presidency (July - December 2005) which have major human rights implications, particularly concerning enlargement. The impetus for reform in Turkey will be even greater now that negotiations have started, with the Commission underlining the importance of monitoring human rights criteria.
During the UK Presidency, a priority was given to a number of demarches on the death penalty, concentrating on countries that were at the moment undecided over whether or not to call a moratorium. Overall there were a wide range of demarches, to around 40 different countries over the past year. By their nature, demarches themselves cannot be made public, but an impact assessment should be made and the results made public. Consideration also should be given to whether it would be possible to share confidential information on demarches with a select group of MEPs, as already happens with sensitive information concerning Security Policy.
The UK Presidency also made progress in pressing countries such as Iran and Cambodia on trade union rights, and maintained the EU sanctions on Burma, successfully pressuring the Burmese government to skip its turn as ASEAN chair in 2006. There were notable declarations concerning Nepal, which improved significantly in quality and balance throughout the year, particularly in their criticism of the Nepalese government.
However, there were problems of consultation during the UK Presidency. For example, there were serious complaints regarding the October 3 GAERC conclusions on Colombia, following no consultation with civil society, and a failure to fulfil a promise to invite the Director of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia to address the Council prior to agreeing to the conclusions. There is a real fear, echoed by the UN, that recognition of the Justice and Peace Law (the legal framework for demobilisation of the illegal armed groups) as a step forward towards peace in Colombia will have a detrimental effect on human rights defenders. There are already reports of seven members of the National Victims’ Movement being killed since the conclusions. This was never put on the agenda of the Council Working Group on Human Rights (COHOM), despite its direct relevance to human rights defenders and the promotion of the Guidelines.
There was a review of the Guidelines on Children and Armed Conflict, carried out under the UK Presidency. However, the attitude of the Presidency that ‘it is not its role to tell its partners what to do’ was worrying. A second major reason for disappointment was that no child impact analysis was done – either via Delegations or NGOs in the field. Indeed, local Delegations were not even consulted for this Review.
There also needs to be a review of the list of countries labelled priority countries for the purpose of the Guidelines, particularly as not one demarche has been carried out in 2005 on Children and Armed Conflict to a country not on the list. For example, places such as the Palestinian Territories are not on the list, but the effect of the armed conflict there on children is overwhelming.
Concerning the Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders, despite some efforts at concrete steps towards implementation, the guidelines in general are little known. For example, in February 2005, NGOs attempted to arrange a meeting to promote the Guidelines to local NGO staff in Rwanda. However the Commission delegation was reluctant to be involved, because of the political context. In contrast, in Burundi the Ambassador himself presented the guidelines at the meeting. Two documents with recommendations and proposals from human rights defenders in Rwanda and Burundi were submitted, however there does not appear to have been a follow-up.
There is a clear need to conduct regular, formal reviews and impact assessments on each set of Guidelines, taking into consideration possible new mechanisms to enhance their effectiveness, with input and insight from the Parliament, using ‘best practice’ to improve implementation.
A key to more effective engagement of the Council to human rights issues is the management of COHOM. On a practical level, agendas and documentation should be made available publicly on time and in advance of meetings, so that external input is possible. There is also a case for a standing Brussels-based COHOM, or if this is unachievable to at least having a dedicated human rights officer in each Permanent Representation.
The same is true for meetings with representatives and visits to third countries – for example troika visits, summit meetings, Association Councils and Commission meetings. Agendas should be available in advance, to enable consultation, and reports of visits should be made public. Human Rights Fact Sheets have been drafted since the Luxembourg Presidency with the aim of better briefing visits and meetings with third countries. These Fact Sheets are a highly positive initiative; however, they are only updated once a year, and are currently confidential.
As ESDP missions grow in number and in importance, safeguarding human rights is becoming more and more important. Standards of Behaviour for military and civilian personnel were published on April 22, 2005, however there is no indication of how these principles have been applied during the EDSP missions launched in 2005, in particular with regard to organised crime, corruption, human trafficking and child abuse. It is clear that there is a lack of understanding in the field, for example in the mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo, no training on children's rights and the Guidelines has been given, so when ESDP personnel encounter child soldiers they simply have not known what to do.
The performance of the Council and the Commission in international forums
The Annual Report speaks of the "powerful impact the EU can have on human rights when it speaks with one voice", a principle that is particularly pertinent when considering the impact the EU has within international forums.
However, having participated in the 61st session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, your Rapporteur has concluded that EU Member States spend too much time discussing issues between themselves, leaving too little time to build bridges with other countries or those that could be persuaded to support EU positions.
It is regrettable that there was refusal to sponsor a resolution on China, and once again there was no resolution on Zimbabwe. EU Member States have failed to persuade influential governments in Africa and elsewhere of the need to take a stronger stance in international forums, despite its strong condemnation of mass forced evictions in Zimbabwe and attempts to provide humanitarian aid to address the crisis. The EU also refused to sponsor a resolution on Chechnya, despite doing so in previous years, and despite no resolution to the conflict. Local human rights groups estimate that between 3,000 and 5,000 people have “disappeared” since the beginning of the conflict in 1999, all of whom were either civilians or unarmed when taken into custody. Russian authorities deny all responsibility for their fate or whereabouts. It does suggest that the EU has one rule for small countries, and applies a different one for large countries - hardly compatible with the principle of universality of human rights.
It also exposes the failure of the EU to negotiate and discuss common positions with third countries as part of other bilateral political, trade and development contacts throughout the year, rather than separate from them in Geneva.
In general, it is of paramount importance that the initiative to reform the UN human rights machinery succeeds. The European Union recognized the creation of the Human Rights Council as a key priority, but in 2005 EU Member States seemed surprisingly slow in pushing firmly enough for action on this crucial reform.
The EU has continued its support for the International Criminal Court in international forums, as established in the EU Common Position of June 2003, and this strong support in part led to the referral by the UN Security Council of the case of Darfur to the ICC on March 31 2005. Unfortunately the EU’s support could not save any of the language on the ICC in the final UN outcome document of September 2005, and the EU did not make a statement on the ICC at the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, as it has been doing for the past years. The EU and Member States need to continue to reaffirm their commitment to the ICC whenever possible, particularly as the US continues to seek bilateral immunity agreements with states worldwide.
In accordance with the established position that rights for disabled people are human rights, the EU needs to step up its support for a UN Convention on rights of persons with disabilities, still under negotiation. For example, at the moment the EU does not support the denial of reasonable accommodation as a form of discrimination within the text, which would leave it as a voluntary exercise, falling short of the way the issue was addressed in the 2000/78 EC directive on equal treatment.
Furthermore, as noted in the Annual Report, the EU is much more successful in promoting an issue abroad when it sets a good example at home. Such is the case for example, in promoting the signing, ratifying and implementation of human rights instruments. So whereas, the EU has success in promoting the Rome Statute (ICC), it has considerably less success promoting the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture. To have credibility on the international stage, EU Member States need to be firm in setting dates for the ratification of all key human rights conventions and their optional protocols.
Similarly, many agencies suggest that existing EU policies to address illegal migration have moved so far as to curtail the ability of asylum seekers to exercise their human rights. The new pilot initiatives for Regional Protection Programmes in third countries such as Tanzania provide a key test as to whether the EU is genuinely committed to enhancing refugee protection or is simply motivated to diminish the numbers of refugees seeking protection in Europe itself.
Scrutinising EU political and human rights dialogues with third countries, and in relation to the Action Plans in the Neighbourhood Policy:
The EU has established formal human rights dialogues with three countries, China (since 1996), Iran (since 2002) and most recently Russia (starting in 2005), aimed at promoting the EU’s agenda as “a convincing power rather than an imposing power”.
The Council is honest about the effect of these Dialogues, in the Annual Report it is stated that “these dialogues have had mixed results”. It is positive that there was an evaluation of the China and Iran dialogues in 2005, in line with the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Dialogues.
Dialogues with China have improved over the past decade, particularly as they now focus attention on specific themes, and there appears to be more willingness to engage in concrete discussion, with the NGO seminars occurring at the same time as the dialogues. However, the existence of the human rights dialogue means that human rights issues are often completely off the agenda at Summit meetings. The EU did widely consult prior to the dialogues, however there were concerns at particular issues that were not raised at the dialogues, for example the case of North Korean refugees.
The Russia dialogue, whilst very new, is so far not held in very high regard. Russia still refuses to hold a session of the dialogue in Russia, which means that it is virtually impossible for a range of domestic NGOs to attend and put forward their case. There is real concern over political changes in Russia since the Beslan massacre in 2004, and with continued criticism of the situation in Chechnya.
EU Member States need to remain committed to pushing Iran to agree to a date for the next dialogue, despite obvious preoccupations with discussions over Iran’s nuclear programme.
The EU has in the past found it difficult to put into place plans with definite benchmarks and strategic goals for the dialogues. This is essential if there is to be any progress and any measurement of the impact, and information relating to the meetings, including their outcome, needs to be much more widely available and open to parliamentary scrutiny.
There is a need to assess the efficiency of all political dialogues not just the structured human rights dialogues; however this is impossible in the complete absence of information.
These discussions are potentially a highly important tool if proactively managed, the focal point for which has to be COHOM, with a strategic overview.
The quality of the section on human rights in the new Neighbourhood Policy Action Plans varies greatly between countries, as the plan is negotiated with the country concerned and therefore has to be agreed with them. For example, there is scarce mention of human rights issues in the Action Plans for Israel and Egypt, as they would not accept this.
One possibility to aid these human rights dialogues, both formal and informal, is the possibility of extending subcommittees of Partnership Councils, as already exists in SE Asia.
Consideration of the implementation of the human rights and democracy clause
An important precedent was reached in October 2005, when the EU for the first time ever partially suspended a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement for non-compliance with the human rights and democracy clause in the case of Uzbekistan. Unfortunately, Germany flouted the ban by granting a visa to the Minister for Interior to receive medical treatment in Germany days before list was published.
This was certainly a very important precedent, but the fact that it has taken this long for the clause to have any real consequences is also a sad commentary on the lack of seriousness given to human rights clauses in other agreements in the past.
For example, the EU continues to see relations with Middle East and North African neighbours as primarily of trade and economic assistance, even though the EuroMed agreements include human rights clauses. In the case of the EU-Egypt association agreement, this entered into force in June 2004, and the human rights clause is yet to be invoked despite serious issues in 2005 such as routine torture, ongoing emergency rule with arbitrary detention and trials before military and state security courts, and approximately fifteen thousand people in prolonged detention without charge. It is a similar situation with EU agreements with Tunisia (1999) and Israel (2000) amongst others. Concerning Tunisia, the EU co-signed a sharp statement on 30 September before the World Summit on Information Society in Tunis, concerned by curbs on free expression and NGOs. However, the EU-Tunisia Association Agreement remained in force, despite the human rights record and its blocking of EU grants to NGOs, including the Tunisian Human Rights League.
The European Parliament adopts its position on human rights clauses in the Agnoletto report (INI 2005/2057), which clearly states that clauses should be inserted into all general and sectoral agreements with third countries without exception, and must form part of all country and regional strategies. There undoubtedly needs to be a ‘middle way’ or a series of options that doesn’t take the EU from one extreme (inaction) to the other (suspension), which is the problem with the current system which relies on the will of the Member States and the Commission. A sliding scale of measures should be based according to the level of abuse of human rights, and could include such measures as political dialogue, demarches, public statements, reallocation of funding, arms or other trade embargos, suspension of agreements, withdrawal of cooperation and development programmes, freezing of funding/budgetary support, visa bans, and the freezing of assets.
There is a clear need for the EU to work harder at mainstreaming, a policy that was first outlined in the Commission Communication of 2001. The Commission itself has never reported on implementation of the Communication and should now do so. It still appears that too often human rights are dispensed with in the face of strong opposition or become negotiable when confronted with other interests.
Considering the effectiveness of the European Parliament's own interventions in cases of human rights
The Annual Report rightly states that the Parliament has "long considered the promotion and protection of human rights, both inside and outside the EU, as one of its essential functions", and that "Parliament is frequently at the cutting edge of developing human rights and ensures that the other EU institutions keep human rights to the forefront of their attentions".
