Le Président. – L'ordre du jour appelle le débat sur six propositions de résolution sur la peine de mort, notamment le cas de Troy Davis⁽¹⁾.

  Marios Matsakis, author. − Mr President, this House has taken a clear and strong stance as far as the death penalty is concerned. It supports its abolition and the need for an immediate moratorium on executions where the death penalty still applies.

The latter is the case in many states in the USA such as Georgia, where Troy Davis is awaiting his lawful killing to be carried out at the end of July. Apart from ideological and humanistic considerations against executing human beings, in the case of Troy Davis there appear to be additional reasons in the form of serious doubts as to the robustness and validity of the evidence which led to his conviction in the first place.

Such doubts, we believe, justify the reasoning of any individual using common sense that retrial should be granted in this case. Consequently we call on the relevant authorities in the USA to order that Troy Davis be retried and, if found guilty again, that his death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment.

Furthermore, we call once again on the US Government, and all governments in the world that still have capital punishment, to abolish the death penalty in the interests of humanity. In particular we call on the governments of those countries such as China, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia where executions are still carried out regularly, and where in many instances this is done in a most appallingly barbaric way, to stop executions.

  Ryszard Czarnecki, autor. − Panie Przewodniczący! Nie chciałbym, aby nasza debata była debatą na temat kary śmierci jako takiej. Ponieważ nie ma co ukrywać, że w tej sprawie są różne zdania, wydaje mi się, iż powinniśmy mówić o bardzo konkretnym przypadku człowieka, który został skazany na karę śmierci, a potem siedmiu z dziewięciu świadków jego oskarżenia wycofało zeznania. To jest sytuacja bardzo konkretna. Nie chciałbym, żebyśmy uciekali abstrakcyjnie do debaty, czy kara śmierci jest rzeczą absolutnie złą czy też nie. Nie chcę w tej chwili wzywać, żeby władze amerykańskie zmieniły prawo, które w 1972 r., czyli 36 lat temu, przywróciło prawo kary śmierci. Mówimy o konkretnym, niesłychanie kontrowersyjnym przypadku. Rzeczywiście warto bronić pana Davisa i pokazywać, że są sytuacje, w których warto interweniować. Przestrzegałbym przed uogólnieniami, dlatego też nie podpisałem tej wspólnej rezolucji.

  Jean Lambert, author. − Mr President, this case certainly is an urgency because, as we have been hearing, the execution is due to take place by the end of this month. So I would urge each and every one of us in this Chamber and listening to this debate to make personal representations to the American Government – and indeed the Georgia state government – to see if clemency can be applied. Then we would move towards a retrial, if that is necessary. At least we would have a living being and a retrial would be able to take place. I think it is really important that we take our personal responsibility on this as well as looking to representations by Parliament.

Certainly, in this particular case, the evidence – as we have also been hearing from many of the witnesses – has been retracted and contradicted. The American Bar Association’s Georgia Death Penalty Assessment Team released a report looking at the circumstances in that particular state and felt that one of the major problems they had found was inadequate defence counsel, and a concern that defendants already on death row may not have had adequate counsel at the time of their trials. They noted that Georgia was the only state that did not provide lawyers to death row inmates for their post-conviction appeals.

So there are a number of reasons to be very concerned about this particular case, which is the one cited in the title of the resolution on the death penalty, notably the case of Troy Davis. But I would also like to raise other cases, in particular what is happening at the moment with some of those still detained in Guantánamo. One case in particular concerns a British resident, Binyamin Mohamed, who has been detained there for over six years now and is likely to face a military commission where the death penalty is all too possibly an outcome.

This Parliament, and the European Union as a whole, takes a very strong view on the death penalty. We consider that it is not something that a civilised society should be applying, and that there are all too many reasons for death penalties not to be imposed. The case of Troy Davis is, I think, an absolutely classic example of the real problems with the implementation of the death penalty.

Once again, as well as what is called for in this particular resolution, I would call on each and every one of us, as responsible individuals, also to take action in communicating our distress on this particular case.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė, Autorė. − Europos Parlamentas yra priėmęs ne vieną rezoliuciją, kurioje raginome panaikinti, netaikyti mirties bausmės arba bent paskelbti moratoriumą mirties bausmės vykdymui tose šalyse, kur ji dar nepanaikinta.

O šiandien mes, Europos Parlamentas, stojame už vieną žmogų, kurio niekuomet nesame matę, už Troy Davies, kuriam mirties nuosprendis turėtų būti įvykdytas šio mėnesio pabaigoje. Ar galite save įsivaizduoti jo vietoje – 17 metų laukti išteisinimo arba mirties bausmės įvykdymo, esant daugybei nekaltumo įrodymų, 7 liudytojams, kurie liudijo jo nenaudai, atsiėmus savo parodymus ir t.t.? Juk žinome tiek daug atvejų, kuomet mirties bausmė buvo įvykdyta, o vėliau įrodyta, kad žmogus buvo nekaltas. Taip pat žinome ir šimtus atvejų, kai mirties bausmė buvo skirta, bet nebuvo įvykdyta, nes vėliau įrodyta, kad nuteistasis buvo nekaltas.

Todėl šiandien dar kartą raginame valstybes visame pasaulyje, kuriose taikoma mirties bausmė, nedelsiant imtis priemonių, kad ji būtų panaikinta. Šiandien pasisakome prieš mirties bausmę, užstodami konkretų žmogų, prašydami atitinkamų JAV teismų dar kartą svarstyti Troy Davies bylą ir pakeisti jam skirtą mirties bausmę švelnesniu nuosprendžiu.

Manau, kad užstoti konkretų žmogų, neleisti nužudyti dar vieno žmogaus, net ir padariusio labai didelę klaidą ar nuodėmę – pats geriausias būdas išreikšti poziciją dėl būtinumo panaikinti mirties bausmę visame pasaulyje.

  Ana Maria Gomes, Autora. − Senhor Presidente, o primeiro dos direitos humanos é o da inviolabilidade da vida. A pena de morte é o mais insolente dos desdéns à dignidade, à civilização e ao progresso. Neste instante, neste exacto minuto em que respiramos e falamos livremente, há um homem fechado numa cela, Troy Davis, que vive contando os minutos que lhe restam de vida. Ele está há mais de 15 anos no corredor da morte e sempre negou ter cometido o crime de que foi acusado. Parte dos que testemunharam contra ele desmentiram ou apresentaram contradições nos seus depoimentos, obtidos mediante pressão policial. Neste caso não existem provas claras, objectivas e convincentes. A aplicação da pena de morte a Troy Davis, pelas autoridades do Estado da Geórgia, é totalmente contrária à moratória à pena de morte aprovada no passado mês de Dezembro pela Assembleia Geral das Nações Unidas.

Embora não seja legalmente penalizante, esta moratória carrega um enorme peso moral e político. Cabe hoje aos Estados que não o fizeram, rever a sua política no sentido de abolir a pena capital e de respeitar os direitos humanos na sua íntegra. O Estado da Geórgia, com este caso, tem agora a oportunidade de voltar a dar substância merecida aos valores mais essenciais da democracia. Recentemente, o Comissário Louis Michel ouviu da boca do Presidente do Sudão, Omar al-Bashir, que não entregaria os indiciados por crimes contra a humanidade ao Tribunal Penal Internacional, tal como os Estados Unidos não o faziam. O exemplo dos Estados Unidos nestas duas matérias é uma desgraça, e nós temos que, por todos os meios, fazer sentir aos Estados Unidos que não podemos aceitar esta posição e que exemplo terrível é dado ao mundo em matéria de direitos humanos.

Por isso, como se pede na resolução, é essencial que a Presidência da União Europeia, que a delegação da Comissão Europeia em Washington, sem demora, façam diligências para evitar a condenação de Troy Davis e para que os Estados Unidos efectivamente revejam a sua posição em relação à pena de morte.

  Józef Pinior, w imieniu grupy PSE. – Panie Przewodniczący! W roku 2007 dokonano na świecie ok. 1252 egzekucji w 24 krajach. Realna liczba była bez wątpienia wyższa. 88% tych egzekucji w 2007 roku dokonano w Chinach, Iranie, Arabii Saudyjskiej, Pakistanie oraz w Stanach Zjednoczonych.

Chciałem poruszyć dwie kwestie w dzisiejszej debacie. Po pierwsze, absolutnie nie zgadzam się z tym, co powiedział poseł Ryszard Czarnecki, że ta sprawa jest przedmiotem różnic w łonie Unii Europejskiej. Tak nie jest. Posłowi Czarneckiemu chciałem przypomnieć oficjalne stanowisko doktryny Kościoła rzymsko-katolickiego, także osobisty pogląd papieża Jana Pawła II, który był przeciwny stosowaniu kary śmierci. Wydaje mi się, że to powinno być bardzo wyraźne wskazanie dla posła Czarneckiego, jakie jest stanowisko większości w tej sprawie w krajach Unii Europejskiej.

Druga sprawa to oczywiście ta bieżąca sytuacja związana z sytuacją Troya Davisa w Stanach Zjednoczonych, na którym ma być wykonana kara śmierci. Musimy zrobić wszystko, żeby wykonanie tej kary śmierci zostało wstrzymane i żeby mógł się odbyć proces rewizyjny oraz ewentualna zamiana na dożywocie, jeśli zostanie mu udowodniona wina.

