Annex 1
MORE RESOURCES FOR HUMAN RIGHTS: A 10-POINT
PROGRAM FOR THE LUXEMBOURG PRESIDENCY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
OVERVIEW
— The EU's ambition: to be a Union
of values—advancing human rights worldwide and providing
"freedom, security and justice" at home.
— The implementation gap: the EU is
a global actor with many human rights tools, but putting them
into practice remains difficult and unsatisfactory.
— The credibility gap: the EU collectively
is at best complacent, at worst neglectful, when it comes to ensuring
actual observance of human rights within its own borders.
— The capability gap: institutional
weaknesses, inadequate structures and insufficient resources hamper
the EU's performance on human rights.
— The challenge: how to fill these
gaps?
At the start of every EU Presidency, Amnesty
International presents the EU with an overall assessment of the
EU's human rights policies and recommends how they can be made
more effective. As Luxembourg prepares to assume the EU Presidency,
Amnesty International releases a 10-point program of concrete
proposals which, if adopted, could contribute substantially to
helping the EU to protect and promote human rights at home and
abroad.
With these proposals, Amnesty International
draws particular attention to the gulf which is opening up between
the EU's stated ambitions and intentions in the area of human
rights, and the resources available to fund them. Every relevant
EU text now invariably carries appropriate references to the need
to respect human rights, but too often it is little more than
a box that is ticked, and which is empty when it comes to action
with a price tag. The recommendations in this paper seek to address
this problem by identifying issues where the question of adequate
resources for human rights is relevant.
The EU has over the past years developed an
array of policy instruments concerning human rights, especially
in the area of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy. The
challenge lies not in the creation of more policy tools, but in
their implementation. While this is primarily a question of political
will, Amnesty International believes it is also necessary for
the EU to start paying more attention to the capacities and resources
needed to actually use the tools that are available.
The EU's current preoccupations, going into
the new institutional cycle, are the ratification of the constitution
and the changes it will bring, the need to boost economic performance,
and the drive against terrorism and "illegal immigration".
One way or another, human rights will feature in most of these
endeavours. Indeed, to be effective in promoting human rights
worldwide and protecting them at home, they must be part of policies
and programs ranging from trade and development to conflict prevention
and crisis management, from fighting discrimination to judicial
cooperation.
The reality is that the `mainstreaming' of human
rights in external relations remains an elusive goal, and that
the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the
EU Constitution gives no guarantee of its actual observance at
home. The EU's lofty human rights ambitions are tempered by the
demands of realpolitik and the pull of the lowest common denominator,
but also by problems of consistency, continuity and inadequate
resourcing.
Amnesty International presents its proposals
to the Luxembourg Presidency in the belief that the EU stands
to gain in authority, both at home and in the wider world, if
it can show more consistently that human rights are not dispensable,
not negotiable and not to be taken for granted. A stronger and
more visible human rights profile will reflect positively on the
EU's aspiration to be a Union of values. A critical review of
the actual resources that are available to carry such a profile
would be an important step at the start of this new cycle.
HUMAN RIGHTS
IN EUROPE
The Hague Programme adopted by the European
Council in November 2004 sets the policy framework for "strengthening
freedom, security and justice in the EU" over the next five
years. Fundamental rights feature prominently.
However, there is a lack of coherence when it
comes to the instruments and structures needed to safeguard fundamental
rights, and a lack of resources to match. The fact that asylum
is principally a human rights issue seems to be lost amid all
the discourse surrounding migration management. With the EU's
justice and home affairs agenda driven by counter-terrorism and
the fight against "illegal immigration", there is a
growing risk of a one-sided emphasis on "security" at
the expense of the elements of justice" and "freedom"
Striking a proper balance in practice as well as on paper requires
conscious political investment but it also raises serious resource
questions.
1. The EU Fundamental Rights Agency
Amnesty International has long been advocating
that the EU should take seriously its obligations in terms of
the collective responsibility for the promotion and protection
of human rights across the territory of the EU. The Charter of
Fundamental Rights, while not (yet) binding, firmly places human
rights in general at the heart of EU policy in principle. What
is now required is to ensure that they are applied in practice.
While the inclusion of the Charter in the constitution is a demonstration
that the EU is beginning to take the issue of human rights within
its own borders seriously, the EU is lacking an adequate mechanism
for monitoring the application of those rights and for making
an evaluation as to relevant policies and actions which can enhance
their protection.
