Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-14-Speech-3-115"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030514.4.3-115"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, in the fight against international crime and terrorism, there is already cooperation between the Member States of the European Union and the United States as regards information and this has produced significant results. It must be developed at judicial level in order to improve efficiency, but also in order to comply with our fundamental principles and the protection of freedoms. Indeed, the more effort we put into stepping up international cooperation in the fight against terrorism and other forms of crime, the more care we will have to take not to lose the democratic guarantees and legal principles on which our action is based along the way. Like Mr Watson, I would also mention Parliament’s resolution of 13 December 2001, and, in particular, the principles it set out concerning the negotiations on judicial cooperation with the United States. Firstly, complete respect for the European Convention on Human Rights and minimum procedural guarantees of a fair trial, as confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights. Article 6 of the Treaty establishing the European Union must be mentioned explicitly in the agreement and there should also be a reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which was proclaimed by the Council, by the Member States, and will, I hope, be given constitutional value. Secondly, extradition to the United States must be refused for people who may be tried before military tribunals. Thirdly, extradition must not be allowed if the defendant is liable to be sentenced to the death penalty. Mr Alavanos is right: it is not simply a matter of stating that it ‘may be denied’; it must not be possible if there is a risk of execution. Fourthly, we must ensure that the provisions on data protection are proportionate and effective and only last for a limited period of time.
As regards the connection with the European arrest warrant and the International Criminal Court, I believe that, where there is a choice, the Member States must be free to choose between requests for extradition by the United States and requests to hand people over under the European arrest warrant or from the International Criminal Court, but I would like you to inform us of the positions in the Council. Is it true that the United States rejects all references to the ICC and a number of Member States support this position? The United States has asked for a reextradition clause to be included in the agreement that would prevent an EU Member State sending a US citizen to the International Criminal Court or another international tribunal without its express agreement. Is this request also supported by Member States? Lastly, does the Council acknowledge that such a reextradition clause would be contrary to its commitments regarding precisely the International Criminal Court and the Rome Statute?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples