I have tried many times to remove Prague Process from that subheading, and i presume it was you who kept putting it back there because nobody else seems interested in this article. I propose calling it "Aftermath" and deleting everything that the sources do not link as a direct consequence of the PD. "Aftermath" means "Aftermath of the Prague Declaration" not "similar things that happened after the PD was declared". To use an admittedly oversimplified analogy - if some MEPs made a declaration calling for the Sun to rise and fall each day, you could not say that daylight was part of the "Aftermath" of their declaration.
And again, about the "rejection" - Can we use the wording "kept under review, pending legal changes that are highly complicated and will probably never happen due to a lack of enthusiasm and a lack of perceived necessity?" No, I think rejection is more accurate. so does the Guardian. It's not my POV, it's simply what the word "rejected" means in plain english. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/21/european-commission-communist-crimes-nazism
Thankyou for your answer on the fact that only two proposals have so far been taken up positively at european level. When taking up these proposals, was the Prague Declaration directly credited as the impetus? In other words, were either of these advances passed with explicit acknowledgement of the Prague Declaration?