The decision of the European Council to establish
a human rights agency provides an opportunity to bridge the gap.
The Commission is to make a proposal in early 2005 on how to set
up the Fundamental Rights Agency. In creating the agency, great
care will be needed to ensure that the current standards of monitoring
of rights within the EU, through mechanisms such as the Network
of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, are
not watered down but rather are built upon to form a single coherent
and effective body for monitoring fundamental rights in the EU.
The European Council in December 2004 called
for the agency to "play a major role in enhancing the coherence
and consistency of the EU human rights policy". The effectiveness
of the future agency must be anchored in the political will to
establish accountability at EU level for the respect of fundamental
rights within the EU. That in turn requires a combination of focus,
efficiency and adequate resources. The EU must be prepared to
commit such resources.
Amnesty International calls on the Luxembourg
Presidency to help ensure that the future EU Fundamental Rights
Agency is effective, and support the following recommendations:
— The geographical scope of the agency
should be limited to the EU.
— The agency must have a broad mandate
to cover all the rights contained in the EU Charter of Fundamental
Rights, while selecting priorities for annual or multi-annual
programs.
— The scope should not be restricted
solely to the EU institutions and implementation of EU law or
to acting as an early warning mechanism for Article 7 of the TEU
but should aim to fill gaps identified in the monitoring of human
rights in the EU.
— Tasks should include data collection,
monitoring, analysis and policy recommendations, to be performed
on the basis of a clear methodology.
— There must be complementarily with
other international organizations such as the Council of Europe,
the UN and the OSCE.
— The independence of the agency must
be guaranteed both through its composition and through protecting
its budget from undue political influence.
— It must report annually to the European
Parliament and address recommendations on policy to the Commission
and to the Council, the latter through a Council structure dedicated
to issues of fundamental rights within the EU.
— The agency must have sufficient resources
to carry out its mandate effectively.
2. Access to justice
The Commission proposal for a Framework Decision
on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings demonstrated
a first step towards addressing the question of the rights of
suspects and defendants within the area of freedom, security and
justice. Amnesty International welcomed the proposal in principle
but was concerned at the limited nature of rights contained in
the proposal. For example, it provided no general right of access
to a doctor, which has been identified by the Committee for the
Prevention of Torture as a key safeguard to prevent torture.
Of particular concern now that the Council has
started to consider the proposal is the prospect that serious
and complex forms of crime, in particular terrorism, may be removed
from the ambit of the Framework Decision. To do so would undermine
the credibility of the EU in balancing the need for security in
the fight against terrorism with the protection of procedural
rights. What is more, to exclude terrorism from the ambit of the
Framework Decision would undermine the principle that this legislation
is needed to facilitate cooperation, as this is precisely where
cooperation is hindered by perceived and actual failures to protect
human rights in Member States' law and practice. Human rights
are not a threat but a fundamental prerequisite to the establishment
of genuine security, and counter-terrorism measures cannot be
left outside the human rights framework.
Amnesty International has also raised concerns
about the absence of any reference to funding for the proposals
such as the right to free interpretation and translation and the
right of access to a lawyer. To be implemented effectively, these
will have significant financial implications. If the EU is to
be perceived as improving the protection of individuals in the
area of freedom, security and justice and having a genuine impact
on ensuring access to justice, it will need to put financial and
political resources behind its stated commitment that "the
objective of the Hague Programme is to improve the common capability
of the Union and its Member States to guarantee fundamental rights,
minimum procedural safeguards and access to justice . . .".
Amnesty International calls on the Luxembourg
Presidency to ensure that ongoing negotiations in the Council
on the proposal for a Framework Decision on procedural rights
in criminal proceedings:
— do not weaken further the position
set out in the Commission's proposal but guarantee the protection
of rights also with regard to counter-terrorism measures; and
— address the issue of resources needed
to make procedural rights and safeguards a reality.
3. Collective responsibility for human rights
abuses within the EU
The EU cannot afford to turn a blind eye to
serious and persistent breaches of fundamental rights within its
own borders. It must develop a mechanism for applying preventive
and corrective measures in cases of a clear risk of such breaches
occurring. In this context it is significant that the Commission
Communication on the application of Article 7 of the TEU of October
2003 still remains unanswered by the Council.
