Document Sample
Rep_HowittonHR Powered By Docstoc
					                EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
                                              
                                                
                        2004               
                                                
                                                              2009
                                              

                                       Session document



                 on the Annual Report on Human Rights in the World 2005 and the EU's policy
                 on the matter

                 Committee on Foreign Affairs

                 Rapporteur: Richard Howitt

     RR\368090EN.doc                                                       PE 368.090v02-00

EN                                                                                            EN



     MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION ............................................ 3

     EXPLANATORY STATEMENT............................................................................................ 25


     ANNEX II - LIST OF RESOLUTIONS .................................................................................. 53

     ANNEX III - BASIC TEXTS .................................................................................................. 63


     PROCEDURE .......................................................................................................................... 75

     PE 368.090v02-00                                                2/75                                          RR\368090EN.doc


on the Annual Report on Human Rights in the World 2005 and the EU's policy on the

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 instruments1,

-    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 ICC2,

-    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

–    having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union3,

–    having regard to the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement and its recent 2005 revision4,

–    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

  See Annex to this resolution.
  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.
  OJ C 364, 18.12.2000, p. 1.
  OJ L 317, 15.12.2000, p. 3; OJ ...
  OJ C 304 E, 1.12.2005, p. 375.

RR\368090EN.doc                                      3/75                                 PE 368.090v02-00

            clause in European Union agreements1,

     -      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 Exports2,

     –      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;
         Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2006)0056.
         Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2005)0436.

     PE 368.090v02-00                                4/75                            RR\368090EN.doc

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

RR\368090EN.doc                                5/75                             PE 368.090v02-00

         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

     PE 368.090v02-00                             6/75                            RR\368090EN.doc

    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

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

RR\368090EN.doc                               7/75                             PE 368.090v02-00

         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

     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

     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

     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

     PE 368.090v02-00                              8/75                            RR\368090EN.doc

    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

RR\368090EN.doc                               9/75                             PE 368.090v02-00

         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

     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;

     PE 368.090v02-00                             10/75                             RR\368090EN.doc

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

RR\368090EN.doc                             11/75                            PE 368.090v02-00

         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

     PE 368.090v02-00                             12/75                            RR\368090EN.doc

       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);

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;

    Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2005)0444.

RR\368090EN.doc                                 13/75                             PE 368.090v02-00

     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 possible1;

     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

     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

     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

         Council Conclusions 12 December 2005. 15293/1/05 REV 1 Annex p. 14.

     PE 368.090v02-00                                   14/75                      RR\368090EN.doc

    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

RR\368090EN.doc                              15/75                            PE 368.090v02-00

         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

     PE 368.090v02-00                             16/75                             RR\368090EN.doc

     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 Policy1;

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

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;

 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

RR\368090EN.doc                                    17/75                                 PE 368.090v02-00

     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

     PE 368.090v02-00                             18/75                            RR\368090EN.doc

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

RR\368090EN.doc                              19/75                           PE 368.090v02-00

         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

     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

     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

     PE 368.090v02-00                             20/75                            RR\368090EN.doc

       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

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 beings1, 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

    OJ C 311, 9.12.2005, p. 1.

RR\368090EN.doc                               21/75                            PE 368.090v02-00

         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,

     PE 368.090v02-00                             22/75                            RR\368090EN.doc

    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

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

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;

RR\368090EN.doc                                23/75                              PE 368.090v02-00

     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

     PE 368.090v02-00                              24/75                          RR\368090EN.doc

                               EXPLANATORY STATEMENT


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.

RR\368090EN.doc                                25/75                             PE 368.090v02-00

     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.

     PE 368.090v02-00                              26/75                            RR\368090EN.doc

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

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

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.

RR\368090EN.doc                                27/75                             PE 368.090v02-00

     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

     PE 368.090v02-00                             28/75                             RR\368090EN.doc

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 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.

