Relato integral dos debates

Segunda-feira, 26 de Outubro de 2015 - Estrasburgo

14. Comércio de determinadas mercadorias suscetíveis de serem utilizadas para aplicar a pena de morte ou infligir tortura ou outras penas ou tratamentos cruéis, desumanos ou degradantes (debate)

  Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la relazione di Marietje Schaake, a nome della commissione per il commercio internazionale, sulla proposta di regolamento del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio recante modifica del regolamento (CE) n. 1236/2005 del Consiglio relativo al commercio di determinate merci che potrebbero essere utilizzate per la pena di morte, per la tortura o per altri trattamenti o pene crudeli, inumani o degradanti (COM(2014)0001 - C7-0014/2014 - 2014/0005(COD)) (A8-0267/2015).

  Marietje Schaake, rapporteur.– Mr President, the debate today on the tools and services that can be used for capital punishment reminds us once again that trade policy is an integral part of the EU’s foreign policy. It is vital that we continue to develop values-based trade policies, as is very much the theme of the new trade policy of the Commission. I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for the collegial cooperation during which we focussed on updates needed to close the loopholes in the current EU regime.

The anti–torture regulation combines prohibitions of goods on the one hand with licensing requirements for trade in listed goods on the other hand. It governs a ban on trade in so–called single-use torture and execution items and related technical assistance under Annex 2. But it also looks at an authorisation system for multi—purpose items that could be misused for torture and executions: for example, lethal injections. We see this in Annex 3.

The overhaul of the existing EU controls of trade in torture instruments has been long overdue. In this update we must ensure a correct mix of EU legislative, administrative, judicial and external measures. The absence of a multilateral export controls regime does complicate this task. Still, we seek coherence of the EU’s export controls, including military, dual use, firearms and torture goods lists, without subjecting items to duplicate controls and making things more complicated.

The Commission proposes to strengthen the controls of torture goods to include certain medical substances and to broaden the scope to include brokering. I support this kind of approach of necessary and proportionate controls without creating unnecessary burdens for legitimate trade. In this regard it is also key that we seek a more level playing field in Europe.

At the same time as we act now, our policies and systems should be future–proof and flexible, so as to be able to adjust to changing technologies or changing realities elsewhere in the world.

Specific item lists can provide clarity for exporters and importers to make it easier for them to comply. We have also made sure that it is very clear and that there is no doubt about legitimate access to medicines and pharmaceuticals which, of course, for the EU is an important market, and it must not be hindered by measures to curb the abuse of lethal injection.

While we observe that foreign trade transactions are becoming more and more complex, we have to look for an effective set of enforcement measures, and this should also include the marketing and financial services that do take place and are related to this industry.

We have asked for reporting and exchange of information between Member States via a secure encrypted system, so that rejected licences and other notifications or important information can be shared and can help states coordinate.

As the Commission can more flexibly adapt the regulations and the items that are at stake, we do ask, as a Parliament, to be duly informed and involved. Finally, we look to industry to take its own responsibility to make sure that the EU does not trade, broker, transfer or otherwise get involved with goods or services that are used for the death penalty or torture.

I believe – and I think all of our colleagues believe – that in this text we put forward concrete proposals for improvement in this file, all with the goal to make sure that the EU acts as a values–based global player and that this specific, quite technical, aspect of trade is upgraded and implemented in a way that is both flexible and effective.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission.– Mr President, I want to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mrs Schaake, for the excellent work that she has done on this, of course with input from other colleagues as well. As was said, we will be discussing some very technical elements, but let us not forget that we are talking about highly politically—sensitive issues such as ending the death penalty, torture and ill-treatment, which are key priorities for all the work of the European Union.

It is in fact an anomaly that so many countries still have the death penalty and that so many thousands of people are still waiting in death row all over the world, but the fact is that it has actually decreased. One hundred and forty countries do not apply the death penalty today and 98 have legally abolished it, compared to 59 twenty years ago, so this is going in the right direction, but that does not mean that we should rest – there is so much to do.

We have different tools at our disposal in foreign policy, but trade also can play a very important role and that is why this report is so important. Trade can be a leverage to promote, around the world, European values such as human rights, sustainable development, fair and ethical trade and the fight against corruption, and those values are the pillars of the newly proposed trade strategy by the Commission. The regulation we are talking about, Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005, takes account of this – the role of trade – to restrict foreign trade in goods that could be used for executions, torture or ill-treatment, and we welcome very much the effort done by the European Parliament to amend the regulation. We largely share the spirit and the approach taken by the Committee on International Trade (INTA), the rapporteur and Parliament, although some of the amendments in the report call for measures without precedent in export-control legislation and could be a bit difficult to implement in practice.

We support several amendments, such as Amendment 6 extending the proposed definition of ‘broker’ to cover nationals from Member States not resident or established in the Union. This is acceptable in principle, but it could be difficult to enforce, so the inclusion of foreign subsidiaries of legal persons incorporated in the EU should of course not go beyond what is compatible with international law. Amendments 9 and 10 on the transport of transiting goods whose export and import is prohibited by the regulation are also acceptable for the Commission if Amendment 10 does not cover more than non-union goods. It is related to Amendment 15, and that can also be accepted; we just have to make sure that it is formulated in compatibility with WTO requirements. Amendment 21 referring to the transmission of information to human rights oversight bodies is also acceptable. Of course, here, companies requesting an export authorisation that submit information to competent authority have a legitimate interest in not giving certain data and making them public, so we need to make sure how the text is drafted here. Furthermore, we can accept Amendments 18 on best practices for technical assistance, 19 on guidelines and 26 on the report published by the Commission on the implementation, if you can agree that this is not an obligation for the Commission. We can also accept Amendment 2 adding human dignity and then several other more technical amendments that I will not go into now.

I mentioned that some of the proposed measures are without precedent in export-control legislation. Last spring, Members approved here in Parliament Regulation 479 on common rules for exports, which confirmed the basic rule of trade policy: that exports are to be free unless trade restrictions are necessary to achieve an accepted objective, such as the protection of public morals. Torture, ill treatment and the death penalty are, of course, never acceptable, but we just make need to make sure that trade restrictions to promote respect for human rights meet the necessary trust. In this regard, while we fully understand the rationale of a view to propose an end-use or catch-all clause, we think it could lead to the introduction of restrictions going beyond what is necessary and preventing a level playing field for exporters. This could present a challenge to the uniformity of the Union’s trade policy, and for this reason the Commission had instead proposed the urgency procedure, which would help us to deal with most of the cases that could be addressed in a more proportionate manner. But we are willing to see if those objectives, which are basically the same, can be reconciled in a formula that we can agree upon.

Regarding the amendment on the definition of brokering services, number 5, it would make the regulation cover a range of activities, financial services and insurance related to goods that are outside the Union, and that would be very difficult to monitor and control. But rather than amending the definition, we could identify which restrictions on which services need the necessity test and then use of specific drafting to regulate those activities. We recognise the usefulness of the Coordination Group and we share the objective behind that amendment. We just need to be very careful to make sure that that article is not at odds with the agreed arrangement for delegated powers in the treaty. We would need to find an appropriate formula to create a forum for consultations between Member States, stakeholders, civil society and the Commission.

As you know, the EU works towards the abolition of the death penalty in all countries. The countries that are included in the proposal, in the authorisation of the annex, have ratified the second optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights without reservation, so they agreed to abolish the death penalty. When controlling exports to prevent EU involvement in executions in third countries, we should focus our efforts on countries that have not abolished it, and therefore we disagree with Amendments 33, 35 and 37 because there is nothing to show that these countries concerned would have applied the death penalty, despite the ratification of the protocol.

Let me conclude – it has become rather technical – by expressing my conviction that this report, by the rapporteur and many of you, is a very good basis for further work to make the regulation into a more robust export—control regime that promotes respect for fundamental rights without unduly restricting foreign rights. I express here the full commitment by the Commission and me, personally, to work with you and with the Council to achieve that objective and a good final product.

  Barbara Lochbihler, Verfasserin der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Ausschusses für auswärtige Angelegenheiten.– Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Frau Kommissarin Malmström! Exporte von Folterwerkzeugen, medizinisch-chemische Produkte für sogenannte Giftcocktails für Hinrichtungen – viele Bürger in der EU können sich gar nicht vorstellen, dass heutzutage derartige Güter aus der EU exportiert werden. Die Verordnung des Rates, die diese grauenhaften Exporte reglementiert, weist aber leider immer noch Lücken auf, und genau diese wollen wir schließen.