This objective has been greatly aided by the establishment of the Human Rights Sub Committee following the European Elections in 2004. The Sub Committee throughout 2005 has enjoyed several good initiatives, such as producing the guidelines for visits to third countries, and a number of hearings, for example the hearing on human rights in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, held in September. The Sub-Committee has also been particularly active in standing up for cases of individual injustice throughout the world, as has Parliament's President himself.
There is also a need to consolidate efforts to follow the work programmes of the Council and Commission more closely, in order to have greater impact on policy and programming and to strengthen the role of scrutiny. To enable this, the Sub Committee should monitor more closely the work of COHOM, also attending de-briefing sessions.
The largest problem with the effectiveness of the Parliament’s actions is the lack of follow-up, and a tendency not always to take an issue fully to its conclusion once out of the media spotlight. For example, the case of Sudan was at the forefront of everyone’s attention right up until the referral to the ICC in March 2005; however it seems to have now been dropped as an issue despite the fact that human rights abuses are escalating. This is one example why the results of an Impact Study commissioned by the Sub Committee, due to be presented in Autumn 2006, will be so important.
The resources devoted to human rights work
There is no doubt that the appointment of the Personal Representative for Human Rights in 2005 has greatly improved the visibility and engagement with human rights issues across the Council’s activities, with his personal commitment to raising awareness. However, as the Personal Representative takes on extra duties (such as general relations with the Parliament), there are fears there may be less time and resources to devote to his core work. There is a real need for extra staff attached specifically to his office, to work on human rights issues only, and preferably with a human rights background. Ideally, this would involve enough staff to enable a staff member to take care of each of the Guidelines, and a division of labour as in the High Representative’s Policy Unit.
On a positive note, the December GAERC conclusions stated that there would be a staff member with responsibility for human rights in each Special Representative’s Office. This is a decision that should be applauded, and should act as an example to the Commission and its Delegations.
In the Commission, the human rights unit in DG External Relations is understaffed and under resourced to such an extent that there are not enough staff members to cover each human rights theme. This means that there is insufficient attention to ensuring that other units take as much responsibility for human rights related topics - especially important with regard to geographical units. There should be at least one person in each geographical desk with human rights in their job description. The Human and Social Development unit in DG Development should also be expanded to include enhanced expertise in human rights, and a cross-DG HR group should be considered.
The situation is similar in the delegations situated in third countries. It is astonishing that as a matter of course there is not at least one member of staff in each delegation with human rights at least in their job description, especially in conflict zones. Training to ensure familiarisation with human rights instruments for all field staff should become mandatory.
Finally, the ongoing debate between Parliament and Commission on the need for a separate legal base to maintain the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights, needs to come to a conclusion. Your Rapporteur hopes that Parliament will stand firm to ensure support for grassroots victims of human rights abuse in countries around the world is maintained, irrespective of the wishes of the governments concerned.
Conclusion
This report provides an experiment for how Parliament's Annual Report can really address the effectiveness of the European Union itself in promoting human rights. The success of the experiment will depend on the willingness of Council and Commission to cooperate with the very many detailed recommendations necessarily contained in our recommendations, together with the commitment of Members of the Parliament to respect this new approach. I ask for your support.
ANNEX I - INDIVIDUAL CASES RAISED BY THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
UPDATED: APRIL 2006
(Annex: List of adopted resolutions)
FOLLOW-UP OF CASES RAISED BETWEEN 2000 AND 2003
PEOPLE RELEASED
Belarus
YURI BANDAZHEVSKY, released in August 2005.
The scientist was sentenced to 8 years' hard labour on 18 June 2001 for denouncing the health situation in Belarus after the explosion of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. The European Parliament called on President Loukachenko to ensure that his case was reviewed by an independent commission and reiterated its call for his immediate release again in 2005.[1] On 31 January the Commission of the Penal Settlement voted unanimously for the refusal of parole to which he was entitled in accordance with article 90 of the penal code of the Belarus Republic (good conduct). In August 2005, however, Professor Bandazhevsky was conditionally released from prison. Restrictions for the next five years on travelling or holding senior political or managerial functions have been imposed, as well as regular reporting to the police.
Dagestan
ARJAN ERKEL, set free on 11 April 2004.
After being kidnapped 12 August 2002, the head of the Médecins Sans Frontiers mission in Dagestan was freed during a raid by Russian secret service.
Eritrea
DAWIT ISAAK, released on 19 November 2005.
The proprietor of the former weekly Setit and Swedish citizen since the 1980s had been arrested on 23 September 2001 together with other journalists in a major police sweep five days after the suspension of all civil liberties in the country. Shortly before his detention he published a letter of fifteen reforms-minded cabinet members, who were unanimously demanding an investigation of the facts that lead to the war in Eritrea. Dawit Isaak was detained for more than four years without trial and completely cut off from the outside world. The Swedish authorities have on several occasions tried to visit him, but the Asmara government always refused to allow it. The European Parliament reiterated its call for immediate release of the detainees.[2]
Iran
Dr HASHEM AGHAJARI, released on 31 July 2004.
The head of the history department at the Tarbiat Moadres University, Teheran, a prominent member of the reformist movement was condemned to death for blasphemy in November 2002 after calling for a ‘religious renewal of Shiite Islam’ in which Muslims should not ‘blindly follow religious leaders'. The judgement sparked the largest student protests for years and legal battles with judges. The case was reviewed by Iran's Supreme Court, who quashed the death sentence in February 2003. On the occasion of a re-trial the regional court upheld its former death sentence enhanced by a 10 year ban on teaching, eight years in jail and 74 lashes. Finally he was sentenced to five years imprisonment, but released on bail by a Supreme Court ruling on 31 July 2004.
Kazakhstan
SERGEI DUVANOV, released on 16 August 2004.
The journalist and editor of a human rights bulletin was released because of "good conduct" after serving half of his three-and-a-half-year prison sentence. Most of his civil and political rights were restored. The leading independent journalist had been charged of sexual offences with a minor in 2001. According to Human Rights groups the case was a propaganda trial based on equivocal evidence in order to phase out an unwanted independent journalist, who published an online article about the president's murky banking transactions in Switzerland. With regards to the pressure by the OSCE, whose presidency Kazakhstan is aiming on in 2009 and the strong resolution of the European Parliament [3] the government of Kazakhstan seems to have given in to the international criticism.
Malaysia
ANWAR IBRAHIM, released on 2 September 2004.
The famous political opponent had spent 6 years in prison for "crime of sodomy".
Turkey
LEYLA ZANA, Sakharov Prize Laureate, released on 9 June 2004.
The former Kurdish MP and Sakharov Prize laureate of 1995, Leyla Zana and the 3 other Kurdish deputies of the banned DEP, Mr Hatip Dicle, Mr Orhan Dogan and Mr Selim Sadak had been sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment for their political activities in support of the fundamental rights of the Kurdish people. On 9 June 2004 they were released after having spent 10 years in prison. At the time when she was awarded the Sakharov Prize, she was already imprisoned. On 14 October 2004, she could finally address the plenary in person in a special "Sakharov Prize" ceremony.
In July 2001 the European Court of Human Rights had condemned Turkey for the way Leyla Zana's trial had been conducted. On 11 January 2005, Leyla Zana reached a "friendly settlement" at the European Court of Human Rights and received financial compensation from the Turkish state for the latter's violation of the applicants' right to free expression.
Vietnam
FATHER NGUYEN VAN LY, released in early 2005.
He was imprisoned since May 2001 for having expressed his religious faith peacefully.
Zimbabwe
ROY BENETT, released on 28 June 2005.
In the case of the opposition MP Roy Benett, who has been denunciated by Mugabe and his regime for years, the Parliament denounced a fifteen months prison sentence with three months suspended handed down on him on 28 October 2004.[4] He allegedly attacked Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa in May 2004 during a parliamentary session. The sentence was decided by a parliamentary vote and was only the last stage of a vicious campaign against the main opposition party "Movement for Democratic Change" (MDC), whose leader Morgan Tsvangirai has constantly been harassed by the governmental regime.
MORGAN TSVANGIRAI, the state withdrew charges in August 2005.
On 11 August 2003, the Zimbabwean High Court ruled that opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai should be tried for treason, because state lawyers demonstrated that he may have plotted to kill President Mugabe in 2001. On 15 October 2004, the High Court acquitted Mr Tsvangirai. Similarly he was faced with treason charges in 2005, but in August 2005 the state withdrew charges before plea.
DEATH SENTENCE COMMUTED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT
Tibet
TENZIN DELEG RINPONCHE, Buddhist lama.
His execution was suspended for two years and commuted to life imprisonment on 26 January 2005.
On 2 December 2002, the Intermediate People's Court of Ganzi Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture sentenced the influential Buddhist lama and his attendant, Lobsang Dhondup, (who was executed on 26 January 2003), to death for alleged 'action against the security of the State'.
On several occasions, the European Parliament urged the Chinese Government to commute Tenzin's death penalty to life imprisonment according to its own statement to which anyone sentenced to death who commits no crime of intent during the period of suspension shall have their punishment commuted to life imprisonment on the expiration of the two-year period.[5] The Parliament has adopted further resolutions in which it expressed its concerns on Tenzin's imprisonment conditions and called for his immediate release.[6]
The EU, although it welcomed the decision, remained very concerned about the persistent doubts surrounding the impartiality of Tenzin Deleg Rinpoche's trial, and asked the Chinese authorities to continue to brief it on developments in this case.[7]
Turkey
ABDULLAH ÖCALAN, leader of the outlawed Kurdistan Worker's Party PKK.
Following the abolition of the death penalty in Turkey in August 2002, the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment in September 2002.
The European Court of Human Rights had already convicted Turkey in 2003 in particular denouncing the lack of an independent and impartial tribunal, the long delay in bringing the case to court and the restricted access to the case file. Moreover the Court stated that the imposition of the death sentence following an unfair trial amounted to inhuman treatment in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In July 2003 the case was referred to the grand chamber. On 12 May 2005, the Grand Chamber of the ECHR confirmed that his trial was 'unfair'. The Court did not directly call for a retrial but said retrying or reopening the case would be an appropriate way of redressing the violation.
STILL IMPRISONED
Burma (Myanmar)
DAW AUNG SAN SUU KYI, Sakharov Prize laureate of 1990, remains under house arrest since 31 May 2003.
In December 2004, while 9.000 prisoners were allegedly released by the military government, the measures on Suu Kyi were tightened restricting access by her doctor and the withdrawal of some of her party members, securing her compound. On 16 January, however, the roadblock outside San Suu Kyi's house was removed. Suy Kyi has spent 10 of the last 16 years in detention. Under Myanmar law, a person can be detained without trial for up to five years. Suu Kyi has never been tried. In December 2005, the NLD submitted an appeal to the junta claiming her house arrest was legally flawed. On 28 February 2006 the Olof Palme prize was presented to Kyi for being "an outstanding example of the efforts to attain democracy by the people of Burma, where respect for human rights, ethnic unity, and a life in peace remain only a dream", the organisers said in a statement.
The European Parliament continued to urge release and full freedom and movement and expression for Suu Kyi and other leading NLD members as well as other political prisoners held by the ruling junta.[8] Heavy pressure from the European Union and the US government lead to reopening constitutional talks in February 2005 which are supposed to draw up a new constitution as the first step in the self-proclaimed "road map" to democracy in Burma/Myanmar. In January 2006, the military rulers adjourned the talks until later this year. The talks have been condemned internationally for failing to include Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy. The NLD has boycotted the talks to demand the release of their leader and of other political prisoners. South-East Asian countries have spoken out critically against the junta and demanded the release of Aung San Suu Kyi.
Indonesia/Aceh
MUHAMMAD NAZAR, internationally recognised human rights activist.
The head of the Aceh Referendum Information Centre remains to be imprisoned after having been sentenced to a five-year prison term on 1 July 2003 on the grounds of spreading hatred against the government following his participation in peaceful pro-independence meetings. Aceh is one of the regions that have been hit hardest by the Tsunami disaster on 26 December 2004. Several human rights activist groups called for human rights to be at the centre of relief and reconstruction efforts.
Laos
PA FUE KHANG and THAO MOUA, local escorts of a journalist team.