RR\368090EN.doc                               29/75                             PE 368.090v02-00

     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

     PE 368.090v02-00                              30/75                             RR\368090EN.doc

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

In the Commission, the human rights unit in DG External Relations is understaffed and under

RR\368090EN.doc                              31/75                            PE 368.090v02-00

     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.


     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.

     PE 368.090v02-00                               32/75                             RR\368090EN.doc


                                    UPDATED: APRIL 2006
                                 (Annex: List of adopted resolutions)

                FOLLOW-UP OF CASES RAISED BETWEEN 2000 AND 2003

                                       PEOPLE RELEASED


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


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.


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

    Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0080, adopted on 10.03.05

RR\368090EN.doc                                  33/75                         PE 368.090v02-00

     immediate release of the detainees.1


     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.


     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 2 the government of Kazakhstan
     seems to have given in to the international criticism.


     ANWAR IBRAHIM, released on 2 September 2004.
     The famous political opponent had spent 6 years in prison for "crime of sodomy".


     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.

         Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2004)0068 adopted on 18.11.2004
         Resolution P5_TA-PROV(2004)0376 adopted on 22.04.2004

     PE 368.090v02-00                                  34/75                        RR\368090EN.doc

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.


FATHER NGUYEN VAN LY, released in early 2005.
He was imprisoned since May 2001 for having expressed his religious faith peacefully.


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 2004.1 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.



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
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

    Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2004)0112 adopted on 16.12.2004

RR\368090EN.doc                                   35/75                     PE 368.090v02-00

     their punishment commuted to life imprisonment on the expiration of the two-year period.1
     The Parliament has adopted further resolutions in which it expressed its concerns on Tenzin's
     imprisonment conditions and called for his immediate release.2
     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.3


     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.

       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
       Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0416 adopted on 27.10.2005, Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0533 adopted
     on 15.12.2005
       Declaration by the Presidency of 02.02.2005

     PE 368.090v02-00                              36/75                             RR\368090EN.doc

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.1 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.


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.


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.

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.

 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

RR\368090EN.doc                              37/75                             PE 368.090v02-00

     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 87.1



            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 20052.

            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.3


     Parliament strongly condemned the Belarus regime‘s indiscriminate attacks on the MEDIA,
     any person who attempt freely to voice criticism of the President and the regime.4

            Vieronika CHERKASOVA, stabbed to death in her home in Minsk on 20
             October 2004.

       Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005) 0462 adopted on 01.12.2005
       Reporters Without Borders at
       Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0242 adopted on 9.6.2005.
       Resolution P6-TA-PROV(2005)0295 adopted on 7.7.2005.

     PE 368.090v02-00                                    38/75                          RR\368090EN.doc

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. 1

       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.2

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.3

       Valery LEVONESKY and Alexander VASILYEV, sentenced to two years

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.4

       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

  Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2004)0045 adopted on 28.10.2004.
  Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005) adopted on 7.7.2005.
  Res. P6_TA-PROV(2004)0045 adopted on 28.10.2004 and Res. P6_TA-PROV(2006)0137 adopted on 06.04.06
  Res. P6_TA-PROV(2004)0011 adopted on 16.9.2004 and Res. P6_TA-PROV(2005)0080 adopted on

RR\368090EN.doc                                    39/75                                 PE 368.090v02-00

     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.1

            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 release2.

            Yuri ZAKHARENKO, former Minister of the Interior, disappeared.
            Victor GONCHAN, former Vice-President of the Parliament of Belarus,
            Dmitry ZAVADSKI, cameraman of Russian Television Channel ORT,
            Anatoly KRASOVSKY, a business man, disappeared.
     The European Parliament called for an independent investigation on their disappearance. 3

     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.4

       Res. P6_TA-PROV(2005)0080 adopted 10.3.2005, Res. P6_TA-PROV(2006)0066 adopted on 16.2.2006.
       Res.P6_TA-PROV(2006)0066 adopted on 16.2.2006.
       Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0080 adopted 10.3.2005.
       Res. P6_TA-PROV(2005)0444 adopted on 17.11.2005; Res. P6_TA-PROV(2005)0186 adopted on 12.05.2005

     PE 368.090v02-00                              40/75                             RR\368090EN.doc

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.