Ich fordere die Kommission deshalb auf, die Vorschläge des Europäischen Parlaments aufzunehmen, insbesondere, die Werbung und Verkaufsförderung für diese Güter auf Messen und im Internet zu verbieten, keine weitere Aus- und Fortbildung für den Einsatz von Gütern zuzulassen, die zur Durchführung der Todesstrafe und der Folter gedacht sind. Vor allem aber brauchen wir eine Klausel über die beabsichtigte Endverwendung, die sogenannte targeted end-use clause. Diese würde den Mitgliedstaaten ermöglichen, den Transfer von Folterwerkzeugen zu stoppen, die nicht ausdrücklich aufgelistet sind. Dadurch würden Schlupflöcher geschlossen, auch für Produkte, die in Zukunft für Folter und Hinrichtungen entwickelt werden.

  Santiago Fisas Ayxelà, en nombre del Grupo PPE.– Señor Presidente, señora Comisaria, la Unión Europea, a través de este Reglamento, reafirma su política tendente a la eliminación de la pena de muerte en el mundo, tal como exige el artículo 2 de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea. La abolición de la pena de muerte y de los tratos inhumanos y degradantes se inscribe entre las grandes prioridades de la política de derechos humanos de la Unión, y la Unión Europea es el primer actor institucional en la lucha contra la pena de muerte.

Desde el Partido Popular Europeo, estamos rotundamente en contra de la pena de muerte y de cualquier tipo de tortura y no queremos ser cómplices de estas prácticas. Por eso, defendemos la importancia de controlar las exportaciones de productos que puedan servir para imponer la pena capital o para torturar. Y este Reglamento es un instrumento que permite asegurar el respeto y la protección de la dignidad humana, el derecho a la vida y la prohibición de la tortura. Además, permite, a su vez, bajo una estricta vigilancia, que estos productos puedan ser utilizados para un fin legítimo, como, por ejemplo, para fines médicos.

Por tanto, mañana, desde nuestro Grupo, votaremos a favor de este informe, porque nos parece una propuesta equilibrada que contribuye a la protección de los derechos humanos y hace que la Unión Europea sea pionera en la reglamentación del comercio de este tipo de productos.

  Inmaculada Rodríguez-Piñero Fernández, en nombre del Grupo S&D.– Señor Presidente, la Unión Europea está comprometida con la erradicación de la pena de muerte y la tortura en el mundo, pero de nada serviría ese compromiso si no viniera acompañado de acciones firmes y rigurosas, como la que hoy estamos debatiendo en el Pleno.

La Unión Europea ya dio un gran paso en 2005, cuando aprobó el primer Reglamento; pero, desgraciadamente, este quedó rápidamente obsoleto ante el dinamismo del mercado y la sofisticación de la capacidad de las empresas para fabricar y diseñar instrumentos para infligir pena de muerte y torturas. Por eso, en 2010, el Consejo, entonces presidido por el Gobierno socialista de José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, instó a la Comisión a que realizara una reforma del Reglamento. Cinco años después podemos estar hoy aquí debatiendo; mucho tiempo ha pasado. Pero, afortunadamente, ya estamos aquí, tenemos el Reglamento que pedíamos, y la verdad es que creo que ha sido mejorado en la Comisión de Comercio Internacional, gracias a las enmiendas de los Grupos y, desde luego, al excelente trabajo y al esfuerzo de consenso de la ponente, a quien felicito desde aquí.

Estamos satisfechos con esta propuesta porque amplía los controles a los productos lícitos que podrían manipularse en destino; porque también amplía la lista de productos que pueden ser utilizados para infligir la pena de muerte; y, desde luego, porque introduce mecanismos más ágiles y eficaces para revisar la lista de productos controlados y prohibidos. Creemos que con esta propuesta ningún nacional, ninguna empresa europea, ni sus filiales en el extranjero, podrán lucrarse con este comercio.

Como decía al principio, y muy bien ha señalado la comisaria y todos los que me han precedido, Europa necesita demostrar que está comprometida con los derechos humanos, que no va a permitir que el comercio sea un instrumento de lucro para infligir pena de muerte y torturas, y, desde luego, que la política comercial es un instrumento fundamental para ayudar en la defensa de los derechos humanos.

Y para acabar, Presidente, quiero desde aquí felicitar y dar las gracias a todas las organizaciones no gubernamentales de defensa de los derechos humanos por su inestimable trabajo y colaboración.

  Sander Loones, namens de ECR-Fractie.– Ik veroordeel de doodstraf. Ik veroordeel foltering. Ik ben dan ook zeer blij dat we vandaag een serieuze stap vooruit zetten inzake controle op producten die voor die doelstellingen kunnen worden gebruikt. Het verheugt mij ook dat we dat op een verstandige, heldere, flexibele en evenredige manier doen.

Door bijvoorbeeld te werken met een aantal specifieke goederenlijsten die snel kunnen worden aangepast, geven we helderheid aan in- en uitvoerders en zorgen we voor flexibiliteit op het terrein. En door bijvoorbeeld ook geneesmiddelen specifiek te reglementeren en niet in een algemene vangnetbepaling denk ik dat we het geoorloofd gebruik van die medicamenten eveneens kunnen verzekeren. Dat is een goede zaak. Correcte controles zonder overbodige lasten, dat is wat in deze tekst staat. Daarmee zorgen wij voor een evenredig model en zo zetten wij volgens mij opnieuw een ambitieuze en tegelijk realistische stap vooruit in het promoten van onze waarden.

  Lola Sánchez Caldentey, en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL.– Señor Presidente, es de sentido común que no permitamos a nuestras empresas comerciar con terceros países con materiales que en Europa hemos prohibido al estar relacionados con prácticas inhumanas o de tortura. No podemos vender a otros lo que nosotros mismos hemos ilegalizado. En este sentido, pensamos que el Reglamento es positivo y que va por el buen camino. Pero es necesario que la Comisión Europea establezca un sistema de vigilancia eficaz, para asegurar que todos los Estados miembros cumplen con este Reglamento. Y debemos garantizar, también, la prohibición del tránsito de estas mercancías a través de la Unión Europea.

Sin embargo, creo que debemos ser más ambiciosos. Estamos haciendo un uso poco eficiente, por ejemplo, de nuestra ayuda oficial al desarrollo, con la que se construyen escuelas y hospitales en Palestina, si, al mismo tiempo, estamos vendiendo armas a Israel con las que destruirán esas mismas escuelas y hospitales. Debemos también revisar nuestros acuerdos de asociación económica con Estados que sistemáticamente violan los derechos humanos y vetarles, por tanto, el armamento militar, la venta de armamento.

  Ska Keller, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group.– Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur from the Committee on International Trade (INTA) as well as from the Committee on Human Rights (DROI), who I think have been doing really tremendous work because, in this file, we can see that trade policy can actually do something good; that it can contribute to the coherence that we need to have with respect to our values in the world. Torture, indeed, is a main human rights violation, and we need to do everything we can inside the European Union to stop torture and also executions from happening elsewhere – and goods being produced here can be used elsewhere for those purposes. With this update of the laws, I think we have taken a very good step, and this is mainly due to the work of the European Parliament, which has been very insistent. But I also think that we could have done even better, because we should still forbid advertising for those goods outside the European Union – that must be the next step. What is very good is to have the catch-all clause to have the possibility to prevent new goods going out and being used for torture or execution.

I think now we, as Parliament, have set the right pace, and I ask the Council and the Commission to be constructive partners in the trilogue to achieve better legislation that is coherent with our values.

  Tiziana Beghin, a nome del gruppo EFDD.– Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, anch'io mi compiaccio per questa relazione legislativa. Ringrazio la relatrice. Si tratta dell'ultima versione di uno dei più grandi successi della politica commerciale dell'Unione, un regolamento che vieta la vendita di strumenti per torturare o infliggere la pena capitale.

La legge precedente andava modernizzata per far fronte alle sfide dei nuovi materiali, delle nuove tecnologie, e per colmare le lacune lasciate dal regolamento sui beni a duplice uso. Quando il nuovo regolamento sarà in vigore, ci saranno controlli più stretti, perché nel 2015 non è possibile tollerare che strumenti per la tortura si trovino in vendita online o nei padiglioni delle fiere in Europa.

Il regolamento è stato ampiamente condiviso in commissione e per questo oltre alla relatrice ringrazio anche i colleghi relatori ombra. Il Movimento Cinque Stelle è in prima linea per far valere il rispetto dei diritti e della vita nel mondo e per questo, colleghi, sosterremo questa relazione senza riserve.

  Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος ( NI).– Κύριε Πρόεδρε, οφείλουμε με την ψήφο μας να εμποδίσουμε το εμπόριο ορισμένων αντικειμένων τα οποία μπορεί να χρησιμοποιηθούν για τη θανάτωση, τον βασανισμό, την αυστηρή και σκληρή και απάνθρωπη τιμωρία. Το θέμα δεν είναι ούτε νομικό, ούτε οικονομικό, ούτε εμπορικό, ούτε τυπικό και διαδικαστικό· είναι πρωτίστως θέμα ηθικό. Η θανατική ποινή και τα βασανιστήρια παραβιάζουν τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα, προσβάλλουν την προσωπικότητα του ατόμου και οδηγούν την ανθρωπότητα αιώνες αν όχι χιλιάδες χρόνια πίσω. Ειδικά τα βασανιστήρια, πέραν των παραπάνω, είναι ένδειξη απωθημένων του υποσυνειδήτου, είναι ικανοποίηση ζωωδών ενστίκτων και επιπλέον είναι δείγμα δειλίας, προσβάλλουν δε ευθέως τις αρχές, τα ήθη και τα έθιμα των πολιτισμένων λαών της Ευρώπης. Δεν νοείται να λέμε ότι είμαστε χριστιανοί, ότι είμαστε ανθρωπιστές, ότι είμαστε δημοκράτες και να ανεχόμαστε να συμβαίνουν όλα αυτά τα πράγματα. Κάθε κράτος μεμονωμένα, και η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση ως σύνολο, οφείλουν να ελέγξουν το εμπόριο αυτών των αντικειμένων και να μην επιτρέψουν να καταπατάται η ανθρώπινη αξιοπρέπεια χάριν οικονομικών και εμπορικών σκοπιμοτήτων.

  Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE). – Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur for her report. I welcome this proposal as important and much needed because it is essential to control the export of goods which are used for the death penalty and torture.

In order to prevent such degrading treatment from happening, it is important to use all available tools that are specifically designed to act as anti—torture solutions. However, we must not forget to find a proper balance between the genuine interests of companies and the potential use of certain goods for capital punishment. Moreover, we need to come up with a thorough monitoring mechanism in order to prevent the abuse of restrictions imposed on exporters of medical products.

That being said, I can fully support the report voted in the INTA Committee.

  Alessia Maria Mosca (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'intervento legislativo che la Commissione ha proposto per migliorare il regolamento esistente sui beni utilizzabili al fine di infliggere torture e punizioni corporee fino alla pena capitale rappresenta un passo avanti, che il Parlamento non può che accogliere con favore, e abbiamo lavorato con spirito costruttivo di ulteriore avanzamento proprio per questo. La nuova strategia per il commercio, che la Commissione ha presentato qualche giorno fa, insiste proprio sulla necessità della connessione tra aspetti economici e valoriali del nostro relazionarci con i partner commerciali, sia nelle trattative bilaterali che in quelle multilaterali. E questa iniziativa è un concreto esempio in questo senso. Evidentemente non si tratta che di un piccolo passo, se guardiamo al disegno complessivo, ma siamo convinti che anche attraverso i piccoli passi sia possibile essere artefici e protagonisti di grandi cambiamenti.

Nello specifico del regolamento, siamo favorevoli all'inclusione di un allegato che meglio specifichi quali beni debbano essere oggetto di controllo ed eventuale divieto, e accogliamo con piacere l'istituzione di un'autorizzazione generale a livello dell'UE per le esportazioni verso quei paesi che allo stato attuale non si sono dimostrati irreprensibili in materia.

Approfittiamo anche di questa occasione per sostenere con forza la Commissione nella volontà che è stata espressa dalla Commissaria, che ringraziamo, di non fermarsi a questo regolamento, ma al contrario di proseguire in tutte le sedi necessarie in quella opera di convincimento necessaria per evitare che in troppi paesi del mondo siano accettate ancor prima che praticate punizioni corporali e torture.

  Pedro Silva Pereira (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, a luta contra a tortura e a pena de morte é uma batalha decisiva da União Europeia e da cultura humanista, e deve ser travada em todas as frentes, mobilizando também a política comercial da União Europeia. É nossa obrigação não só garantir a proibição efetiva da comercialização de produtos destinados à tortura e às execuções, mas também controlar os chamados produtos de duplo uso suscetíveis de uma utilização abusiva, seja para tortura, seja para execuções.