The Belgian journalist, Mr Thierry Falise, and the French cameraman, Mr Vincent Reynaud, were arrested together with their Laotian escorts while producing a report on the Hmong ethnicity who were allied to the US during the Vietnam war and have a long history of resistance and aspirations to independence vis-à-vis the Laotian government.
After the Western reporters were released on 9 July 2003, their escorts underwent a collective trial, whose outcome was predetermined and did not allow for legal representation. Pa Fue Khang and Thao Moua face a 15 and 12 years imprisonment respectively in Samkhe prison, one of Laos´ severest jails. The third guide arrested managed to flee the inhumane conditions.
Vietnam
Venerable THICH HUYEN QUANG, Venerable THICH QUANG DO, PHAM MINH TRI, NGUYEN DUC VINH, NGO QUANG VINH
Freedom of expression and religion in Vietnam is a constant concern of the European Parliament. Parliament strongly condemns the repression of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, the Christian Montanards and the Hoa Hao Buddhist Church. Parliament is particularly concerned about the continuing isolation of the Patriarch of the UBCV, the Venerable Thich Huyen Quang, who has been living under conditions resembling house arrest since 1982, and of the Venerable Thich Quang Do, the UBCV's second-ranking leader, who has been confined to his living quarters under guard since June 2001, for having launched an appeal for democracy in Vietnam.
The European Parliament has also expressed its concern about the dramatic conditions endured by prisoners in the Z30A camp in Xuan Loc, in particular the Roman Catholic priests, Pham Minh Tri and Nguyen Duc Vinh, who have been held for more than 18 years, and a member of the Buddhist Hoa Hao sect, Ngo Quang Vinh, aged 87.[9]
NEW CASES RAISED BETWEEN JANUARY 2004 - APRIL 2006
ALGERIA
· Mohamed BENCHICOU, editor of “La Matin”, sentenced to two years imprisonment on 14 June 2004, for infringement of the law concerning exchange control and capital movements, while his newspaper went into compulsory liquidation in June 2004.
· Ahmed BENAOUM, head of the Erraï Elarm press group, imprisoned on 28 June 2004. He was acquitted by a court in Oran on 19 June 2005[10].
· Journalists working for privately owned French language newspapers sentenced for violating of press laws: Farid ALILAT (sentenced on 28.6.2005); Fouad BOUGHANEM and Haakim LAÂLAM (both sentenced on 17.5.2005); Abla CHEÉRIF, Hassane ZERROUKY, Youssef REZZOUG and Yasmine FERROUKHI (all sentenced on 20.4.2005); Hafnaoui GHOUL (detained on 24.5.2004 and released on 25.11.2004).
Parliament called on the Algerian authorities to release without delay the JOURNALISTS sentenced to imprisonment for libel, to end judicial persecution of the Algerian private media for their opinions and halt the legal proceedings initiated against the Algerian private media.[11]
BELARUS
Parliament strongly condemned the Belarus regime’s indiscriminate attacks on the MEDIA, JOURNALISTS, MEMBERS OF THE OPPOSITION, HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS, and any person who attempt freely to voice criticism of the President and the regime.[12]
· Vieronika CHERKASOVA, stabbed to death in her home in Minsk on 20 October 2004.
In its resolution of 28 October 2004 the Parliament urged the Belarusian authorities to investigate thoroughly the murder of Cherkasova who had been working as an independent journalist for the Sokidarnost trade union newspaper when carrying out an investigation on illegal arm sales between the Belarusian government and Iraq. [13]
· Paval MAZEKA and Mikola MARKIEVIC, journalists from the newspaper “Pahonia”; Viktar IVASKIEVIC, journalist from the newspaper “Rabočy”; all sentenced to between 6 and 9 months in prison.[14]
Over the past few years more than 20 independent mass media entities have been closed for “technical reasons”, while it was clear that the regime wanted to undermine the free press and media in the country.
The European Parliament again passed strong-worded resolutions on the deteriorating situation of MEMBERS OF THE POLITICAL OPPOSITION in Belarus and their legitimate right to peaceful protest against President Lukashenko and his government. In connection with both the referendum and the parliamentary elections on 17 October 2004 and the presidential elections on 19 March 2006, the European Parliament registered massive repression and politically motivated persecution against opposition candidates who peacefully demonstrated the days following the election.[15]
· Valery LEVONESKY and Alexander VASILYEV, sentenced to two years imprisonment.
Valery Levonevsky and Alexander Vasilyev promoter of a demonstration on 1 May 2004, were sentenced for defamation and insult of the president in a satirical leaflet. Both were about to run as candidates in the 2004 general elections, but have been struck off the list due to their criminal record. The Parliament called on the Belarus authorities to immediately release them and all other imprisoned political opponents of the regime.[16]
· Mikhail MARYNICH, a prominent opposition activist, former Minister for External Economic Relations, Ambassador and presidential candidate in 2001, released on parole on 14 April 2006 after almost two years’ imprisonment.
Parliament followed closely the case of Mikhail Marynich who was detained in April 2004 and convicted in December that year of "embezzlement by means of abuse of his official position executed on a large scale". He was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment (which on 18 February 2005 was reduced to 3 years and 6 months on appeal) in a hard labour colony with confiscation of property. Parliament considered that he had in fact been convicted for political reasons rather than having committed a crime.[17]
· Anatoly LEBEDKO, leader of the Union Party, beaten up in a public restaurant in Minsk.
· Mikola STATKEVIC, leader of the Belarusian Social Democratic Party, and Paval SEVIARYNEC, leader of the Malady Front, sentenced to three years of corrective labour on 31 May 2005 (later on reduced to two years).
Both political leaders were arrested together with some 40 or 50 other demonstrators and freed after harsh criticism on behalf of the European Parliament already on 1 and 4 November 2004 respectively. But, on 23 March 2005, formally charged for the “organisation of group actions disturbing public peace or active participation in them”, they were sentenced to three years. As a result of an amnesty declared in connection with the 60th anniversary of the Second World War their sentences were automatically reduced to two years. The European Parliament reiterated its call on the Belarus authorities for their immediate release[18].
· Yuri ZAKHARENKO, former Minister of the Interior, disappeared.
· Victor GONCHAN, former Vice-President of the Parliament of Belarus, disappeared.
· Dmitry ZAVADSKI, cameraman of Russian Television Channel ORT, disappeared.
· Anatoly KRASOVSKY, a business man, disappeared.
The European Parliament called for an independent investigation on their disappearance. [19]
BURMA (Myanmar)
· Hkun HTUN OO, Chairman of the Shan Nationalities League for Democracy, held in prison since February 2005 and sentenced to 90 years.
· General Hso HTEN, President of the Shan State Peace Council, held in prison since February 2005 and sentenced to 109 years.
Parliament demanded the immediate release and full freedom of movement and expression of all political prisoners held by the State Peace and Development Council.[20]
On 6 July 2005, the Junta released 249 prisoners, most of them political prisoners, among them Sein Hla Oo, ex-journalist and member of the NLD party. The liberations were seen as a result of a massive international mobilisation against the Burma regime and for the release of political prisoners; numbers of releases had doubled on the occasion of Aung San Suu Kyi's 60th birthday, on 28 June 2005.
CAMBODIA
The European Parliament reiterated its strong condemnation of the human rights situation in Cambodia, where during recent years HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS, JOURNALISTS, TRADE UNIONISTS AND OPPOSITION SUPPORTERS have been intimidated, arrested and killed, creating a climate of political violence in the country.[21]
On 3 February 2006, government lawyers officially withdrew criminal complaints[22] against
· Kem SOKHA, President of the Cambodian Centre for Human Rights (CCHR),
· Pa NGUON TEANG, Acting Director of the Cambodian Centre for Human Rights and Radio Director,
· Rong CHHUNG, President of the Cambodian Independent Teachers´ Association,
· Mam SONANDO, Director of the Beehive Radio,
· Prince SISOWATH THOMICO, secretary to former King Sihanouk,
· Chea MONY, President of the Free Trade Union of Workers,
Criminal charges filed by the courts in response to the complaints remain pending[23] against
· Ea CHANNA, Deputy Secretary General of the Student’s Movement for Democracy,
Men NATH, President of the Cambodian Independent Civil Servant’s Association,
Say BORY, advisor to former King Sihanouk.
In its resolution of 10 March 2005 the European Parliament focused on the case of three parliamentarians who belong to the liberal Sam Rainsy Party and whose immunity was lifted on 3 February 2005 by the National Assembly of Cambodia. The Parliament called upon the government of Cambodia for the immediate and unconditional release of Cheam Chany and re-imposition of the opposition parties’ member immunity. [24]
· Sam RAINSY pardoned by King Norodom on 5 February 2006, returned to Cambodia on 10 February 2006.
· Cheam CHANNY, pardoned by King Norodom on 5 February 2006, released on 6 February 2006.[25]
· Chea POCH returned home in August 2005; he is said to be hiding, but his true fate remains unknown.
Being a member of Prince Ranaridh’s Funcinpec Party, Sam Rainsy lost his parliament seat due to a vote of no confidence in 1994. This in turn prompted the foundation of the Khmer National Party which was changed later into Sam Rainsy Party. The party constantly faced severe hostility from its political opponents which eventually culminated in an attack, allegedly carried out by supporters of the leading Cambodian People’s Party (CCP) on Mr Sam Rainsy in 1997, leaving 16 people dead. After the elections in 2003, the party was excluded from entering the government through a coalition of the Funcipec Party with the CCP. Having accused Mr Sam Rainsy of libel and slander, the National Assembly overturned the immunity of three of its members belonging to Sam Rainsy´s party. In December 2005 Sam Rainsy was sentenced in absentia to 18 months’ imprisonment on defamation charges brought by the Prime Minister and the President of the National Assembly.
Sam Rainsy and Chea Poch went to exile.
Cheam Channy was taken into custody charging him of plotting against the CCP-led government. In August 2005 he was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.
CHINA
Parliament demanded the unconditional release of all CHINESE CATHOLICS incarcerated on account of their religious convictions and the immediate cessation of all kinds of violence towards them.[26] The resolution included disappeared and arrested clergy:
Mgr James Su ZHIMIN (bishop of the diocese of Baoding, Hebei), 72;
Mgr Francis An SHUXIN (auxiliary bishop of the diocese of Baoding, Hebei), 54;
Mgr Han DINGXIAN (diocese of Yongnian/Handan, Hebei), 66;
Mgr Cosma Shi ENXIANG (diocese of Yixian, Hebei), 83;
Mgr Philip Zhao ZHENDONG, (diocese of Xuanhua, Hebei), 84;
Fr Paul Huo JUNLONG, (administrator of the diocese of Baoding), 50;
Mgr Shi ENXIANG (diocese of Yixian Hebei province), 83;
Zhang ZHENQUAN and Ma WUYONG (diocese of Baoding, Hebei);
Fr Li WENFENG, Fr Liu HENG, and Fr Dou SHENGXIA (diocese of Shijiazhuang, Hebei);
Fr Chi HUITIAN (diocese of Baoding, Hebei);
Fr Kang FULIANG, Chen GUOZHEN, Pang GUANGZHAO, Yin RUOSE, and Li SHUNJUN (diocese of Baoding, Hebei);
Fr Lu XIAOZHOU (diocese of Wenzhou, Zhejiang);
Fr Lin DAOMING (diocese of Fuzhou, Fujian);
Fr Zheng RUIPIN (diocese of Fuzhou, Fujian);
Fr Pang YONGXING, Fr Ma SHUNBAO, and Fr Wang LIMAO (diocese of Baoding, Hebei);
Fr Li JIANBO (diocese of Baoding, Hebei);
Fr Liu DELI;
Pastor Zhang RONGLIANG, 53, one of the founders of the China for Christ Church.
CUBA
· Oscar Espinsa CHEPE, political prisoner, released on 30 November 2004.
· Paul RIVERO, political prisoner, poet, released on 30 November 2004.
· Edel Jose GARCIA, political prisoner, journalist, released on 30 November 2004.
The imprisonment of DISSIDENTS in Cuba gave special rise of concern to the Parliament, which has ever since sharply denounced the ongoing breach of fundamental rights by the local regime.[27] Particular concerns were expressed regarding Oscar Espinsa Chepe, who suffered from a serious illness. On 30 November 2004 six dissidents were released by the Cuban authorities, among them Oscar Espinosa Chepe as well as Paul Rivero and Edel Jose Garcia.
· Oswaldo PAYA SARDINAS, Sakharov Prize laureate in 2002.
Since the Sakharov Prize award ceremony in 2002, Oswaldo Payá Sardinas, author of the Manifesto ‘Todos Unidos’ which is the origin of the Varela Project calling for a referendum on open elections, freedom of speech, freedom for political prisoners and free enterprise, has been systematically denied the freedom to leave Cuba again and to accept the invitations issued by the Parliament and by other European Union bodies. With the adoption of various resolutions, Parliament renewed its invitation to Oswaldo Payá and reiterated its call on the Cuban authorities to permit him to travel to Europe to appear before the Community institutions. [28]
· LADIES IN WHITE (Damas de Blanco), Sakharov Prize laureate in 2005.
Parliament condemned the fact that the Ladies in White were refused by the Cuban authorities permission to travel to the seat of the European Parliament on the occasion of the award ceremony. Parliament highlighted that the travel ban violates one of the basic human rights, namely the right to freely leave and return to one’s own country, as enshrined in the Universal declaration of Human Rights.[29] With the award of the Sakharov Prize to the group of wives, mothers and daughters of the political prisoners, the European Parliament drew the attention to the continuing detention of most of the 75 political dissidents, mainly supporters of the Varela Project, who were arrested in March 2003.
EGYPT
· Dr Ayman NOUR, a former journalist and lawyer, now leader of Al-Ghad Party and member of the Egyptian Parliament, was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment on 24 December 2005.
On 29 January 2005 Ayman Nour was stripped of his immunity and on the same day immediately arrested when leaving the parliament building in Cairo. He was accused of forging more than 2,000 signatures in an effort to obtain formal party status for his Al-Ghad camp, which intended to stand in the run-off for the parliamentary elections in 2006. The detention was followed by some dissident demonstrations protesting against the 24 years continuous rule of Hosni Mubarak. On 31 January 2005 the authorities extended Ayman Nour´s arrest, during which he allegedly was mistreated, for another 45 days. Following the protests by the European Parliament [30] and other international institutions he was released on bail on 11 March 2005 and ten days later formally charged for forging signatures. On 24 December 2005, Ayman Nour was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment for allegedly falsifying some of the 50 signatures needed to register his party for the 2006 elections.
Parliament strongly urged the Egyptian authorities to ensure that Ayman Nour is not subjected to torture or other forms of ill-treatment and that he is given prompt, regular and unrestricted access to his lawyers, doctors (as he is diabetic) and family.[31] The EU Presidency declared that “this verdict send negative signals about democratic political reform in Egypt. The EU expects that any appeal application by Mr Nour will be looked at fairly by the Egyptian Courts.” [32]
In its resolution of 6 April 2006, the Parliament renewed its demand to release Dr Ayman Nour. The Parliament also expressed its concern in respect of the Dr Nour’s trial before the Court of Cassation on 18 May considering the fact that the judge who was chosen to head the tribunal is the same one who confirmed the forgery of the election process last November. Furthermore the Parliament proposed an ad hoc delegation to visit Ayman Nour if he remains in prison following the court hearing. [33]
ETHIOPIA
· Professor Mesfin WOLDEMARIAM, founder and former President of the “Ethiopian Human Rights Council”, the country’s first independent human rights organisation, arrested in May 2005.
· Dr Berhanu NEGA, a well-known economist and the leader of the main opposition Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD) party, arrested in May 2005.
The Parliament raised the cases of eminent HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS AND POLITICAL PRISONERS in Ethiopia and focused on the cases of Mesfin Woldemariam and Berhanu Nega.[34] Having been harassed on several occasions, they were arrested together with more that 100 people, following the protests after the elections in May 2005. Their demand for bail was denied on 4 January 2006, and the trial will resume in February 2006. Under Ethiopian law, the possible sentence ranges from three years’ imprisonment to the death penalty.
IRAN
In its resolution of 28 October 2004 [35] the Parliament denounced two CASES OF MINORS SENTENCED TO DEATH and urged the Iranian authorities to respect the provisions as laid down in the International Covenant on the Rights of the Child, which Iran is party to, and to prevent any further application of the death penalty to minors. In the same resolution the European Parliament called on the Iranian authorities to immediately halt all stoning penalties and to give evidence that they were willing to implement their publicly declared moratorium on stoning. [36]
· Ateqeh RAJABI, a 16-year-old girl, was said to have been publicly hanged in the city of Neka, Northern Iran.
Despite an alleged mental illness and after refusal of access to a lawyer Ateqeh Rajabi was convicted by a Court for acts that were seen “incompatible with chastity.” It is reported that during the proceedings the judge, a conservative cleric, who handed down the death sentence, harshly criticized her dress. The decision was upheld by a Supreme Court ruling shortly before her execution, where it was allegedly the judge of first instance who put the noose around her neck. The same night her body was said to be removed out of the grave. Despite an international ID card proving her age to be 16, the officials regarded her to be 22 years old.
· Zhila IZADI, a 13-year-old girl, initially convicted to death by stoning, later on sentenced to 55 lashes.
· Bakhtiar IZADI, her 15-year-old brother, convicted to 150 lashes, later on reduced to 55 lashes.
Brother and sister were said to have had sexual relations with each other. After pressure from in and outside Iran, both were sentenced to 55 lashes each and released. Zhila Izadi reportedly received her punishment only a few days before giving birth to a child, which was immediately taken away from her. She is still in very poor physical and mental condition and called international human rights agencies for assistance. Due to her social and cultural environment (it was her father who brought up the case to the courts) she has to live under constant pressure, as incest between minors is seen as a massive shame for the family.
· Leyla MOAFI, aged about 20, charged with acts contrary to chastity; stay of execution.
Leyla Moafi was arrested in early 2004 and charged with "contrary to chastity". On 27 March 2005 the Supreme Court overturned the death sentence, but upheld the sentence of flogging and of three and a half years imprisonment. The judge also ordered that following the completion of her prison sentence, she should reside for eight months in a women's rehabilitation centre. Leyla Mafi is known to have had her sentence of 99 lashes inflicted in February 2006. Afterwards she was moved to a women's rehabilitation centre in Teheran.[37]
Parliament welcomed the stay of execution of Leyla Moafi, whose case was referred to forensic psychiatrists to examine her mental condition. Parliament insisted however that the alleged crimes are not an internationally recognisable criminal offence and their persecution does not comply with international human rights standards.[38]
The European Parliament repeatedly expressed its concerns on the situation concerning fundamental rights of JOURNALISTS in Iran.[39]
In its resolutions of 28 October 2004 and 13 January 2005 it demanded that the Iranian Parliament should repeal all criminal provisions dealing with the peaceful expression of opinions, including the press and called upon the authorities to release all prisoners prosecuted or sentenced for press- and opinion-related offences.
· Omid MEMARIAM, Masoud GHREYSHI, Javad Ghoam TAMAYOMI, Reza VATANIKHA, Mehdi DERAYATI, Sharam RAFIHZADEH, Hanif MAZROOI and Rozbeh EBRAHIMI. Hanif Mazroi was released on 11 November 2004 and Rozbeh Ebrahimi on 26 November 2004[40].
Parliament called in particular for the release of these eight online journalists who allegedly contributed to reformist orientated Internet sites. They were detained without having been formally charged whereas at the same time access to lawyers and family members was refused.
· Emadeddin BAGHI, journalist under travel ban.
The case reflects the current situation for journalists in Iran: Authorities prevented him from leaving the country as he intended to make a trip to Europe and Northern America for the promotion of human rights in his country. The Parliament thus urged the authorities in its resolution of 28 October 2004 to lift the travel ban immediately. In December 2005 he was still not allowed to leave the country.
· Hassan Yuseffi ESHKEVARI, Hossein GHAZIAN, Abbas ABDI, Reza ALIDJANI, Taghi RAHMANI, Hoda REZAZADEH-SABER, Iraj JAMSHIDI, Ensalfali HEYDAYAT, imprisoned.
Parliament recalled the ongoing imprisonment of these prominent journalists, which would stand in clear contrast with the right to freedom of expression. [41]
· Akbar GANJI, journalist, sentenced to six years' imprisonment in July 2001, released on 17 March 2006.
Akbar Ganji was arrested in April 2000, together with 17 other Iranian journalists and intellectuals who had taken part in a cultural conference in Berlin. He was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment, which was reduced on appeal to six months, for “taking part in an attempt against national security” and “propaganda against the Islamic system”. In July 2001 he was tried on charges of “collecting confidential state documents to jeopardize state security” and “spreading propaganda” and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.
Both, President Borrell as well as the chair of the Delegation for Relations with Iran sent a letter to the Ambassador of Iran concerning the situation of Ganji. During its visit to Tehran on 21-24 April 2005, the Bureau of the EP Delegation was not allowed to visit him. Akbar Ganji was released on 17 March 2006 with no other pending charges against him[42].
IRAQ
Indiscriminate violence and in particular widespread terrorist attacks against civilians, religious minorities, police forces and soldiers of the multinational force, the taking of hostages, including journalists and NGO personnel and atrocious unpunished murders remain a notorious and constant concern of the European Parliament. It has been extremely worried about the constant threat of ABDUCTION OF AID WORKERS AND JOURNALISTS. [43]
· Simona TORRETTA and Simona PARI, Italian aid workers, released on 16 September 2004.
· Christian CHESNOT and Georges MALBRUNOT, kidnapped on 20 August 2004, released in December 2004.
The hostages were released after unprecedented protests by the media and public.
KAZAKHSTAN
· Altynbeck SARSENBAYEV, a prominent politician and the co-chairman of the True Ak Zhol opposition party, murdered on 13 February 2006, together with his bodyguard and driver.
In its resolution of 16 March 2006 [44] the Parliament condemned the killings and expressed its great concerns on the jailing of opposition activists and journalists for holding a rally on 26 February 2006 in memory of Altynbeck Sarsenbayev. The Parliament called on the Kazakhstan authorities to carry out the ongoing investigation into the circumstances of his death in a full, independent and transparent manner.
· Nurkadilov ZAMANBEK, opposition leader, was found shot dead in unexplained circumstances on 12 November 2005.
Nurkadilov Zamanbeck died after he had accused the government of corruption. The official investigation concluded that he had committed suicide.
MALDIVES
The European Parliament sharply criticised the large-scale detention incommunicado in the Maldives and demanded the release of pro-democracy reformers, while at the same time calling for reforms to give way to democratisation and the respect of human rights.[45]
Following demonstrations on 12 and 13 August 2004 in the capital Male, which were directed against the slow pace of political reforms of president Gayoom´s government, at least 69 people were detained. On 22 August the government allegedly released 62 detainees, while hundreds remain to be detained. According to Amnesty International the exact numbers of POLITICAL PRISONERS are difficult to assess. An EU delegation visiting the Maldives was denied access.
Parliament's resolution mentioned the names of prominent LEADERS OF THE MADLIVES DEMOCRATIC PARTY detained in August 2004 such as
· Dr Mohamed MUNAVVAR MP (former Attorney General),
· Ali FAIZ MP,
· Ilyas HUSSEIN MP,
· Ahmed SHAFEEQ MP,
· Ahmed ADIL MP,
· Dr Hussein Rasheed HASSAN MP (member of the National Human Rights Commission),
· Ibrahim Hussain ZAKI (the widely respected diplomat and former secretary-general of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC),
· Ibrahim ISMAIL MP,
· Mohammed NASEEM MP,
· Ahmed ATHIF MP,
· Gasim IBRAHIM MP, (former President of the SAARC Chamber of Commerce and the pro-reform candidate for the post of Speaker in the Maldivian Parliament).
At the same time hundreds of other people were said to be held incommunicado some of them being subject to torture, among them public figures such as
· Husnoo ALSNOOD (lawyer and member of the National Human Rights Commission),
· Fathimeen NISREEN,
· Mohammed NIYAZ,
· Ahmed Ibrahim DIDI,
· Mohamed ZAKI,
· Ibrahim ZAKI,
· Maria MANIKE,
· Jennifer LATHEEF,
· Aminath NAJEEB,
· Mohammed NASEEM,
· Asad WHAEED.