The European Parliament reiterated its strong condemnation of the human rights situation in
Cambodia, where during recent years HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS, JOURNALISTS,
and killed, creating a climate of political violence in the country.1

On 3 February 2006, government lawyers officially withdrew criminal complaints2
       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 pending3
       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. 4

       Sam RAINSY pardoned by King Norodom on 5 February 2006, returned to
        Cambodia on 10 February 2006.

 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
 Note verbale of the Mission of Cambodia of 18.01.06,
  Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0081 adopted 10.3.2005.

RR\368090EN.doc                               41/75                            PE 368.090v02-00

              Cheam CHANNY, pardoned by King Norodom on 5 February 2006, released on
               6 February 2006.1
              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.


     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.2 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,
     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);

         Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0339 adopted on 8.9.2005.

     PE 368.090v02-00                                 42/75                      RR\368090EN.doc

Fr Zheng RUIPIN (diocese of Fuzhou, Fujian);
Fr Pang YONGXING, Fr Ma SHUNBAO, and Fr Wang LIMAO (diocese of Baoding,
Fr Li JIANBO (diocese of Baoding, Hebei);
Fr Liu DELI;
Pastor Zhang RONGLIANG, 53, one of the founders of the China for Christ Church.


       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.1 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. 2

       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.3 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.
  Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2004)0061 adopted on 17.11.2004 .
  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
  Res. P6_TA-PROV(2006) 0042 adopted on 2.2.2006

RR\368090EN.doc                               43/75                              PE 368.090v02-00


            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 1 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. 2 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.‖ 3
     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. 4


            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

       Res. P6_TA-PROV(2005)0046 adopted on 23.2.2005.
       Res..P6_TA-PROV(2006)0031 adopted on 19.1.2006, see also Res. P6_TA-PROV(2006)0028 adopted on
       EU Presidency statement of 27.12.2005, FCO Press Office 020 7008 3100.
       P6_TA-PROV(2006)0144 adopted on 6.4.2006.

     PE 368.090v02-00                               44/75                             RR\368090EN.doc

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.1 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


In its resolution of 28 October 2004 2 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. 3

       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

  B5-0360/2001 adopted 17.05.2001
  Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2004)0049 adopted on 28.10.2004.
  See also Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0011 adopted on 13.1.2005.

RR\368090EN.doc                                 45/75                          PE 368.090v02-00

     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

     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.1

     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.2
     The European Parliament repeatedly expressed its concerns on the situation concerning
     fundamental rights of JOURNALISTS in Iran.3
     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 20044.

     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

               Emadeddin BAGHI, journalist under travel ban.

         Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0011 adopted on 13.1.2005.
      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
         Reporters Without Borders at

     PE 368.090v02-00                                      46/75                              RR\368090EN.doc

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
           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. 1

          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 him2.


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. 3

          Simona TORRETTA and Simona PARI, Italian aid workers, released on 16
           September 2004.

    Res. P6_TA-PROV(2004)0049 adopted on 28.10.2004.
    Res. P6_TA-PROV(2004)0013 adopted on 16.9.2004.

RR\368090EN.doc                                        47/75                 PE 368.090v02-00

               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.


               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 1 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.


     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. 2
     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

         Res. P6_TA-PROV(2006)0100 adopted on 16.3.2006.
         Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2004)0017 adopted on 16.9.2004

     PE 368.090v02-00                                      48/75                  RR\368090EN.doc

      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
      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

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
      Fathimeen NISREEN,
      Mohammed NIYAZ,
      Ahmed Ibrahim DIDI,
      Mohamed ZAKI,
      Ibrahim ZAKI,
      Maria MANIKE,
      Jennifer LATHEEF,
      Aminath NAJEEB,
      Mohammed NASEEM,
      Asad WHAEED.