Esta proposta de regulamento é uma iniciativa positiva que merece o apoio político claro e construtivo do Parlamento Europeu. Atualizar as listas de produtos sujeitos a autorização especial, criar uma autorização geral de exportação para países que respeitem os compromissos internacionais, mas também criar uma cláusula de caráter geral que faça depender a autorização da não existência de motivos razoáveis para suspeitar de uma utilização abusiva desses bens, seriam passos importantes e uma boa oportunidade para uma política comercial mais fiel ao compromisso europeu em matéria de direitos humanos.

Procedura "catch-the-eye"

  José Inácio Faria (ALDE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, Caros Colegas, a União Europeia foi pioneira na introdução de normas que visam prevenir e erradicar as formas de tortura e maus tratos, bem como na abolição da pena de morte a nível mundial. A este respeito, congratulo-me por Portugal ter sido a segunda nação europeia a abolir, em 1867, a pena capital.

A União Europeia reforça agora o quadro legal de que já dispunha, ampliando e atualizando a lista de produtos e tecnologias proibidos, para impedir que as nossas empresas promovam, intermedeiem e proporcionem formação técnica no uso de dispositivos e tecnologias para atos de tortura, execuções ou tratamentos e penas cruéis, desumanos ou degradantes. Espero que este esforço contribua, efetivamente, para a abolição da pena de morte nos países que ainda a aplicam, bem como para a diminuição das práticas de tortura em todo o mundo, designadamente no que respeita à violação dos direitos humanos e da liberdade de expressão.

E porque este é um fórum de cidadania por excelência, termino exortando, aqui, o Governo de Angola a libertar imediata e incondicionalmente Luaty Beirão e os outros ativistas de direitos humanos que se encontram ilegalmente detidos em Angola. Liberdade, já!

  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D). – Mr President, I fully support the revision of this regulation, which aims to contribute to the elimination of the death penalty worldwide and prevent torture through EU—wide controls on the export of torture goods and drugs used for lethal injections. The revision includes adding export licensing controls for lethal drugs and prohibiting trade in new items which have become regularly used for torture by certain regimes, for example spiked buttons, electric shock sleeves and cuffs. The so—called catch-all clause will make it binding for customs authorities to seize any goods, whether or not they are listed in the regulation annexes, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that their final use will be for the purpose of torture.

Finally, I welcome the establishment of a Union general export authorisation for countries that have undertaken international commitments and the use of the urgency procedure to amend the list of banned controlled items, which will allow the EU to react more quickly to emerging threats and human rights crackdowns in the future.

  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR).– Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η θανατική ποινή, τα βασανιστήρια, η σκληρή απάνθρωπη και ταπεινωτική μεταχείριση και η τιμωρία απαγορεύονται από τις διεθνείς και ευρωπαϊκές συνθήκες. Στο πλαίσιο αυτό, ο ευρωπαϊκός κανονισμός κατά των βασανιστηρίων αποτελεί ένα αποτελεσματικό μέσο για την προστασία των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων, καθώς επιβάλλει αποτελεσματικούς ελέγχους σε είδη και δραστηριότητες που χρησιμοποιούνται για εκτέλεση θανατικής ποινής ή για βασανιστήρια.

Όμως απαιτείται άμεση αναδιοργάνωση των ελέγχων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης στο εμπόριο οργάνων βασανιστηρίων, και αυτό έχει καθυστερήσει πολλαπλά. Έτσι, πρέπει να απαγορευθούν οι διαφημίσεις και οι πωλήσεις αυτών των προϊόντων στο διαδίκτυο. Ιδίως πρέπει να ενταθεί ο έλεγχος των εξαγωγών των ειδών διπλής χρήσης που περιλαμβάνονται στους καταλόγους στρατιωτικού εξοπλισμού και τα οποία δύνανται να χρησιμοποιηθούν και για βασανιστήρια. Ταυτόχρονα πρέπει να σταματήσει και η διγλωσσία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, η οποία επιχειρεί με τον υπό ψήφιση κανονισμό να νομιμοποιήσει την εξαγωγή φαρμακευτικών προϊόντων των οποίων η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση αποτελεί βασικό παρασκευαστή, παρότι αυτά ενδέχεται να χρησιμοποιηθούν για βασανιστήρια ή για εκτέλεση θανατικής ποινής .