  Dumitru Oprea (PPE-DE). – Peste 40 de ţări au renunţat la metoda pedepsei cu moartea din 1990 până în prezent, iar în momentul de faţă, peste 120 de state au interzisă prin lege o astfel de pedeapsă.

La nivel european, prin Convenţia Europeană a Drepturilor Omului, ce conţine un articol 2 privind dreptul la viaţă şi un protocol 6 cu articolul 1 „Abolirea pedepsei cu moartea”, nimeni nu poate fi condamnat la o astfel de pedeapsă şi nici executat.

În lume s-au prezentat statistici care sunt zguduitoare. Peste 1591 de persoane au fost executate în 2006, peste 3861 de persoane au fost condamnate la moarte în 55 de ţări.

Eu consider că niciunui om nu i s-a dat dreptul de a lua viaţa semenului său. Cum să iei ceva ce nu este al tău? Conform raţiunii mele, nu pot concepe aşa ceva, mai ales că s-a constatat în ţările unde există pedeapsa cu moartea că prin astfel de sancţiuni nu se reduce numărul infracţiunilor grave.

Propunem trecerea de la condamnarea prin pedeapsa cu moartea la privare de libertate.

  Janusz Onyszkiewicz (ALDE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Nasza dyskusja musi oczywiście zatrącić o sprawę fundamentalną, a mianowicie w ogóle celowości czy też moralnego aspektu tego rodzaju werdyktów sądowych jak skazanie kogoś na karę śmierci. Jednym z argumentów, który jest, myślę, bardzo istotny w tej dyskusji, jest wątpliwość, czy naprawdę ktoś, kto został oskarżony w sposób absolutnie ostateczny może być uznany za winnego zarzucanego mu czynu. W każdej innej sytuacji zawsze jest możliwość wycofania się z tego werdyktu i przywrócenia kogoś do normalnego życia. W wypadku kary śmierci tej możliwości nie ma. W związku z tym poza czysto moralnymi, niesłychanie ważnymi aspektami, także i ten aspekt prawny musi być brany pod uwagę. Szczególnie w tym przypadku, o którym dyskutujemy, gdy są tak duże wątpliwości co do zasadności oskarżenia.

  Ewa Tomaszewska, (UEN). − Panie Przewodniczący! Każdy powinien mieć prawo do uczciwego procesu. W tym przypadku, kiedy istnieje wiele wątpliwości co do winy, a siedmiu świadków wycofało swoje zeznania, istnieje konieczność ponownego rozpatrzenia sprawy. Kolejna sprawa, o której mówili już przedmówcy: jest to problem nieodwracalności kary śmierci. Jeśli są wątpliwości, to tym bardziej kary tej nie wolno stosować.

  Maciej Marian Giertych (NI). – Mr President, I should like to take the opportunity provided by this debate to call for a moratorium on the death penalty for innocent unborn human beings. It is high time civilised countries discontinued the practice of abortion.

  Olli Rehn, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, the European Union is firmly opposed to the use of the death penalty and actively works towards the abolition of capital punishment worldwide.

In countries that maintain the death penalty, the EU aims at the progressive restriction of its scope, as well as at the establishment of a moratorium so as to eliminate the death penalty completely.

The Guidelines to EU Policy Towards Third Countries on the Death Penalty, adopted in 1998 and revised in 2008, set out the framework for EU action. They include declarations or demarches in international fora and towards third countries, including the United States of America.

As regards the USA, the EU is deeply concerned about the resumption of executions since the lifting of the de facto moratorium on the death penalty in May.

We have repeatedly urged the US Government to reintroduce a moratorium on the death penalty at Federal level and we hope that the United States will consider abolishing the death penalty by law in the foreseeable future.

We take note of Parliament’s motion for a resolution regarding the individual case of Mr Troy Davis. We have intelligence from our Washington Delegation that the Governor of Georgia has not yet signed the execution order and that he is apparently in no hurry to do so.

The Commission, along with EU Member States and the Presidency, will of course follow this case very closely.

  Le Président. – Le débat est clos.

Le vote aura lieu à la fin des débats.

  Neena Gill (PSE). – Mr President, reference was made to me earlier by Mr Matsakis and I wanted to respond to it. I did not want to abuse the catch-the-eye system on a different debate, which was an important issue on the death penalty. But I think he made reference to my not understanding the system of urgencies. I would just like to say, for the record, that I have been involved in a number of urgencies and I would say that it is the least transparent and open system we have.

Of course in my group we have a debate about it, but urgencies are only agreed on the Thursday before Strasbourg and there is an hour-long meeting on the Tuesday before, where urgencies are quickly cobbled together.

I think that some of these issues are not urgent and should be properly debated in this Parliament to maintain its credibility.