RR\368090EN.doc                           49/75                         PE 368.090v02-00

               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. 1


               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.2
     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 power3.


               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.

         Resolution P5_TA-PROV(2004)0374 adopted on 22.4.2004
      Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0443 adopted on 17.11.2005.

     PE 368.090v02-00                                      50/75                    RR\368090EN.doc

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. 1
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.2


       Dr Mudawi Ibrahim ADAM, the Chairperson of the Sudan Social Development
        Organisazion (SUDO), released on 16 May 2006 after two weeks of detention. 3

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

       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.5


  Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2006)0026 adopted on 19 January 2006.
  Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0207 adopted on 26.5.2005.
   Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0178 adopted on 12.5.2005.
  Resolution P6 _TA-PROV(2006)0142 adopted on 6 April 2006.

RR\368090EN.doc                                51/75                        PE 368.090v02-00

     On 8 September 2005, Parliament passed a resolution on several individual cases in Syria 1,
     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‖.2 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.3

            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

     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.

       Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0340) adopted on 8.9.2005.

     PE 368.090v02-00                                52/75                      RR\368090EN.doc


          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‖. 1 His
lawyers have reportedly been denied permission on several occasions to visit him in prison.2


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


                          Country                                    Date of adoption of resolution

      ALGERIA                                              18.01.2001 / 17.05.2001 /30.01.2003
                                                           (UNCHR) / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) /
                                                           24.02.2005 (UNCHR) / 09.06.2005 /
      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

    Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2005)0368 adopted on 29.9.2005.
2, and FIDH press release on 29.4.2005.

RR\368090EN.doc                                      53/75                                 PE 368.090v02-00

                        Country              Date of adoption of resolution

       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
       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
       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 /
       TANZANIA                       05.07.2001

     PE 368.090v02-00             54/75                        RR\368090EN.doc

                  Country               Date of adoption of resolution

  TOGO                          16.09.1999 / 06.09.2001 / 13.12.2001 /
                                08.04.2003 / 10.02.2004 (UNCHR) /
                                24.02.2005 (UNCHR) / 24.02.2005 /
  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 /
  UGANDA                        17.02.2000 (UNCHR) / 06.07.2000 /
  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
  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

RR\368090EN.doc             55/75                          PE 368.090v02-00

                        Country                  Date of adoption of resolution

       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 /

          BEIJING'S APPLICATION TO HOST   05.07.2001
          THE 2008 OLYMPIC GAMES
       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
       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 /
       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)

     PE 368.090v02-00                56/75                         RR\368090EN.doc

                  Country                          Date of adoption of resolution

  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                        04.10.2001
  (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia )
  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
  AFGHAN REFUGEES / ASYLUM                 06.09.2001
  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                      17.02.2000 (UNCHR) / 16.03.2000 /
  YUGOSLAVIA                               15.06.2000 / 14.12.2000
  FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF              05.10.2000
  IRELAND (Immigration)                    13.12.2001

RR\368090EN.doc                        57/75                          PE 368.090v02-00

                        Country                 Date of adoption of resolution

       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 /
       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          07.10.1999 / 18.11.1999 / 20.1.2000 /
           CHECHNYA                     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) /
          RUSSIAN REPUBLIC OF           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
       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)

     PE 368.090v02-00               58/75                         RR\368090EN.doc

                  Country              Date of adoption of resolution

  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 /
  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
  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)
  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