PAKISTAN
· Javed HASHMI, leader of the opposition Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy, sentenced to 23-years in prison in April 2004.
Javed Hashmi, leader of the Alliance aiming at restoring democracy and the rule of law in Pakistan since its foundation in 1999, was convicted on seven counts for having allegedly forged a critical letter on behalf of irked military staff. The Alliance supporters reckon the verdict to be politically motivated.
The European Parliament continued to express its concerns on the detention of Javed Hashmi. It called on his immediate release and stressed that politically motivated trials and sentences cannot be accepted. [46]
PHILIPPINES
· Francisco LARRANGA, European citizen, sentenced to death for rape and murder of two sisters.
Parliament asked the President of the Philippines to exercise her power by granting an absolute pardon to Francisco Larranaga and securing his immediate release from prison. Parliament called also for a review of the legal procedure in this case and asked for a fair trial to be held on the basis of respect for all legal, penal and jurisdictional guarantees. Parliament also asked to commute the death penalty of the prisoners on death row, particularly the 18 child offenders.[47]
Francisco Larranga's death sentence was confirmed in July 2005 without further possibilities for appeal. But on 21 November 2005, the Spanish Defence Minister José Bono said he had received assurances from Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo that Larrañaga would not be executed while she remained in power[48].
RUSSIA
· Stanislav DMITRIYEVSKY, chief executive for the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society and editor in chief for the Nizhni Novgorod newspaper “Pravo-zaschita” (“Human Rights Activism”), sentenced to a two-year suspended jail term.
On 19 January 2006, Parliament called for the dropping of all charges against Stanislav Dmitriyevsky who has been sentenced for having published in his newspaper Aslan Mashkado´s appeal for peace in Chechnya. [49]
Parliament urged the Russian authorities to respect the freedom of the media and journalists which recalled its precedent calls on Russia to protect human rights defenders, who are increasingly coming under attack, and to grant access to Chechnya to UN Special Rapporteurs and other international human rights monitors, independent media and international humanitarian organisations providing where possible, all the necessary security conditions for carrying out their work.[50]
SUDAN
· Dr Mudawi Ibrahim ADAM, the Chairperson of the Sudan Social Development Organisazion (SUDO), released on 16 May 2006 after two weeks of detention. [51]
Dr Adam was arrested together with his colleague Yasir Salim and driver Abdalla Taha, shortly before he was due to travel to Ireland to receive Front Line Human Rights Defender award from the President of Ireland.
Parliament condemned the arrests and called the Sudanese authorities to release all without delay.[52]
· Amouna Mohamed AHMED (17), Fayza Ismail ABAKER (16), Houda Ismail Abdel RAHMAN (17) and Zahra Adam ABDELA (17) charged of murder.
The four girls were attacked on 6 March 2006 outside Al Shareif camp. The aggression lead the death of the attacker: whereas the police referred the case of the four girls to the Prosecution Attorney on charges of murder. In its resolution on 6 April 2006 the Parliament called on the Government of Sudan to release the girls while their case was investigated. Parliament also considered that the girls should be given appropriate care as victim of attempted rape.[53]
SYRIA
On 8 September 2005, Parliament passed a resolution on several individual cases in Syria [54], among them
· Riad SEIF, parliamentarian, released in January 2006 after having served three quarters of his prison sentence.
· Mamoun AL-HOMSI, parliamentarian, released in January 2006 after having served three quarters of his prison sentence.
According to informed sources in Damascus, both parliamentarians were interim detained again in 15 February 2006 because of “statements that violate limits” and “contacting the outside”.[55] Mamoun Al-Homsi, disappeared after having been requested again for interrogation. He remains still unseen.
· Hasan ZEINO, civil activist.
· Yassin al-HAMWI, civil activist, released on 27 September 2006.
· Muhammad Ali al-ABDULLAH, civil activist, released on 27 September 2006.
Yassin al-Hamwi and Muhammed Ali al-Abdullah were found not guilty of “establishing and belonging to a secret society” by the Military Court on September 27, but guilty of “defamation of the public administration”. They were sentenced to 10 days’ imprisonment, which they had already spent in custody, and released immediately.[56]
· Haytham AL-HAMWI, Yassin al-Hamwi’s son, arrested in 2003, sentenced to four years imprisonment.
According to authoritative sources, Haytham Al-Hamwi was ill-treated in custody and sentenced after an allegedly unfair trail.
· Riad AL-HAMOOD, a Kurdish civil society activists, Arab language teacher and active member of the Committee for Rival of Civil Society, arrested on 4 June 2005.
Riad Al-Hamood was arrested after a speech at the funeral of an Islamic scholar who had died in custody under mysterious circumstances. Riad al-Hamood, whilst in solitary confinement, is at serious risk of ill-treatment.
TUNISIA
· Maître Mohammed ABBOU, a well-known lawyer and human rights defender, sentenced to three-and-a-half years in jail on 28 April 2005.
Parliament condemned the conviction of Maître Abbou who has been sentenced for publishing critical articles causing “diffamation of the judiciary” and “public disorder”.[57] His lawyers have reportedly been denied permission on several occasions to visit him in prison.[58]
- [1] Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0080, adopted on 10.03.05
- [2] Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2004)0068 adopted on 18.11.2004
- [3] Resolution P5_TA-PROV(2004)0376 adopted on 22.04.2004
- [4] Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2004)0112 adopted on 16.12.2004
- [5] Resolution P5_TA-PROV(2002)0632 adopted on 19.12.2002, Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2004)0067 adopted on 18.11.2004 and Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0010, adopted on 13.01.2005
- [6] Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0416 adopted on 27.10.2005, Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0533 adopted on 15.12.2005
- [7] Declaration by the Presidency of 02.02.2005
- [8] Resolution P5_TA-PROV(2004)0187 adopted on 11.3.2004, Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2004)0015 adopted on 16.9.2004 and Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0186, adopted on 12.05.2005
- [9] Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005) 0462 adopted on 01.12.2005
- [10] Reporters Without Borders at http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=14166.
- [11] Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0242 adopted on 9.6.2005.
- [12] Resolution P6-TA-PROV(2005)0295 adopted on 7.7.2005.
- [13] Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2004)0045 adopted on 28.10.2004.
- [14] Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005) adopted on 7.7.2005.
- [15] Res. P6_TA-PROV(2004)0045 adopted on 28.10.2004 and Res. P6_TA-PROV(2006)0137 adopted on 06.04.06
- [16] Res. P6_TA-PROV(2004)0011 adopted on 16.9.2004 and Res. P6_TA-PROV(2005)0080 adopted on 10.3.2005.
- [17] Res. P6_TA-PROV(2005)0080 adopted 10.3.2005, Res. P6_TA-PROV(2006)0066 adopted on 16.2.2006.
- [18] Res.P6_TA-PROV(2006)0066 adopted on 16.2.2006.
- [19] Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0080 adopted 10.3.2005.
- [20] Res. P6_TA-PROV(2005)0444 adopted on 17.11.2005; Res. P6_TA-PROV(2005)0186 adopted on 12.05.2005
- [21] Res P6_TA-PROV(2005)0012 adopted on 13.01.2005, P6_TA-PROV(2005)0081 adopted on 10.3.2005, P6_TA-PROV(2006)0032 adopted on 19.1.2006
- [22] Note verbale of the Mission of Cambodia of 18.01.06,
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engasa230062006. - [23] http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engasa230062006.
- [24] Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0081 adopted 10.3.2005.
- [25] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4684444.stm.
- [26] Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0339 adopted on 8.9.2005.
- [27] Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2004)0061 adopted on 17.11.2004.
- [28] Res. P6_TA-PROV(2004)0061 adopted on 17.11.2004, Res. P5_TA-PROV(2004)0379 adopted on 22.04.2004, Res. P6_TA-PROV(2005)0150 adopted on 28.04.2005, Res. P6_TA-PROV(2006)0042 adopted on 2.2.2006
- [29] Res. P6_TA-PROV(2006) 0042 adopted on 2.2.2006
- [30] Res. P6_TA-PROV(2005)0046 adopted on 23.2.2005.
- [31] Res..P6_TA-PROV(2006)0031 adopted on 19.1.2006, see also Res. P6_TA-PROV(2006)0028 adopted on 19.01.2006.
- [32] EU Presidency statement of 27.12.2005, FCO Press Office 020 7008 3100.
- [33] P6_TA-PROV(2006)0144 adopted on 6.4.2006.
- [34] B5-0360/2001 adopted 17.05.2001
- [35] Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2004)0049 adopted on 28.10.2004.
- [36] See also Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0011 adopted on 13.1.2005.
- [37] http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130362006?open&of=ENG-IRN.
- [38] Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0011 adopted on 13.1.2005.
- [39] Res. P6_TA-PROV(2005)0011 adopted on 13.1.2005, Res. P6_TA-PROV(2004)0049 adopted on 28.10.2004, Res. P5_TA-PROV(2004)0100 adopted on 12.2.2004
- [40] Reporters Without Borders at http://www.rsf.org/print.php3?id_article=11822.
- [41] Res. P6_TA-PROV(2004)0049 adopted on 28.10.2004.
- [42] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4819440.stm
- [43] Res. P6_TA-PROV(2004)0013 adopted on 16.9.2004.
- [44] Res. P6_TA-PROV(2006)0100 adopted on 16.3.2006.
- [45] Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2004)0017 adopted on 16.9.2004
- [46] Resolution P5_TA-PROV(2004)0374 adopted on 22.4.2004
- [47] Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0443 adopted on 17.11.2005.
- [48] http://www.handsoffcain.org/archivio_news/200511..
- [49] Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2006)0026 adopted on 19 January 2006.
- [50] Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0207 adopted on 26.5.2005.
- [51] http://www.amnesty.ie/content/view/full/3781/.
- [52] Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0178 adopted on 12.5.2005.
- [53] Resolution P6 _TA-PROV(2006)0142 adopted on 6 April 2006.
- [54] Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0340) adopted on 8.9.2005.
- [55] http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/060216/2006021606.html.
- [56] http://www.amnestyusa.org/urgent/nl1105.html#releases.
- [57] Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0368 adopted on 29.9.2005.
- [58] http://web.amnesty.org/pages/tun-141105-action-eng, and FIDH press release on 29.4.2005.