Two examples will serve to highlight the lack
of political will as well as capacity on the part of the Council
to coherently address questions of fundamental rights within the
EU:
Slovakia: forced sterilization of Roma women
Reports relating to the forced sterilization
of Roma women have been raised over a number of years by NGOs
as well as by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights
and the UN Human Rights Committee. Forced sterilization is a serious
breach of a number of rights recognized by the EU through, amongst
others, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (ECHR), including
the right to human dignity, the right to the integrity of the
person, the right to be free from torture and other cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment, respect for private and family life,
the right to marry and found a family and the prohibition on discrimination.
There has not been an adequate response from the Slovakian government
to resolve this serious matter. While official policy may have
changed, the practice reportedly still continues and there has
not been proper reparation for victims. It is therefore for the
EU to respond with appropriate remedial measures to ensure that
such practices cannot be continued within the EU.
UK: derogation from international human rights
obligations
The UK responded to the threat of terrorism
through the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 Part 4
which allows for the indefinite detention without trial of foreign
nationals suspected of terrorism. In order to enact this legislation
the UK has derogated from international obligations under the
ECHR and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.
The UN Committee against Torture strongly criticized the possibility
of indefinite detention under this legislation as well as the
incomplete factual and legal grounds for derogation from the UK's
international human rights obligations. It also denounced the
recent Court of Appeal judgement interpreting this law so as to
allow for the use of evidence extracted through torture as long
as there is no complicity from UK officials.
Significantly, in December 2004 the UK Law Lords
ruled this legislation unlawful. However, there had been no EU
statements on these serious concerns. If the EU is to remain credible,
particularly in its pledge to maintain a balance between the protection
of individual rights and the need for security in the fight against
terrorism, it must address the problem that one of its Member
States has derogated from its international human rights obligations
in this area for the past three years on questionable grounds.
Amnesty International calls on the Luxembourg
Presidency:
— to ensure a Council response to the
October 2003 Commission Communication on the application of Article
7 TEU as a matter of the urgency; and
— to set up a Council Working Group
for human rights in the EU to address questions of fundamental
rights within the EU in a coherent and consistent manner.
4. EU return policy
Effective migration management is a major policy
priority of the EU and the return of "illegal migrants"
has long been identified as one of the areas in which cooperation
between Member States is a must. The Hague Programme considers
it "essential that the Council begin discussions in early
2005 on minimum standards for return procedures", adding
that returns should be effected "in a humane manner and with
full respect for (their) human rights and dignity".
Amnesty International welcomes these intentions
but is concerned that the broad scope of the debate on migration
control, and the political pressures associated with it, may blur
distinctions between policies for the proper return of "illegal
migrants", and practices that amount to denial of basic protection
and human rights safeguards. The fight against "illegal immigration"
has been reflected in an emphasis on containment through preventing
entry and on facilitating removals. Stepped-up border control,
fast-track asylum procedures, detention of "illegal immigrants"
and joint return flights, are prominent features of this approach.
Practices in a number of Member States have shown patterns of
irregularity and abuse, including denial of access to asylum procedures,
unlawful detention of asylum seekers, irregular expulsions and
excessive use of force during removal operations.
Against this background. discussions on a common
return policy have largely focused on the operational aspects
of removal rather than on protection issues, and have reflected
a reluctance to develop ambitious standards at EU level. They
are complemented by increasing engagement with countries of origin
and transit through technical cooperation, financial assistance
and readmission agreements.
From a protection point of view, it is important
that there should be no delays in developing a comprehensive EU
return policy. Such a policy should differentiate clearly between
voluntary return, repatriation programs and situations of forced
removal. It should formulate clear legal grounds and limitations
for removal, set standards for detention in accordance with relevant
UN and Council of Europe principles, and provide effective legal
remedies against wrongful removal and abuse in removal practice.
It should also allow for persons to challenge any decision to
remove them to their country of origin or to a third country deemed
to be safe, including suspensive appeal. Finally, it should provide
for the necessary resources not only to effect returns and removals
but also to allow for all relevant safeguards to be fully observed.
Amnesty International calls on the Luxembourg
Presidency to initiate discussion and development of a proper
EU return policy forthwith in early 2005, and to ensure that policy:
— sets minimum standards fully reflective
of international standards of human rights and refugee law; and
— takes into account the rights of
migrants at all stages of the migration process; and provides
for adequate resources for compliance with all relevant safeguards.