RR\368090EN.doc             59/75                         PE 368.090v02-00

                        Country                               Date of adoption of resolution

       EU's rights, priorities and recommendations    17.02.2000 (56th) / 18.01.2001 (57th)/
       for the session of the UN Commission on        07.02.2002 (58th)/ 30.01.2003 (59th) /
       Human Rights in Geneva                         10.02.2004 (60th) / 24.02.2005 (61st) /
       UN Outcome of the negotiations on the          16.03.2006
       Human Rights Council and on the 62nd
       session of the UNCHR
       UN World Food Summit                           16.05.2002
       UN World Day to Overcome Extreme               04.10.2001
       UN Conference on Least Developed               05.04.2001
       Reform of the UN                               09.06.2005
       Reform of the UN, Millennium                   29.09.2005
       Development Goals
       Small arms and lights weapons (UN              26.05.2005
       Death Penalty in the World                     07.10.1999 / 18.11.1999 / 16.12.1999 /
                                                      13.04.2000 / 06.07.2000 / 26.10.2000 /
       Abolition of Death Penalty in Japan, South     13.06.2002
       Korea and Taiwan
       INTERNATIONAL                                  16.12.1999 / 18.01.2001 / 28.02.2002 /
       CRIMINAL COURT                                 04.07.2002 / 26.09.2002 / 24.10.2002
       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       13.06.2002

       EU Position for the Session of the UN GA       11.04.2002
       on the Rights of Child

       UN GA Special Session on the Rights of         05.07.2001

     PE 368.090v02-00                             60/75                          RR\368090EN.doc

                   Country                             Date of adoption of resolution

  European Parliament resolution on the 10th   18.11.1999
  Anniversary of the UN Convention on the
  Rights of the Child

  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
  PRESS FREEDOM                                17.05.2001
  COMBATTING TERRORISM                         24.10.2002
  Detainees in Guantanamo Bay                  07.02.2002 / 10.03.2004/ 28.10.2004 /
  Review of Ottawa Treaty on anti-personnel    22.04.2004
  Cluster Bombs                                13.12.2001
  Landmines                                    07.07.2005
  Refugees - Channel Tunnel                    11.04.2002
  Refugees (Lampedusa and Western Sahara)      14.04.2005
  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               16.02.2006
  Homophobia                                   19.01.2006
  Aung San Suu Kyi and Leyla Zana              13.12.2001
  (Sakharov Prize Laureates)
  Sport products for the Olympic games         22.04.2004
  Mediterranean                                20.11.2003 / 12.02.2004 / 23.02.2005

RR\368090EN.doc                           61/75                           PE 368.090v02-00

     PE 368.090v02-00   62/75   RR\368090EN.doc


                         INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS                                                        OF
Charter of the United Nations                                                                                     24 October 1945
Universal Declaration on Human Rights                                                                            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    15 December 1989
of the death penalty
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              25 May 2000
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and     25 May 2000
child pornography
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           18 December 2002
UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or            25 November 1981

RR\368090EN.doc                              63/75                            PE 368.090v02-00

     UN Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and   9 December 1998
     Protect Universally Recognised Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
     UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders                                                                     9 December 1998
     United Nations Millennium Declaration                                                                        8 September 2000
     World Conference on Human Rights (Vienna)                                                                      25 June 1993
     Declaration and Programme of Action
     World Conference on Women and Development (Beijing)                                                           September 1995
     Declaration and Platform for Action
     World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (Durban)          8 September 2001
     Declaration and Programme of Action
     ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT                                                                1 July 2002
     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
     Annual Human Rights Reports                                                                                     1983 - 2005
     Resolution on the communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the          25 April 2002
     European Union's role in promoting human rights and democratisation in third countries (COM (2001) 252)
     Resolution on the Commission communication on EU election assistance and observation (COM (2000) 191 -        15 March 2001
     Resolution on countering racism and xenophobia in the European Union, on the Commission communication:        16 March 2000
     "Countering racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism in the candidate countries" (COM (1999) 256 – C5-
     0094/1999), and on the World Conference against Racism
     Resolution on the communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on ―The       17 December 1998

     PE 368.090v02-00                          64/75                           RR\368090EN.doc

European Union and the external dimension of human rights policy: from Rome to Maastricht and beyond‖
(COM (1995) 567 – C4-0568/1995)
Resolution on the report from the Commission on the implementation of measures intended to promote              19 December 1997
observance of human rights and democratic principles (for 1995) (COM (1996) 672 - C4-0095/1997)
Resolution on setting up a single co-ordinating structure within the Commission, responsible for human rights   19 December 1997
and democratisation
Resolution on the communication from the Commission on the inclusion of respect for democratic principles       20 September 1996
and human rights in agreements between the Community and third countries (COM (1995) 216 – C4-
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
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               29 April 1999
and the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms
Official Journal L 120 , 08/05/1999 P. 0001 - 0014
Cotonou Agreement                                                                                                  23 June 2000
Guidelines for EU policy towards third countries on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or     9 April 2001
Conclusions on the communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the             25 June 2001
European Union's role in promoting human rights and democratisation in third countries (COM (2001) 252)
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 10 December 2002
for the implementation of the Council's conclusions of 25 June 2001
EU Common Position on the International Criminal Court                                                             16 June 2003

RR\368090EN.doc                            65/75                          PE 368.090v02-00

     EU Guidelines on Children in Armed Conflicts                                                      8 December 2003
     EU Guidelines on Promoting Compliance with International Humanitarian Law                        23 December 2005
     Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms                           4 November 1950
     Protocol No. 13 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,   3 May 2002
     concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances

     PE 368.090v02-00                          66/75                         RR\368090EN.doc



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

Draftsman: Raül Romeva i Rueda


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,

RR\368090EN.doc                             67/75                              PE 368.090v02-00

     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

     PE 368.090v02-00                             68/75                           RR\368090EN.doc

     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;

RR\368090EN.doc                               69/75                            PE 368.090v02-00

     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

     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

     PE 368.090v02-00                             70/75                            RR\368090EN.doc

       protection through Council Directives 2000/43/EC of 29 June 20001 and 2000/78/EC of
       27 November 20002 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;

    OJ L 180, 12.7.2000, p. 22.
    OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

RR\368090EN.doc                                71/75                           PE 368.090v02-00

                                    EXPLANTORY STATEMENT

     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
     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.

     PE 368.090v02-00                             72/75                            RR\368090EN.doc

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.

RR\368090EN.doc                              73/75                             PE 368.090v02-00


     Title                                      The Annual Report on Human Rights in the World 2005 and the
                                                European Union's policy on the matter
     Procedure number                           2005/2203(INI)
     Committee responsible                      AFET
     Opinion by                                 FEMM
         Date announced in plenary              19.1.2006
     Enhanced cooperation – date announced
     in plenary
     Drafts(wo)man                              Raül Romeva i Rueda
         Date appointed                         23.11.2005
     Previous drafts(wo)man
     Discussed in committee                     21.2.2006
     Date adopted                               21.2.2006
     Result of final vote                       +:            21
                                                –:            0
                                                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

      PE 368.090v02-00                                  74/75                                 RR\368090EN.doc


Title                                      Annual Report on Human Rights in theWorld 2005 and the EU's
                                           policy on the matter
Procedure number                           2005/2203(INI)
Committee responsible                      AFET
   Date authorisation announced in         17.11.2005
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)          FEMM
   Date announced in plenary               19.1.2006
Not delivering opinion(s)
     Date of decision
Enhanced cooperation
    Date announced in plenary
Rapporteur(s)                              Richard Howitt
    Date appointed                         28.10.2005
Previous rapporteur(s)
Discussed in committee                     20.2.2006      13.3.2006    19.4.2006
Date adopted                               20.04.2006
Result of final vote                       +   53
                                           -   4
                                           0   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
(available in one language only)

 RR\368090EN.doc                                      75/75                              PE 368.090v02-00


Shared By: