• EN - English
Motion for a resolution - B7-0235/2013Motion for a resolution
B7-0235/2013

    MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on India: execution of Mohammad Afzal Guru and its implications

    21.5.2013 - (2013/2640(RSP))

    with request for inclusion in the agenda for a debate on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law
    pursuant to Rule 122 of the Rules of Procedure

    Charles Tannock, Geoffrey Van Orden on behalf of the ECR Group

    NB: This motion for a resolution is available in the original language only.
    Procedure : 2013/2640(RSP)
    Document stages in plenary
    Document selected :  
    B7-0235/2013
    Texts tabled :
    B7-0235/2013
    Texts adopted :

    B7‑0235/2013

    European Parliament resolution on India: execution of Mohammad Afzal Guru and its implications

    (2013/2640(RSP))

    The European Parliament,

    -    having regard to its previous resolutions on India,

     

    -    having regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in particular Article 6 thereof,

     

    -    having regard to the Statement by EU High Representative Catherine Ashton on the execution of Mr Afzal Guru in India of 11 February 2013,

    -  having regard to Art. 122 of its rules of procedure,

     

     

    A.  Whereas on 9 February 2013 Mr Mohammad Afzal Guru was executed by the Indian authorities;

    B.  Whereas Mr Afzal Guru was convicted in 2005 for providing logistical support to those involved in the attack on the Lok Sabha building on 13 December 2001, which left a dozen people dead;

    C.  Whereas an appeal for clemency was files for Mr Afzal Guru, but was rejected by President Pranab Mukherjee on 3 February 2013;

    D.  Whereas there are allegations that Mr Afzal Guru did not receive proper legal representation and did not have effective assistance of council; whereas, however, the Indian government defended the conviction, saying that Mr Afzal Guru was able to appeal his conviction and that his claims were rejected by higher courts;

    E.  Whereas the Supreme Court of India ruled in 1983 that the death penalty should be imposed only in "the rarest of cases";

    F.  Whereas India ended its eight-year unofficial moratorium on executions in November 2012, when it executed Ajmal Kasab, convicted for his role in the 2008 Mumbai attacks;

    G.  Whereas Mr Afzal Guru's death was followed by rioting in Indian-administered Kashmir, to which the Indian authorities responded with a curfew;

     

     

    1.  Urges the Indian authorities to continue to maintain adherence to its highest national and international judicial standards, in all trials and judicial proceedings;

    2.  Expresses its support for India in the fight against terrorism and calls on the Council, the Commission, the EEAS and the EU Member States to continue to work together with India in this area;

    3.  Urges the Indian authorities to show restraint when dealing with protests against Mr Afzal Gurus execution;

     

    4.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to Government and Parliament of India, the Council, the Commission, the High Representative / Vice-President of the EU and the governments and parliaments of the EU Member States.