5. The external dimension of asylum
The Hague Programme emphasizes the importance
of fully integrating migration into the s relations with third
countries. More specifically it acknowledges the need to contribute
to a more accessible, equitable and effective protection system
in partnership with third countries, and to provide durable solutions.
Amnesty International has welcomed proposals to enhance protection
of refugees in their regions of origin, and to provide assistance
for capacity building.
However, it is obvious that the growing importance
of this external dimension is propelled in particular by the overarching
drive to fight "illegal immigration". Where the Hague
Programme marks a decisive shift in the EU's ambition to take
that fight into the domain of external relations, it may impact
negatively on the protection of human rights in general and refugee
rights in particular. Amnesty International is concerned that
readmission agreements and partnerships with third countries concluded
at national or EU level may run counter to Member States' national
and international obligations with regard to refugees, in particular
the principle of non-refoulement.
As was evident from the recent fraught discussions
over "camps" or "reception facilities" in
neighbouring countries, it is crucial at all times to retain a
clear focus on the need to fully respect protection obligations.
Therefore. it is extremely important to prevent "solutions"
in the sphere of reception in regions of origin and more generally
migration management that may prejudice the right to seek asylum
spontaneously in Europe and have the effect of undermining the
international protection system.
The external dimension of asylum and immigration
implies a consistent long term involvement and substantial commitment,
including financial investment, from the EU if it wants to fulfil
its ambitions to enhance international protection, control immigration,
provide humanitarian assistance and support capacity building.
The policies to be developed will need to ensure strict adherence
to standards of international human rights and refugee law. They
must not bypass the EU's responsibility towards asylum seekers
and the need for fair responsibility sharing, notably by regulating
safe access to Europe through protected entry procedures and EU
resettlement schemes.
Given the ambitious objectives of the external
dimension of the EU's asylum and migration policies, and the real
concerns about their human rights impact, it would be entirely
appropriate for even a fraction of the financial resources that
are invested in this area to be made available to allow for a
meaningful human rights check.
Amnesty International calls on the Luxembourg
Presidency:
— to ensure that resources are allocated
to develop effective and coherent policies in the area of regional
protection, development cooperation and humanitarian assistance,
with strict adherence to standards of international human rights
and refugee law; and
— to ensure that resources are allocated
to provide for impact assessment based on relevant human rights
standards of every measure taken to combat "illegal immigration"
and their cumulative effect in order to help prevent negative
effects on the s key human rights obligations.
HUMAN RIGHTS
IN THE
WORLD
The EU's ambition to be a constructive actor
at the global level, seeking stability and security through effective
multilateralism. includes a strong human rights component. In
pursuing these goals in practice, human rights often take a back
seat especially in specific country situations. The Luxembourg
Presidency faces the annual challenge of steering the EU through
the political minefield of the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights at its 61 session. However, it is increasingly clear that
the EUs efforts to advance human rights worldwide encounter limitations
not only of a political nature, but also in the sphere of the
capabilities and resources that are needed to conduct consistent
and coherent policies. Ever since 11 September 2001 the EU has
insisted on the need to balance security and human rights, but
real investments have been made only on one side of that equation.
6. Implementing the EU's human rights guidelines
Since 1998 the EU has adopted five sets of policy
guidelines to enhance its work to promote and protect human rights
in third countries. Abolition of the death penalty (1998), prevention
of torture (2001), children and armed conflict (2003) and protection
of human rights defenders (2004) are all issues central to the
EU's human rights policy. A fifth document sets the framework
for human rights dialogues with other countries (2001).
The human rights guidelines have been developed
as concrete policy tools to be used at EU level and through Member
States, and in particular through missions in third countries.
The Presidency has always been considered to play a major role
in their implementation. Experience so far with the earlier guidelines,
in particular those on torture, has shown however that effective
implementation is not a simple matter, a concern that is very
much shared by the EU and individual Member States. An internal
review has been conducted by the Council but at the time of writing
the results had not yet been made public.
Although there may be different reasons why
the various sets of guidelines have been hard to implement effectively,
there can be no doubt that the weak institutional structure and
the lack of adequate resourcing play a significant role. It is
in particular the discontinuity caused by the rotating Presidencies
in combination with the total inadequacy of staffing resources
at the General Secretariat of the Council that have proved fatal
to meet the challenge of building up consistent practices. The
Dutch Presidency has begun to address the problem of implementation
by drawing up an action plan for the guidelines on children and
armed conflict, and by devoting the 2004 EU Human Rights Forum
to the question of how to make the latest guidelines on human
rights defenders work.
