Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-22-Speech-3-148"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031022.7.3-148"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, you are entirely correct in saying that I have addressed Parliament on a number of previous occasions on the death penalty and I have had to observe occasionally in the past that when I first used to make speeches in a Parliament on the death penalty, I did not find such unanimity of support for my views. I remember voting for the abolition of capital punishment in various parts of the British Isles, not always with great support. The first act that I carried out when I was a colonial oppressor was to abolish capital punishment in Hong Kong! So I have a certain amount of 'form' on this issue, as football managers would say.
I should also let you know that I have been approached by non-governmental organisations on this matter. In July of this year, I had the pleasure of convening a special seminar for human rights NGOs in Brussels. In the context of that meeting, the world coalition of NGOs against the death penalty, and that includes Amnesty International and many other prestigious organisations, presented its own view. The message of this group was to ask the European Union to refrain from presenting a resolution on the death penalty at the forthcoming General Assembly. These NGOs in particular pointed out that since there are no signs to the effect that political tensions have eased since 1999, such an initiative could create a highly politicised and counter-productive debate in the General Assembly. In their view, another failure in the General Assembly could reinforce the position of those states that maintain the death penalty.
I attach great importance to the expertise of the many renowned NGOs that we work with. They also play an important role as partners in the framework of projects we implement under the European initiative for democracy and human rights programme. On the initiative of this NGO coalition, we also for the first time on 10 October celebrated, if that is the right word, the World Day Against the Death Penalty.
The European Commission will continue to support campaigns designed to achieve a moratorium on the death penalty and on executions and eventually the abolition of capital punishment throughout the world. Last year approximately EUR 4.9 million were allocated under the European initiative to projects aimed at raising European public awareness in retentionist countries. The methods used include public education, out-reach to influence public opinion, studies on how states' death penalty systems comply with minimum standards, informing and supporting strategies for replacing the death penalty and efforts towards securing the access of death row inmates to appropriate levels of legal support, as well as training for lawyers.
During the last months there have also been some positive developments that should be highlighted. In January, Governor Ryan of Illinois decided to commute the death sentences of 156 prisoners on death row. Through the entry into force on 1 July of Protocol 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights, the use of the death penalty is banned not only in peacetime but also in time of war. Lastly, the President of Armenia in July commuted all outstanding death sentences to life in prison and, subsequently, in September, ratified Protocol 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, and in that way abolished the death penalty.
Let me repeat, we take this issue seriously, and I am delighted that we are working with a presidency which has taken it so seriously and has pursued it with considerable skill and very good political judgment. We are making some progress, but it will take time and persistence, as well as the continuing advocacy of this Parliament if we are to attain our goal, which is to see the death penalty consigned to the history books as a form of punishment that should have no place in the modern world.
Can I straightaway apologise for the fact that I will not be able to stay for the whole of this debate. I have to catch an aeroplane for Madrid for the Iraq Donors' Conference which is beginning tomorrow morning, and where, of course, the presidency will also be represented. I hope Parliament will excuse me of any discourtesy, but my colleague, Mr Fischler, will be coming to sit here to report anything that I should have heard later in the debate.
I hope also that Parliament will excuse me if a good deal of what I say treads in the elegant footsteps of the presidency. I want to put many of the same points, but in my own way. Parliament knows that we consistently work towards the universal abolition of the death penalty. In the process of attaining this objective, where the death penalty still exists, we call for its use to be progressively restricted, we insist that it should be carried out with the minimum cruelty.
The European Union also presses, where relevant, for moratoria to be introduced. We have produced internal guidelines for démarches and representations on capital punishment, where relevant, in multilateral fora and towards third countries. At the European summit with China last year, the then Prime Minister of China, Zhu Rongii, said: 'you just talk about these issues to poorer countries don't you?' I pointed out to him that the first time I recalled us raising the issue was with the United States. So it is an issue that we raise –I must say that the United States Secretary of State was slightly surprised! – with everyone.
The European Parliament is a long-standing opponent of the death penalty and has been instrumental in promoting this process. Parliament has declared in the past that it considers capital punishment, and I quote, 'an inhuman, medieval form of punishment, unworthy of modern societies'. A series of initiatives have been taken to ensure that the abolition of the death penalty should become a key element of European human rights policy. It is on the basis of this strongly held European policy objective that for the last years we have successfully tabled resolutions in the UN Commission on Human Rights on the death penalty, as the President-in-Office has said. The seventh consecutive resolution was adopted in Geneva on 24 April.
This resolution contains some significant new features. It calls, in particular, on states not to carry out executions in public or in any other degrading manner and to ensure that any application of particularly cruel or inhuman means of execution, such as stoning, be stopped immediately. While the support for resolutions on the death penalty in the Commission on Human Rights has increased, it has to be said that opposition has increased as well. The resolution adopted in Geneva received the support of 24 states, while 18 voted against and 10 abstained. However, the strong disagreement of many states was proved by the fact that 63 countries signed a statement dissociating themselves from the resolution. I thought it would be useful to recall these facts in the context of today's debate on a resolution requesting a moratorium on the death penalty in the General Assembly Third Committee.
A first consideration, before presenting any resolution, should be whether such a text would receive sufficient support to be adopted by the General Assembly. We all remember the 54th session of the General Assembly in 1999. A text notably calling for the establishment of moratoria and the enforcement of certain safeguards was circulated. This draft caused an immediate outcry from states that maintain the death penalty, including Egypt, India and Singapore. Strong attacks were made on the European initiative, and we were perceived as seeking to impose our values on other sovereign states. In the end, the text was withdrawn. That was the situation in 1999.
We have no indications that the General Assembly would be more positively inclined today towards a death penalty resolution. It would seem that while the hard-line retentionists are resigned to further Commission on Human Rights texts on this issue, they will continue to resist strongly any efforts to secure a General Assembly resolution. This would lead to further divisive debate. As a result, the European Union has decided to pursue its action against the death penalty in the Commission on Human Rights rather than the General Assembly.
However, a more fundamental issue is whether a resolution asking for a moratorium would promote the European objective of abolition of the death penalty world-wide. The presidency has suggested that the European proposal should not go as far as requesting abolition of the death penalty but rather a moratorium on the use of this punishment. Since the resolution tabled by the European Union in the Commission on Human Rights asks states to abolish the death penalty completely and, in the meantime, to establish a moratorium on executions, we may run the risk of being perceived as weakening the European stance by not suggesting the same high standards in the General Assembly."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples