WRITTEN QUESTION E-3415/01 by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission. Use of torture and inhumane treatment of terrorist suspects in the USA.
Date: 2001-12-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, United States, arrest, human rights, prison system, terrorism, torture

C 229 E/22

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

In addition, the Commission is identifying possible actions to follow-up on the Declaration on combating
illegal logging and forest crimes of the Ministerial Conference on Forest Law Enforcement and Governance
(FLEG) in Indonesia in September 2001, and is developing a dialogue with the Member States and other
stakeholders in this respect. The Commission is also convinced that developing transparency is a way to
address the issue and this is part of several of Community’s recent commitments linked to good
governance.

(2002/C 229 E/021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3415/01

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(21 December 2001)

Subject: Use of torture and inhumane treatment of terrorist suspects in the USA

The measures used to combat terrorism in the USA have already resulted in many cases in the violation of
the fundamental rights of detainees. A number of reports by human rights organisations have noted that
people arrested on suspicion of engaging in terrorist acts did not have access to a lawyer and were also
deprived of the right to communicate with relatives. In some cases, moreover, according to the Secretary-
General of the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims, suspects are being tortured on the
pretext of non-cooperation with the investigative authorities.

What is the position of the European Union on the violation of the principles of international law on
human rights, and the International Convention against Torture, which the USA has ratified and which
prohibits the use of torture or inhumane treatment to extract confessions from detainees, and how will the
Commission respond to the risk of a similar state of affairs arising in the Member States of the EU?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2002)

Under Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union, respect for human rights is one of the founding
principles of the Union. The Union has consistently underlined its strong opposition to the practice of
torture and its support for the relevant international standards. This is set out in Article 4 of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights which states that ‘no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.’

On 9 April 2001 the General Affairs Council adopted the Guidelines to EU policy towards third countries
on torture and other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. These include guidance
governing Union intervention in contacts with third countries (covering political dialogues, démarches and
actions on individual cases) and in multilateral human rights fora. They emphasise that the Union will be
guided by relevant
including those enshrined in the United Nations (UN)
Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Union
is also striving for a successful conclusion to the ongoing negotiations on a draft optional protocol to the
inter alia, to improve the monitoring of places of
UN Convention against torture which will seek,
detention.

international standards,

With respect to the treatment of detainees by the United States, the Commission is closely monitoring
developments. The Union maintains a regular dialogue with the United States in the field of human rights.

Respect for fundamental rights by the Member States is ensured by the infringement proceedings provided
for in Article 226 of the EC Treaty and by the procedure laid down in Article 7 of the Treaty on European
Union. The former provides that if the alleged infringement falls within the field of application of

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/23

Community law, the Commission can bring the matter to the Court of Justice, which will determine
whether the Member State concerned has failed to fulfil one of its obligations under the EC Treaty. The
procedure under Article 7 of the TEU provides that the Commission or one third of the Member States
may bring the matter to the Council, meeting at the level of Heads of State or Government, in the event of
a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the principles mentioned in Article 6 of the Treaty on
European Union.

(2002/C 229 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3432/01

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 December 2001)

Subject: Relations between the EU and Ethiopia

According to a statement by the Ethiopian Government, a four-member delegation of the Ethiopian Sugar
Industry Support Centre visited Brussels from 23 to 26 November 2001 to establish contacts with officials
of the Commission’s Directorates-General for Agriculture and Trade.

The purpose of the Ethiopian delegation is to put on an official footing the participation of Ethiopia ?
alongside eight other less developed countries ? in the Community initiative ‘Everything But Arms’: these
countries will then be able to sell their sugar production to the Union over the next nine years at a
guaranteed preferential price. The Ethiopian authorities have calculated that by June 2002 Ethiopia will
have earned US$ 7,5 million from the EU, while if it tried to sell its produce on the free market the
revenue would amount to a mere US$ 2 million.

The EU is of course the world’s largest sugar producer, and Member States, such as Greece, which produce
significant quantities of very high grade sugar will feel the repercussions of this Community initiative. The
EU is steadfastly committed ? and rightly so ? to supporting the less developed countries and
guaranteeing them preferential treatment for their products. However, some of these countries ? including
Ethiopia ? stubbornly refuse to undo the damaging legacy of the totalitarian regimes previously imposed
on them. Ethiopia has been particularly inflexible about reversing the consequences of the Communist
regime of Mengistu and notably to the mass confiscation the property of many Community nationals
(Italians, French, Greeks, etc.) who lived in the country. Even though no initiative has yet been taken to
return this property to its rightful owners, the EU now seems prepared to help this country once more.

Have the Commission officials concerned raised the issue of returning property confiscated from
Community nationals with their Ethiopian counterparts? Will the Commission make the granting of aid
to Ethiopia conditional upon the taking of specific steps to reverse ? even partially ? the confiscation of
the property of Community citizens which is still in force despite the fact that the Communist regime is
supposed to have been overthrown?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2002)

The Commission has not, in the recent past, raised with the Ethiopian authorities the question of the
restitution of appropriated property owned by Union citizens, nor has the granting of Community aid
been made conditional on such restitution. According to existing practices; this is an issue to be addressed
on a bilateral level, between states or between the Ethiopian courts and the Union citizens concerned.

The Community is, however, increasingly concerned by governance issues in general and the Cotonou
Agreement provides for a number of
instruments through which standards of governance can be
influenced.

In the case of Ethiopia, the Commission is conscious of continued shortcomings in the judicial system, and
in other areas of governance, and increasing proportions of Community development aid are being
allocated to capacity building for governance, including ? specifically ? legal and judicial reform and the
strengthening of the judiciary.