Not everything has a price tag though. Concerns
in relation to torture, the death penalty, the situation of human
rights defenders or children and armed conflict should be a non-negotiable
standing item of the agenda of the Presidency's meetings with
third countries where these problems exist, including at the highest
level. As a matter of principle, the Presidents of the European
Council and the Council of Ministers should meet with human rights
defenders, including activists working on these priority areas,
during visits to third countries.
Amnesty International calls on the Luxembourg
Presidency to continue to press for more active implementation
of the EU human rights guidelines including the necessary resourcing,
and to ensure that the EU's stated commitment to these priority
themes will be visible and tangible during its leadership of the
EU Troika.
7. A high level representative for human
rights
Since the adoption of the European Union's security
strategy, the EU has strengthened the capacities of the Council
to deliver in the international fight against "terrorism"
and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
But while the security strategy acknowledges the importance of
human rights and the rule of law in the prevention of key security
risks, and while the EU has consistently called for the need to
balance security and human rights since 11 September 2001, the
EU has yet to allocate concrete resources to make this commitment
operational.
Amnesty International therefore welcomes the
European Council's decision to establish the position of a Personal
Representative for human rights who will support the High Representative
for the CFSP. The decision is a positive first step to redress
the chronic under-resourcing of the EU's human rights work at
Council level. To make it work in practice, the Council Secretariat's
human rights resources will have to be significantly upgraded.
Amnesty International calls on the Luxembourg
Presidency to see to it that sufficient additional human rights
staff capacity is provided in the General Secretariat of the Council
to ensure adequate support for the Personal Representative in
discharging his/her mandate.
8. Human rights in the enlargement process
The role of human rights in the EU enlargement
system is ambivalent. On the one hand enormous weight is given
to the Copenhagen political criteria on democracy, human rights
and the rule of law. On the other hand it is understood that a
decision to start negotiations based on a political assessment
that these criteria are fulfilled effectively closes the human
rights chapter. And yet it is evident that serious problems have
persisted throughout the accession process in most if not all
candidate countries the 10 that joined in 2004, and certainly
the two scheduled to join in 2007.
The response to this growing realization, spurred
in particular by the dilemma of Turkey's candidacy precisely in
the area of human rights, has been to provide for a suspension
clause in the accession process of future candidate countries,
starting with Croatia and Turkey. Such additional safeguards are
important in order to maintain pressure for reform in general.
However, it would be necessary to back them up with a more specific
mechanism for scrutiny of and assistance for human rights objectives,
rather than to rely only on the Commission's annual progress reports.
Amnesty International would consider it appropriate, and consistent
with the significance attached to the EU's key values, to introduce
an initial "Chapter Zero" on human rights and the rule
of law, to be handled as any other chapter on the basis of concrete
objectives and benchmarks, and with the resources to match.
The missing link in the official discourse on
enlargement and human rights has been the lack of EU-level accountability
for human rights observance within the EU's own borders. The enlargement
dimension in fact puts in sharper and clearer perspective the
need for the EU to take human rights compliance more seriously.
Citizens in new Member States arc entitled to expect that their
rights will be better respected and protected by their own government,
but also that their government's responsibility will be backed
up by an EU that complements and if necessary enforces that commitment.
Amnesty International calls on the Luxembourg
Presidency:
— with regard to the decision to start
accession negotiations with Turkey: to make maximum use of all
existing and new channels of political dialogue with the Turkish
government to press for further legal reforms and their implementation,
including in relation to preventing and punishing torture, guaranteeing
the full enjoyment of freedom of expression and association, and
ending violence against women.
— with regard to the preparation of
a framework for negotiations with Croatia: to ensure that the
Council will engage Croatia to bring its laws and practice into
full compliance with recommendations by the Council of Europe
and the United Nations. In relation to the war crimes and crimes
against humanity committed during the 1991-95 armed conflict,
the EU should continue to press Croatia to deliver on its pledge
to fully cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for
the former Yugoslavia. At the same time, the ELI must engage and
support the Croatian authorities to reform and resource its domestic
judicial system to ensure that all perpetrators of war crimes
and crimes against humanity arc brought to justice, regardless
of their ethnicity or that of the victims.
— with regard to the closure of negotiations
with Bulgaria: to see to it that Bulgaria steps up its efforts
to improve the situation in institutions for people with mental
disabilities and redress the widespread inequality and de facto
discrimination of the Roma in education, employment, access to
health and to public services, with regard to the closure of negotiations
with Romania: to impress on Romania to end as a matter of urgency
the arbitrary detention of people with mental disabilities in
mental hospitals and address the conditions and lack of appropriate
care in these institutions, which have caused deaths of dozens
of patients and residents.
9. Funding for human rights: the 2007-13
Financial Perspective
The future of the EU's support for human rights
and democracy activities in the next Financial Perspective 2007-13
is a matter of concern. In proposals published by the Commission
to rationalize external assistance budget lines in the next Financial
Perspective, the promotion of human rights and democracy is spread
over four new instruments: the Development Cooperation and Economic
Cooperation Instrument the European Neighbourhood and Partnership
Instrument the Stability Instrument and the Instrument for Pre-accession
Assistance.
However, all four proposed instruments lack
a common statement of commitment to the promotion of human rights
and democracy, which raises concern about the future of the EU's
support for human rights and democracy initiatives after 2006.
With the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
scheduled to finish, there is a real danger that such concrete
support activities may become fragmented, undermining both the
effectiveness and the visibility of the EU's important efforts
in this domain.
While it is right that democracy and human rights
objectives should be firmly incorporated in all the new instruments,
it is also important to consider how the EU human rights commitment
can be given specific focus and visibility. A horizontal programme
cutting across the new instruments would be a way to guarantee
a consistency of approach, while also allowing for essential elements
of the EIDHR to be preserved and built upon. Perhaps the most
crucial such element is that it can be used without host government
consent which is of particular importance as local civil society
has a critical role to play in the advancement of human rights
and democracy and must be given the necessary support to do so
without governmental interference.
Amnesty International calls on the Luxembourg
Presidency to insist on the inclusion of an explicit consistent
and concrete commitment to the promotion of human rights and democracy
in each of the four external relations instruments, and to consider
ways of giving the EU's commitment to human rights and democracy
extra focus and visibility in its external assistance programme.
10. Arms control
Since 1998 the EU has been committed to its
Code of Conduct on Arms Exports which stipulates that arms should
not be exported to countries where there is a clear risk that
they may be used for internal repression or where serious violations
of human rights have occurred. The code has been a significant
advance in regional arms export control, but in the five years
of its operation it has shown to have major weaknesses, ambiguities
and loopholes. As a result, EU Member States continued to export
arms or equipment that are misused for human rights violations.
A revision of the code is expected to be agreed during the Luxembourg
Presidency. Although it is likely to be improved in a number of
important respects, there appears no prospect that a key demand
from the part of Amnesty International and other NGOs, to make
the code legally binding, will be accepted.
The need to curb the proliferation and misuse
of arms and prevent the unregulated spread of arms production
is urgent. It is obviously necessary to further strengthen the
EU arms exports regime and extend effective arms export controls
to a much greater number of countries across all world regions.
A binding international arms trade treaty grounded in principles
of international law, rather than a voluntary code would provide
potential victims around the world with much greater protection.
The UK Foreign Secretary in September 2004 joined political leaders
of eight other countries in publicly pledging support for an international
Arms Trade Treaty. As the world's second largest arms exporter
and a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the UK's support
for the treaty is a major step forward.
As part of its commitment to eradicate torture,
the Commission has taken the positive step of proposing a regulation
concerning trade in certain equipment and products which could
be used for capital punishment, or torture or other cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment. The regulation is to ban
the export of equipment that has no other use than torture, including
electro-shock stun belts, thumbcuffs and leg cuffs, from Member
States to outside the EU. It would also strictly control the export
of equipment that may have a legitimate policing function but
can lend itself to torture, such as tear gas. Since the end of
2002, a proposal for a Regulation has been discussed by the Council
Working Party on Trade Questions, and several amended proposals
have been presented by the Commission. It is now high time this
process is concluded under the Luxembourg Presidency.
Amnesty International calls on the Luxembourg
Presidency:
— to complete the revision of the EU
Code of Conduct on Arms Exports and take steps to ensure that
all Member States abide strictly by its provisions, and provide
the necessary resources for monitoring and enforcement;
— to further promote and work towards
a global arms trade treaty; and
— to ensure the speedy adoption of
the torture trade regulation.
Amnesty International
22 December 2004
| 