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'Europa deve ribadire il suo ruolo guida nella lotta per l'abolizione della pena di morte e per una moratoria sulle esecuzioni in tutto il mondo. Ma è anche necessario che i paesi membri non siano coinvolti nel commercio di merci che potrebbero essere utilizzate per la pena di morte, per la tortura e per le pratiche che violano i diritti umani, come pene crudeli, disumane e degradanti.

Dobbiamo preservare il divieto assoluto della tortura e dei maltrattamenti previsto dalla Carta dei diritti fondamentali. Dobbiamo farlo per non renderci complici di chi ancora applica queste pene odiose. Per questo è necessario vietare nel modo più deciso tutte le esportazioni o le importazioni di merci utilizzabili per infliggere pene crudeli e aumentare il monitoraggio sulle autorizzazioni per l'esportazione di merci che potrebbero essere utilizzate a tale scopo.

L'Europa è uno spazio libero dalla pena di morte, ma deve anche essere uno spazio libero da torture e pratiche odiose, inumane e degradanti, e i paesi membri non devono in alcun modo essere complici, anche indirettamente, di chi nel mondo ancora infligge pene inumane.

(Fine della procedura "catch-the-eye")

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission.– Mr President, it is good to see that there is such strong unity on these important issues. It sends a strong signal to the rest of the world, and shows that we are determined to use all possible tools that we have at our disposal – today we are talking about trade – to abolish the death penalty along with torture and ill—treatment.

Let me thank again the rapporteur and all the shadow rapporteurs and the Committee on Foreign Affairs, which has been involved as well, and reiterate the Commission’s determination to have an ambitious regulation in place to restrict foreign trade in goods that could be used for executions or ill—treatment or torture.

We will, as many of you said, make sure with this amendment that we close the loopholes and also, in response to some of your questions on the catch-all clause, we have an open position so let us see how we can find a solution to this. On the implementation and monitoring, I think that the coordination group – or whatever we call it in the end – can have a very important role there. Also, the Commission has, via delegated acts, the powers to regularly modify the Annex to make sure that it is kept up to date.

We will also present next year a review of the export control system for dual use – many of you have referred to this, this evening, as well – in order to make sure that we have an even better regulation on items that can be misused in violation of human rights, which would be another very important milestone.

I am sure that with such a strong agreement to really have a good regulation updated here, we can find a way to overcome the remaining difficulties and find a way to amend them in the right way so that we have a workable and efficient system that is proven for the future and equipped to ensure rapid reaction when a risk arises. This Commission will certainly play its part in this.

  Marietje Schaake, rapporteur.– Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner and my colleagues. On a slightly lighter note, I thought it was a pleasure – and a bit of a relief – to hear that we can actually talk about trade and agree from one side of the House to the other side of the House, and even see that trade policies can advance values directly, so I note that with a smile.

Commissioner, thank you for your very detailed reply to the text that we have worked on together in this House. I note many points of overlap – if not literally, then at least in spirit – and that is a reason for optimism. I think that it has been well established by everyone who spoke that we share the goal of ending the death penalty and torture, and this is one way to contribute to that. It is not as widely shared a goal in this House. Unfortunately, it is not entirely unanimously shared, but at least by a large majority.

On the implementation: yes, of course measures must be feasible and even agile. That is our goal too, but I think we are being both ambitious and realistic, as my colleague Loones also said. It has been 10 years since this regulation has been updated, so we feel very strongly that what we do now has to be future—proof and solid and should be able to last for quite a while, so what we do now we must do well and make it a robust mechanism that deals with all the loose ends.

I also want to end by saying thank you to civil society and human rights organisations that have been very involved in helping us to push for these much—needed reforms. I think this highlights the importance of civil society also for us here in the European Parliament.

  Presidente. – La discussione è chiusa.

La votazione si svolgerà martedì 27 ottobre, alle 13.00.

Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 162)

  David Martin (S&D), in writing.– I welcome the strengthening of this legislation designed to ensure the EU is not complicit in torture, and to fulfil the EU’s commitment to standing against the death penalty and torture throughout the world. Updates to this legislation will ensure EU companies do not profit from torture in oppressive regimes, and send a strong signal that those who trade in execution and torture goods, including technical assistance and supplier services, that they cannot access the EU market. In particular I welcome new measures to improve the speed and efficiency of reacting to suspected transactions. I strongly stand behind the EU ban on trading drugs intended for the death penalty, which Labour MEPs and the European Union stand firmly against.