ANNEX II - LIST OF RESOLUTIONS
List of resolutions adopted by the European Parliament between July 1999 and April 2006, and relating directly or indirectly to human rights violations in the world
(http://www.europarl.europa.eu/comparl/afet/droi/others/default.htm)
|
Country |
Date of adoption of resolution
|
|
AFRICA
|
|
|
ALGERIA |
18.01.2001 / 17.05.2001 /30.01.2003 (UNCHR) / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) / 09.06.2005 / 16.02.2006 |
|
ANGOLA |
17.02.2000 / 15.03.2001 /14.06.2001 / 06.09.2001 / 11.04.2002 / 04.07.2002 |
|
BURUNDI |
18.11.1999 / 17.02.2000 (UNCHR) / 07.09.2000 / 07.02.2002 (UNCHR) / 23.10.2003 / 30.01.2003 (UNCHR) / 15.01.2004 / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) |
|
CAMEROON |
20.01.2000 / 17.05.2001 / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) |
|
CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC |
14.06.2001 / 30.01.2003 (UNCHR) / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) |
|
CHAD |
20.01.2000 / 14.06.2001 / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) / 15.03.2006 |
|
COTE D'IVOIRE |
20.01.2000 / 16.11.2000 / 14.12.2000 / 10.10.2002 / 30.01.2003 (UNCHR) 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 18.11.2004 / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) |
|
CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE) |
30.01.2003 (UNCHR) |
|
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO |
17.02.2000 (UNCHR)/ 18.01.2001 (UNCHR) / 15.02.2001 / 13.12.2001 / 07.02.2002 / 07.02.2002 (UNCHR) / 13.06.2002 / 30.01.2003 (UNCHR) /15.05.2003 / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 16.12.2004 / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) |
|
DJIBOUTI |
16.12.1999 |
|
EQUATORIAL GUINEA |
18.05.2000 / 13.06.2002 / 16.01.2003 |
|
ERITREA |
07.02.2002 / 18.11.2004 / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) |
|
ETHIOPIA |
17.05.2001 / 07.07.2005 / 15.12.2005 |
|
GUINEA |
15.02.2001 |
|
LIBERIA |
04.09.2003 / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) |
|
LIBYA |
10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) / 14.04.2005 |
|
MADAGASCAR |
07.02.2002 / 16.05.2002 |
|
MAURITANIA |
06.09.2001 / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) |
|
MOROCCO |
10.02.2004 (UNCHR) |
|
MOZAMBIQUE |
14.12.2000 |
|
NAMIBIA |
05.04.2001 |
|
NIGERIA |
15.02.2001 / 15.11.2001 / 07.02.2002 (UNCHR) / 11.04.2002 / 05.09.2002 / 30.01.2003 (UNCHR) / 13.03.2003 / 05.06.2003 / 22.04.2004 |
|
RWANDA |
18.11.1999 / 17.02.2000 (UNCHR) |
|
SENEGAL |
17.11.2005 |
|
SIERRA LEONE |
16.12.1999 / 17.02.2000 (UNCHR) / 18.05.2000 / 07.09.2000 / 18.01.2001 (UNCHR) / 24.02.2005 |
|
SOMALIA |
05.04.2001 / 04.07.2002 / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) |
|
SOUTH AFRICA |
05.07.2001 |
|
SUDAN |
17.02.2000 (UNCHR) / 18.01.2001(UNCHR) / 21.11.2002 / 30.01.2003 (UNCHR) / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 16.09.2004 / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) / 12.05.2005 / 06.04.2006 |
|
TANZANIA |
05.07.2001 |
|
TOGO |
16.09.1999 / 06.09.2001 / 13.12.2001 / 08.04.2003 / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) / 24.02.2005 / 12.05.2005 |
|
TUNISIA |
15.06.2000 / 14.12.2000 / 14.03.2002 / 30.01.2003 (UNCHR) / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) / 29.09.2005 / 15.12.2005 |
|
UGANDA |
17.02.2000 (UNCHR) / 06.07.2000 / 03.07.2003 |
|
WESTERN SAHARA |
16.03.2000 / 14.04.2005 / 27.10.2005 |
|
ZIMBABWE |
13.04.2000 / 18.05.2000 / 06.07.2000 / 15.03.2001 / 06.09.2001 / 13.12.2001 / 07.02.2002 (UNCHR) /14.03.2002 / 16.05.2002 / 04.07.2002 / 05.09.2002 / 30.01.2003 (UNCHR) / 13.02.2003 / 05.06.2003 / 15.01.2004 / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 16.12.2004 / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) / 07.07.2005 |
|
ASIA
|
|
|
AFGHANISTAN |
16.12.1999 / 17.02.2000 (UNCHR)/ 05.10.2000 / 18.01.2001 (UNCHR) / 14.06.2001 / 13.12.2001 / 05.09.2002 / 12.02.2004 / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) |
|
AZERBAIJAN |
09.06.2005 / 27.10.2005 / 16.02.2006 |
|
BANGLADESH |
21.11.2002 / 14.04.2005 |
|
BURMA (MYANMAR) |
16.09.1999 / 18.05.2000 / 07.09.2000 / 16.11.2000 / 18.01.2001 (UNCHR) / 04.10.2001 / 13.12.2001 / 07.02.2002 (UNCHR) / 11.04.2002 / 30.01.2003 (UNCHR) / 13.03.2003 / 05.06.2003 / 04.09.2003 / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 11.03.2004 / 16.09.2004 / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) / 12.05.2005 / 17.11.2005 |
|
CAMBODIA |
17.12.2000 / 18.01.2001 / 06.09.2001 / 07.02.2002 / 11.04.2002 / 13.03.2003 / 03.07.2003 / 12.02.2004 / 13.01.2005 / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) / 10.03.2005 / 01.12.2005 / 19.01.2006 |
|
CHINA
|
20.01.2000 / 17.02.2000 (UNCHR) / 18.01.2001 (UNCHR) / 15.02.2001 / 05.04.2001 (UNCHR) / 07.02.2002(UNCHR)/ 30.01.2003 (UNCHR) / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) / 07.07.2005 / 08.09.2005 |
|
BEIJING'S APPLICATION TO HOST THE 2008 OLYMPIC GAMES |
05.07.2001 |
|
EAST TIMOR |
16.09.1999 / 18.11.1999 / 17.02.2000 (UNCHR)/ 18.01.2001 (UNCHR) / 04.10.2001 / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) |
|
FIJI |
06.07.2000 |
|
GEORGIA |
18.12.2003 |
|
HONGKONG |
19.12.2002 / 15.12.2005 |
|
INDIA |
16.03.2000 / 07.02.2002 / 16.05.2002 / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 16.12.2004 / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) |
|
INDONESIA |
16.12.1999 / 18.01.2001 (UNCHR) / 13.12.2001 / 07.02.2002 (UNCHR) / 16.05.2002 / 30.01.2003 (UNCHR) / 05.06.2003 / 20.11.2003 / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) |
|
KALIMANTAN |
15.03.2001 |
|
MOLUCCAN ISLANDS |
07.10.1999 / 20.01.2000 / 06.07.2000 |
|
KASHMIR |
16.03.2000 / 17.11.2005 |
|
KAZAKHSTAN |
13.02.2003 / 23.10.2003 / 16.03.2006 |
|
KYRGYZSTAN |
14.03.2002 / 23.10.2003 / 12.05.2005 |
|
LAOS |
15.02.2001 / 15.11.2001 / 03.07.2003 / 01.12.2005 |
|
MALAYSIA |
14.06.2001 / 13.06.2002 |
|
MONGOLIA |
07.02.2002 (UNCHR) |
|
MALDIVES |
16.04.2004 |
|
NEPAL |
07.09.2000 / 14.06.2001 / 13.12.2001 / 13.06.2002 / 24.10.2002 / 30.01.2003 (UNCHR) / 23.10.2003 / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) / 24.02.2005 / 29.09.2005 |
|
NORTHERN KOREA |
07.02.2002 (UNCHR) / 16.01.2003 / 30.01.2003 (UNCHR) / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) |
|
PAKISTAN |
18.11.1999 / 15.02.2001 / 05.04.2001 / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 12.02.2004 / 22.04.2004 / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) |
|
PHILIPPINES |
18.05.2000 / 18.12.2003 / 17.11.2005 |
|
SOLOMON ISLANDS |
06.07.2000 |
|
SOUTHERN CAUCASUS (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia ) |
04.10.2001 |
|
SRI LANKA |
18.05.2000 / 14.03.2002 / 20.11.2003 |
|
TAIWAN |
13.04.2000 / 15.05.2003 / 07.07.2005 |
|
TAJIKISTAN |
23.10.2003 |
|
TIBET |
17.02.2000 (UNCHR) / 13.04.2000 / 06.07.2000 / 18.01.2001 (UNCHR) / 07.02.2002 (UNCHR) / 19.12.2002 / 30.01.2003 (UNCHR) / 10.02.2004(UNCHR) / 18.11.2004 / 13.01.2005 / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) / 15.12.2005 |
|
TURKMENISTAN and CENTRAL ASIA |
15.03.2001 / 23.10.2003 / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) |
|
UZBEKISTAN |
04.10.2001 / 23.10.2003 / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) / 09.06.2005 / 27.10.2005 |
|
VIETNAM |
16.11.2000 / 05.07.2001 / 04.10.2001 / 11.04.2002 / 15.05.2003 / 20.11.2003 / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) / 01.12.2005 |
|
AUSTRALIA
|
|
|
AFGHAN REFUGEES / ASYLUM |
06.09.2001 |
|
EUROPE
|
|
|
BELARUS |
07.10.1999 / 05.07.2001 / 13.06.2002 / 04.07.2002 / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 28.10.2004 / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) / 10.03.2005 / 07.07.2005 / 29.09.2005 / 16.02.2006 / 06.04.2006 |
|
BULGARIA |
15.12.2005 |
|
BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA (Banja Luca) |
17.05.2001 |
|
CYPRUS |
05.04.2001 |
|
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA |
17.02.2000 (UNCHR) / 16.03.2000 / 15.06.2000 / 14.12.2000 |
|
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA (FYROM) |
05.10.2000 |
|
IRELAND (Immigration) |
13.12.2001 |
|
KOSOVO |
22.07.1999 / 16.09.1999 / 07.10.1999 / 18.11.1999 / 17.02.2000 (UNCHR) / 17.02.2000 / 15.06.2000 / 15.02.2001 / 01.04.2004 |
|
MALTA (Refugees camps) |
06.04.2006 |
|
MOLDOVA |
14.03.2002 / 11.04.2002 / 18.12.2003 / 24.02.2005 / 16.03.2006 |
|
ROMANIA |
15.12.2005 |
|
RUSSIA |
18.11.1999 / 17.02.2000 (UNCHR) / 18.01.2001 (UNCHR) / 18.01.2001 / 07.02.2002 / 07.02.2002 (UNCHR) / 04.07.2002 / 30.01.2003 (UNCHR) / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) / 26.05.2005 / 15.12.2005 |
|
RUSSIAN REPUBLIC OF CHECHNYA |
07.10.1999 / 18.11.1999 / 20.1.2000 / 17.02.2000 / 17.02.2000 (UNCHR) / 16.03.2000 / 13.04.2000 / 18.01.2001 (UNCHR) / 15.02.2001 / 07.02.2002 (UNCHR) / 16.01.2003 / 30.01.2003 (UNCHR) / 03.07.2003 / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) / 19.01.2006 |
|
RUSSIAN REPUBLIC OF DAGESTAN |
16.09.1999 |
|
RUSSIAN REPUBLIC OF MARI EL |
12.05.2005 |
|
SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO |
16.09.2004 / 07.07.2005 / 29.09.2005 |
|
TURKEY |
22.07.1999 / 13.04.2000 / 07.09.2000 / 18.01.2001 / 13.12.2001 / 15.05.2003 / 22.04.2004 / 28.09.2005 / 16.02.2006 |
|
UKRAINE |
11.03.2004 / 28.10.2004 / 02.12.2004 / 13.01.2005 / 06.04.2006 |
|
AMERICA
|
|
|
ARGENTINA |
04.07.2002 |
|
BOLIVIA |
23.10.2003 / 09.06.2005 |
|
CENTRAL AMERICA |
16.11.2000 |
|
CHILE |
14.12.2000 |
|
COLOMBIA |
07.09.2000 / 18.01.2001 (UNCHR) / 04.10.2001 / 07.02.2002 (UNCHR) / 14.03.2002 / 30.01.2003 (UNCHR) / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) |
|
CUBA |
30.01.2003 (UNCHR) / 10.04.2003 / 04.09.2003 / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 22.04.2004 / 17.11.2004 / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) / 02.02.2006 |
|
GUATEMALA |
18.05.2000 / 14.06.2001 / 11.04.2002 / 10.04.2003 / 07.07.2005 |
|
HAITI |
15.01.2004 / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 11.03.2004 / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) |
|
MEXICO |
05.04.2001 |
|
NICARAGUA |
16.12.1999 |
|
PARAGUAY |
15.06.2000 |
|
PERU |
16.03.2000 / 15.06.2000 / 05.10.2000 / 19.01.2006 |
|
UNITED STATES |
17.02.2000 / 13.04.2000 / 06.07.2000 / 30.01.2003 (UNCHR) / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) 22.04.2004 / 15.12.2005 / 16.02.2006 |
|
VENEZUELA |
13.02.2003 / 11.03.2004 |
|
MIDDLE EAST
|
|
|
EGYPT |
20.01.2000 / 14.06.2001 / 04.07.2002 / 05.09.2002 / 10.04.2003 / 19.01.2006 / 16.02.2006 / 06.04.2006 |
|
IRAN |
16.09.1999 / 17.02.2000 (UNCHR) / 13.04.2000 / 18.05.2000 / 07.02.2002 (UNCHR) / 24.10.2002 / 21.11.2002 / 30.01.2003 (UNCHR) / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 12.02.2004 / 28.10.2004 / 13.01.2005 / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) / 15.02.2006 |
|
IRAQ |
20.01.2000 / 13.04.2000 / 06.07.2000 / 07.02.2002 (UNCHR) / 30.01.2003 (UNCHR)/ 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 16.09.2004 / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) / 06.04.2006 |
|
ISRAEL |
19.12.2002 / 30.01.2003 (UNCHR) / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) |
|
JORDAN |
|
|
KUWAIT |
16.12.1999 |
|
LEBANON |
10.03.2005 |
|
SAUDI ARABIA |
17.02.2000 (UNCHR) / 18.01.2001 (UNCHR) / 07.02.2002 (UNCHR) / 30.01.2003 (UNCHR) / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) / 24.02.2005 (UNCHR) / 10.03.2005 |
|
SYRIA |
13.06.2002 / 08.09.2005 |
|
MISCELLANEOUS
|
|
|
UNITED NATIONS |
|
|
EU's rights, priorities and recommendations for the session of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva |
17.02.2000 (56th) / 18.01.2001 (57th)/ 07.02.2002 (58th)/ 30.01.2003 (59th) / 10.02.2004 (60th) / 24.02.2005 (61st) / |
|
UN Outcome of the negotiations on the Human Rights Council and on the 62nd session of the UNCHR |
16.03.2006 |
|
UN World Food Summit |
16.05.2002 |
|
UN World Day to Overcome Extreme Poverty |
04.10.2001 |
|
UN Conference on Least Developed Countries |
05.04.2001 |
|
Reform of the UN |
09.06.2005 |
|
Reform of the UN, Millennium Development Goals |
29.09.2005 |
|
Small arms and lights weapons (UN prepcom) |
26.05.2005 |
|
DEATH PENALTY |
|
|
Death Penalty in the World
|
07.10.1999 / 18.11.1999 / 16.12.1999 / 13.04.2000 / 06.07.2000 / 26.10.2000 / 05.07.2001 |
|
Abolition of Death Penalty in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan |
13.06.2002 |
|
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT |
16.12.1999 / 18.01.2001 / 28.02.2002 / 04.07.2002 / 26.09.2002 / 24.10.2002 |
|
CHILDREN |
|
|
Trafficking in Children and Child Soldiers
|
03.07.2003 |
|
Forced Child Labour (Africa)
|
17.05.2001 / 17.11.2005 |
|
Child Labour in the Production of Sports Equipment |
13.06.2002 |
|
EU Position for the Session of the UN GA on the Rights of Child
|
11.04.2002
|
|
UN GA Special Session on the Rights of Child |
05.07.2001
|
|
European Parliament resolution on the 10th Anniversary of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child |
18.11.1999 |
|
Children kidnapped by their parents |
15.03.2001 |
|
RACISM AND XENOPHOBIA |
17.02.2000 / 16.03.2000 (European Union) / 16.03.2000 (Candidate Countries) / 06.07.2000 / 03.10.2001 (World Conference against Racism) |
|
PRESS FREEDOM |
17.05.2001 |
|
COMBATTING TERRORISM |
24.10.2002 |
|
Detainees in Guantanamo Bay |
07.02.2002 / 10.03.2004/ 28.10.2004 / 16.02.2006 |
|
MINES AND BOMBS |
|
|
Review of Ottawa Treaty on anti-personnel mines |
22.04.2004 |
|
Cluster Bombs |
13.12.2001 |
|
Landmines |
07.07.2005 |
|
REFUGEES |
|
|
Refugees - Channel Tunnel |
11.04.2002 |
|
Refugees (Lampedusa and Western Sahara) |
14.04.2005 |
|
WOMEN |
|
|
Women in South-East Europe |
22.04.2004 |
|
Female Genital Mutilation |
20.09.2001 |
|
Harassment at the Workplace |
20.09.2001 |
|
Violence towards Catholic Nuns |
05.04.2001 |
|
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, RESPECT OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS |
16.02.2006 |
|
Homophobia |
19.01.2006 |
|
Aung San Suu Kyi and Leyla Zana (Sakharov Prize Laureates) |
13.12.2001 |
|
Sport products for the Olympic games |
22.04.2004 |
|
Mediterranean |
20.11.2003 / 12.02.2004 / 23.02.2005 |
ANNEX III - BASIC TEXTS
|
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS
|
DATE OF ADOPTION | |
|
UNITED NATIONS http://www.un.org http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/index.htm | ||
|
Charter of the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights |
24 October 1945 10 December 1948 |
|
|
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights |
16 December 1966 |
|
|
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights |
16 December 1966 |
|
|
Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty |
15 December 1989 |
|
|
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights |
16 December 1966 |
|
|
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination |
21 December 1965 |
|
|
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women |
18 December 1979 |
|
|
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women |
6 October 1999 |
|
|
Convention on the Rights of the Child |
20 November 1989 |
|
|
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflicts |
25 May 2000 |
|
|
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography |
25 May 2000 |
|
|
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment |
10 December 1984 |
|
|
Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment |
18 December 2002 |
|
|
UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief |
25 November 1981 |
|
|
UN Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognised Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms |
9 December 1998 |
|
|
UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders |
9 December 1998 |
|
|
United Nations Millennium Declaration |
8 September 2000 |
|
|
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCES | ||
|
World Conference on Human Rights (Vienna) Declaration and Programme of Action |
25 June 1993 |
|
|
World Conference on Women and Development (Beijing) Declaration and Platform for Action |
September 1995 |
|
|
World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (Durban) Declaration and Programme of Action |
8 September 2001 |
|
|
ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/criminalcourt.htm |
1 July 2002 |
|
|
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION http://ilolex.ilo.ch |
|
|
|
Minimum Age Convention |
26 June 1973 |
|
|
Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples |
27 June 1989 |
|
|
Convention to eliminate the Worst Forms of Child Labour |
17 June 1999 |
|
|
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT http://www.europarl.europa.eu/comparl/afet/droi/others/default.htm | ||
|
Annual Human Rights Reports |
1983 - 2005 |
|
|
Resolution on the communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the European Union's role in promoting human rights and democratisation in third countries (COM (2001) 252) |
25 April 2002 |
|
|
Resolution on the Commission communication on EU election assistance and observation (COM (2000) 191 - C5-0259/2000) |
15 March 2001 |
|
|
Resolution on countering racism and xenophobia in the European Union, on the Commission communication: "Countering racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism in the candidate countries" (COM (1999) 256 – C5-0094/1999), and on the World Conference against Racism |
16 March 2000 |
|
|
Resolution on the communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on “The European Union and the external dimension of human rights policy: from Rome to Maastricht and beyond” (COM (1995) 567 – C4-0568/1995) |
17 December 1998 |
|
|
Resolution on the report from the Commission on the implementation of measures intended to promote observance of human rights and democratic principles (for 1995) (COM (1996) 672 - C4-0095/1997) |
19 December 1997 |
|
|
Resolution on setting up a single co-ordinating structure within the Commission, responsible for human rights and democratisation |
19 December 1997 |
|
|
Resolution on the communication from the Commission on the inclusion of respect for democratic principles and human rights in agreements between the Community and third countries (COM (1995) 216 – C4-0197/1995) |
20 September 1996
|
|
|
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union |
|
|
|
European Parliament resolution on the human rights and democracy clause in European Union agreements |
14 February 2006 |
|
|
COUNCIL |
| |
|
http://ue.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=822&lang=en&mode=g http://www.europa.eu.int/pol/rights/index_de.htm | ||
|
Guidelines for EU policy towards third countries on the death penalty of 29 June 1998 |
29 June 1998 |
|
|
Regulations (EC) No 975/1999 and (EC) No 976/1999 on the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms Official Journal L 120 , 08/05/1999 P. 0001 - 0014 |
29 April 1999 |
|
|
Cotonou Agreement |
23 June 2000 |
|
|
Guidelines for EU policy towards third countries on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment |
9 April 2001 |
|
|
Conclusions on the communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the European Union's role in promoting human rights and democratisation in third countries (COM (2001) 252) |
25 June 2001 |
|
|
EU guidelines on Human rights dialogues |
13 December 2001 |
|
|
Action Plan to follow-up on the Common Position of 22 January 2001 on the International Criminal Court |
27 May 2002 |
|
|
Common Position amending Common Position of 22 January 2001 on the International Criminal Court |
20 June 2002 |
|
|
Conclusions on human rights and democratisation in third countries, together with practical measures endorsed for the implementation of the Council's conclusions of 25 June 2001 |
10 December 2002 |
|
|
EU Common Position on the International Criminal Court |
16 June 2003 |
|
|
EU Guidelines on Children in Armed Conflicts |
8 December 2003 |
|
|
EU Guidelines on Promoting Compliance with International Humanitarian Law |
23 December 2005 |
|
|
COMMISSION http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/human_rights/doc/eidhr02_04.htm | ||
|
COUNCIL OF EUROPE http://conventions.coe.int |
|
|
|
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Protocol No. 13 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances |
4 November 1950 3 May 2002 |
|
OPINION of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (23.2.2006)
for the Committee on Foreign Affairs
on the Annual Report on Human Rights in the World 2005 and the European Union's policy on the matter
(2005/2203(INI))
Draftsman: Raül Romeva i Rueda
SUGGESTIONS
The Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality calls on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:
- having regard to the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against women (CEDAW) and its Optional Protocol,
- having regard to the UN Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflicts and the resolution 1325 (2000) of the Security Council,
- having regard to the UN Declaration of the Elimination of violence against Women,
- having regard to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
- having regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
- having regard to the EU guidelines on the protection of human rights defenders adopted in June 2004,
A. whereas violence against women is a human rights violation and cannot be justified on any political, religious or cultural grounds,
B. whereas the EU is fully committed to promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms in its foreign policy,
C. whereas international legal standards supporting and protecting women’s rights should systematically become the cornerstone of any bilateral relations, in particular concerning third countries with which the EU has signed association and cooperation agreements,
D. whereas the acknowledgement of reports about the forced sterilisation of Romani women in Member States continues to grow, for example in the recent Czech Public Defender of Rights report of December 2005, which investigated allegations of the coercive sterilisation of Romani women in the Czech Republic; and whereas this problem of coerced sterilisation in the context of racial targeting still exists in Member States,
E. whereas over 500 Romani refugees are being housed at the Zitkovac, Cesmin Lug and Kablare camps in the Mitrovica region of Kosovo, located on land highly contaminated with lead, as reported by the Office of Public Prosecutor in Kosovo in August 2005; whereas numerous illnesses have been reported, such as the case of an 18-year old translator working in all three camps, who became paralysed as a result of lead poisoning and whereas studies have shown that the blood-lead concentrations of all children and many adults in the camps reach extraordinarily unhealthy levels,
F. whereas there is still resistance in many Member States to pluralism and diversity , and this trend threatens the human rights and the rights of citizenship of minority groups and contributes to their continued marginalisation through the denial of access to education, housing, health care, skills and professional job training and political participation,
G. whereas women and girls are usually the main victims in armed conflicts while playing a key role in post-war peace-building, including conflict resolution, conflict management, reconciliation and the rehabilitation process, the establishment of rules and appropriate sanctions and the rebuilding of disrupted societies; whereas the Council is determined systematically to mainstream a gender-perspective in the European Security and Defence Policy and to include women in all its missions, both military and non-military (police),
1. Is shocked at the fact that every 3.06 seconds someone dies of hunger, in developing countries 10% of children die of hunger before reaching the age of five, 20% of the world’s population lives on less than one dollar a day, 55 million people in the European Union —15% of the EU population – suffer from poverty, 55% of the 16 000 people who are infected with HIV/Aids every day are women and 6 000 children die every day from diseases that can be prevented by means of better quality water and sanitation, and at the magnitude of violence revealed by Amnesty International statistics, according to which, in 2005, 6 000 women underwent genital mutilation in Africa every day (135 million in total), 15 000 women were sold into sexual slavery in China, 7 000 women were murdered in disputes over dowries in India and 600–800 000 women in the world and over 100 000 women in Europe were victims of trafficking;
2. Calls on the Commission, in the context of cooperation and association agreements with third countries, the provision of humanitarian aid and the neighbourhood policy, to take into account and systematically monitor the ratification and implementation of international conventions concerning respect for fundamental rights and the legal position of women as well as the integration of gender equality into all policies and the provision of services in those countries’ societies;
3. Is appalled at the phenomenon of brutally tortured and killed women (feminicidios) in Latin America, the greatest incidence of which is in Mexico and Guatemala; invites the Commission to include this issue in bilateral dialogues and put forward recommendations as a prerequisite for progress in bilateral relations;
4. Calls on the Commission, in the framework of the cooperation, association or partnership agreements with third countries, to monitor regularly the respect by third country partners of "the human rights clause" of such agreements and in particular, the fight against harmful traditional practices which violate women’s or children’s rights, and to take all appropriate measures in the case of any violation of these provisions;
5. Insists that respect for women’s human rights as enshrined in the UN Covenant on Social and Economic Rights as well as in their concrete forms in the respective ILO Conventions must be monitored by the Commission, the Council as well as national governments also in trade agreements;
6. Calls on the Council and Commission to ensure the effective implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action in order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and to consider the lifting of all reservations to the CEDAW and ratification of its Optional Protocol by all partner states; urges the Council and the Commission further to encourage third countries to make express provision for women's rights in their legislation and to guarantee that these rights are respected, as well as to implement gender sensitive policies and mechanisms to give women greater involvement in decision-making in economic, social and political life
7. Recalls that economic and trade policies are not gender neutral and discriminatory practices in the area of the production of goods and services are used to obtain profits; also recalls that EU trade policy and policy tools towards third countries such as market access and trade promotion are subject to the human rights clause and must therefore, in any event, avoid contributing to discriminatory practices;
8. Asks the Commission to pay particular attention to EU investment into export processing zones in order to ban practices such as pregnancy control in EU-owned companies, and to promote the suppression of pregnancy controls in subcontracting companies as well as in non-EU companies and invites the national authorities concerned duly to protect women’s rights;
9. Takes the view that the promotion and the protection of women’s rights should be explicitly and systematically included in the EU’s political dialogue with third countries with which cooperation or association agreements have been signed; highlights, in this regard, the necessity to set up a transparent monitoring mechanism of the human rights clause of the agreements, which takes into account women’s rights;
10.Welcomes the fact that the protection of human rights defenders has been identified as a priority under one of the four campaigns which the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) will pursue; stresses the importance of the role of EC missions and delegations in monitoring the situation of human rights defenders in third countries; Calls on the Council and the Member States to take initiatives to protect human rights defenders and in particular, women in the framework of the EU guidelines on the protection of human rights defenders;
11. Requests the Commission, the Council and the international community at large to pay increased attention to the impact of conflict situations on the most vulnerable groups in society and particularly women and children, and in particular those belonging to ethnic, linguistic and/or religious minorities; condemns the use of thousands of child soldiers and stresses the particular vulnerability of girls to violence and sexual exploitation in their roles as forced sex slaves and/or forced wives;
12. Condemns the use of rape as a tool of war and urges the Commission and the International Community as a whole to continue to insist that the use of rape in war is a breach of international humanitarian law and international conventions; recognises the impact of mass rape in making women vulnerable to contracting HIV/AIDS;
13. Urges the Commission to recognise the major role played by women in postwar peace-building, support women's initiatives to end armed conflicts and contribute to conflict resolution and management, and focus its cooperation instruments on the protection of activities such as those of the "Ruta Pacífica de las Mujeres" in Colombia and the women's movement of Darfur.
14. Welcomes with satisfaction the activities developed under the STOP Female Genital Mutilation international campaign funded by the EIDHR and encourages the Commission to make further use of the potential of the EIDHR in order to address other forms of violence against women, particularly trafficking, as well as to develop measures to reinforce women’s rights and their position in society;
15. Calls on the Commission to conclude, as soon as possible, the assessment of the implementation, by Member States, of EU legislation relating to the trafficking of human beings; encourages the Commission and the Council to improve and intensify the collaboration with European and international organisations involved in the fight against trafficking and exploitation of persons;
16. Calls on the Commission to take action against hunger, which undermines human dignity and restricts the enjoyment of human rights, particularly in view of alarming data pointing to the fact that, unless additional investment is immediately forthcoming, 600 million people - the majority of whom will be women and children - will be suffering from hunger by 2015;
17. Calls upon Member States that are determined as known sites of coerced sterilisation to abolish this practice through law enforcement efforts and to develop compensation schemes;
18. Demands an adequate relocation to safer housing for 500 Romani refugees in the highly lead contaminated land of Mitrovica region of Kosovo; draws the attention to the temporary and newly renovated location of the French KFOR Camp Osterode which could serve as an interims solution; calls on the Council, the Commission and the Member States involved to provide sufficient financial resources for a relocation to the place of origin; emphases the need to enforce human rights while continuing the Stabilisation and Association Process;
19. Calls upon the Commission to introduce a method of evaluation to ensure effective legal protection through Council Directives 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000[1] and 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000[2] as tools to secure the human rights and citizenship rights of minorities, ensure access to education, housing, health care, job training and political participation, and enforce the implementation of anti-discrimination legislation;
EXPLANTORY STATEMENT
Introduction
Violence against women has many faces and places. Violation of women's rights is one of its multiple aspects. Be it an attack on the integrity of the person; be it women's exclusion from society's benefits through systematic lack of access to school and education; be it a lack of political rights where women are not allowed to vote, to drive cars or to accede to certain positions; be it war and finally discrimination as an outflow of the economic system - in each of the cases the state violates its obligation to protect women according to the two International Covenants of Human Rights, Humanitarian Law and other International Conventions.
The EU strongly supports the work made by the United Nations with regard to the promotion of women's rights. In this regard, Council and the Commission must set up as priorities the lifting of all reservations to the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against women (CEDAW) and the ratification of the CEDAW's optional protocol by all partner states
Violation of women's rights
Violence against women is one of the most widespread and pervasive human rights violations. It cuts across cultural, regional, religious and human rights boundaries.
Between 600,000 and 800,000 women are victims of trafficking throughout the world each year.Women are recruited on false pretenses, coerced, transported, and bought and sold for a range of exploitative purposes including sex tourism and forced marriage. Women who are trafficked for sexual exploitation are often sexually abused and raped to break them mentally and emotionally, in order to force them into sex work. Despite the risks of HIV/AIDS, women are often punished for refusing unprotected sex. Trafficking and forced prostitution is internationally recognized as a human rights violation, with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women specifically requiring to "suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women".
Thousands of girls are targeted for mutilation each day. Two million girls a year are at risk - approximately 6,000 per day. Although it is predominantly practiced in twenty-eight North-African countries, FGM is not inherent to any nation or religion. Genital mutilation is a practice that compounds unspeakable violence against women and young girls with discrimination, repression and inequality.
Violation of Women's Rights in social and economic spheres
Women have a higher incidence of poverty than men; their poverty is more severe than that of men; and increasing numbers of women are poor. While globalization has opened up opportunities for women, it has also had negative effects. It has left more and more women trapped on the margins of society.
Salary differences and abuse of unskilled, traditionally non- unionised and often very young female workforce as a factor for maximising profits is common practice in export processing zones (EPZ). The EU should pay particular attention to the establishment and use of EPZ in its foreign trade policy in general and particularly in its bilateral trade agreements. The high record of mainly young women tortured and killed in areas of EPZ, such as in Mexico and Guatemala, without any serious police investigation and judicial persecution should quickly lead to discussion and the adoption of mandatory recommendations at the level of established political dialogues and Joint Councils between the EU and the concerned third countries.
Women in armed conflict and peace promotion
Wars are fought by men but in every armed conflict women are the worst victims. Not only that they loose their husbands, children and everything, they are systematically considered as 'tools of war' and for that reason the victim of rape and forced prostitution. Such actions should not only be considered as a human rights violation but as a war crime to be sanctioned heavily and put to an end.
Nevertheless, women have been and are also actors in the efforts to prevent and end war and come to reconciliation, rehabilitation, the end of impunity, and rebuilding disrupted societies. The women of Colombia, as well as the women in the Balkan, all over Africa, in the Philippines and many more regions of our planet demonstrate the value of women and female values to promote peace. In Europe women have always played and are playing a remarkable role in peace movements both in numbers as well as in quality to protest and end wars. From their stories the males of this world are forced to learn in the end and give up their guns and rifles. Their is strong evidence that wherever women take over political, economical and intellectual roles which thus far were monopolised by their fellow men, the culture of endless violent can be transformed more successfully into a long lasting culture of peace, dialogue and co-operation. For that reason all efforts of the Commission must be strengthened which recognise these values and support women's groups wherever they enter the peace-process. It must also be welcomed that recently the Council has courageously recognised that a gender perspective must systematically be made part of the EU Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) and that in all missions women must act as leaders as well as participants.
PROCEDURE
|
Title |
The Annual Report on Human Rights in the World 2005 and the European Union's policy on the matter | |||||
|
Procedure number |
||||||
|
Committee responsible |
AFET | |||||
|
Opinion by |
FEMM | |||||
|
Enhanced cooperation – date announced in plenary |
| |||||
|
Drafts(wo)man |
Raül Romeva i Rueda | |||||
|
Previous drafts(wo)man |
| |||||
|
Discussed in committee |
21.2.2006 |
|
|
|
| |
|
Date adopted |
21.2.2006 | |||||
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
21 0 1 | ||||
|
Members present for the final vote |
Edit Bauer, Emine Bozkurt, Věra Flasarová, Claire Gibault, Lissy Gröner, María Esther Herranz García, Lívia Járóka, Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, Urszula Krupa, Astrid Lulling, Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Amalia Sartori, Eva-Britt Svensson, Anna Záborská | |||||
|
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Iratxe García Pérez, Anna Hedh, Mary Honeyball, Christa Klaß, Karin Resetarits, Heide Rühle, Marta Vincenzi | |||||
|
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote |
| |||||
|
Comments (available in one language only) |
| |||||
PROCEDURE
|
Title |
Annual Report on Human Rights in theWorld 2005 and the EU's policy on the matter | ||||||||||
|
Procedure number |
|||||||||||
|
Committee responsible |
AFET | ||||||||||
|
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s) |
FEMM |
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
Not delivering opinion(s) |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
Enhanced cooperation |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
Rapporteur(s) |
Richard Howitt |
| |||||||||
|
Previous rapporteur(s) |
|
| |||||||||
|
Discussed in committee |
20.2.2006 |
13.3.2006 |
19.4.2006 |
|
| ||||||
|
Date adopted |
20.04.2006 | ||||||||||
|
Result of final vote |
+ - 0 |
53 4 0 | |||||||||
|
Members present for the final vote |
Angelika Beer, Panagiotis Beglitis, Bastiaan Belder, Monika Beňová, André Brie, Elmar Brok, Paul Marie Coûteaux, Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos, Camiel Eurlings, Ana Maria Gomes, Richard Howitt, Jana Hybášková, Jelko Kacin, Helmut Kuhne, Vytautas Landsbergis, Cecilia Malmström, Francisco José Millán Mon, Philippe Morillon, Pasqualina Napoletano, Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne, Raimon Obiols i Germà, Alojz Peterle, Tobias Pflüger, João de Deus Pinheiro, Mirosław Mariusz Piotrowski, Hubert Pirker, Paweł Bartłomiej Piskorski, Michel Rocard, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Libor Rouček, José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, Jacek Emil Saryusz-Wolski, György Schöpflin, Gitte Seeberg, István Szent-Iványi, Konrad Szymański, Antonio Tajani, Paavo Väyrynen, Ari Vatanen, Karl von Wogau, Luis Yañez-Barnuevo García, Josef Zieleniec | ||||||||||
|
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Laima Liucija Andrikienė, Irena Belohorská, Carlos Carnero González, Alexandra Dobolyi, Hélène Flautre, Michael Gahler, Kinga Gál, Milan Horáček, Tunne Kelam, Eija-Riitta Korhola, Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis, Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez, Athanasios Pafilis, Inger Segelström | ||||||||||
|
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote |
| ||||||||||
|
Date tabled |
2.5.2006 | ||||||||||
|
Comments |
| ||||||||||