WRITTEN QUESTION E-0505/02 by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council. Sentence of death by stoning in Sudan.
Date: 2002-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Sudan, UN convention, cruel and degrading treatment, death penalty, human rights, marriage, position of women

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/95

difference between infants and adults is that the infant skin surface area relative to the infant body weight
is higher than that of adults. This results in a theoretical potential for increased exposure of infants to
chemicals being applied to their skin by a factor of 2-3 versus the exposure of adults. This difference
however, is taken into account in the risk assessment process.

The Commission wishes to reassure the Honourable Member of its commitment to ensure a high level of
health and safety. In doing so the Commission intends to continue monitoring and incorporating new
evidence in the risk assessment process, making use of independent scientific advice, and using the
appropriate instruments including the precautionary principle to manage the risk of chemicals.

(1) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.

(2002/C 229 E/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0505/02

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council

(27 February 2002)

Subject: Sentence of death by stoning in Sudan

According to information from Human Rights Watch, on 8 December 2001, a criminal court in the town
of Nyala in southern Sudan sentenced 18-year-old Abok Alfa Akok, who was pregnant at the time, to
death by stoning for adultery, whereas the man with whom she had sexual relations was not convicted
because of a lack of evidence. The Sudanese Government, it should be recalled, ratified the International
Convention on Civil and Political Rights in March 1986 which prohibits the carrying out of the death
penalty on a pregnant woman.

Will the Council exert pressure on the Sudanese Government to honour its international commitments,
refrain from carrying out the death penalty by stoning and hold a new trial in accordance with legal
procedures which ensure that Ms Abok Alfa Akok has legal representation in court and recourse to the
language that she understands?

Reply

(26 June 2002)

The EU has repeatedly expressed its deep concern about the different forms of punishment (death penalty
and amputation) and urged the Sudanese government to speed up the ratification process of the UN
Convention against Torture and other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. To
underline its concern with the human rights situation in Sudan the EU introduced a draft Resolution on
this subject at the 56th UN General Assembly and has again presented a Resolution calling for a halt to
human rights violations in Sudan in the United Nations Commission for Human Rights in Geneva. This
Resolution was adopted in April 2002. With special focus on the situation of women the EU advocated
the ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women
(CEDAW) by the Sudanese government.

Human rights remain one of the main issues being discussed and followed up in the framework of the EU-
Sudan political dialogue initiated in 1999. The EU has been stressing the importance that Sudanese law be
consistent with international human rights instruments and that Sudan respect its commitments under the
International Convention on Civil Rights (ratified on 23 March 1976). The Council continues to closely
monitor the human rights situation in Sudan, in particular the case of Ms Abok Alfa Akok.

C 229 E/96

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that generally speaking, with a view to promoting
respect for the right to life and other human rights, the EU uses all relevant international and regional fora
to advocate the universal abolition of the death penalty. In countries where neither a de jure, nor a de
facto moratorium on the death penalty is in place, the EU calls for the progressive restriction of its use and
insists that it be carried out according to the minimum standards set out in the ‘EU guidelines towards
third countries on the death penalty’, which were adopted by the European Council in June 1998.

(2002/C 229 E/108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0511/02

by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Council

(27 February 2002)

Subject: Follow-up to decisions by the Council of Health Ministers of 15 November concerning post-polio

syndrome

On 15 November 2001, on a proposal from the Presidency-in-Office, the EU Council of Health Ministers
considered what decisions could be taken in order to provide a positive response to post-polio syndrome
and the plight of those affected by it.

What measures has the Council taken on this matter since that date? What has been the response of the
Member States? What proposals will the Presidency-in-Office put forward to meet the urgent needs of the
thousands of Union citizens affected by this syndrome?

(2002/C 229 E/109)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0768/02

by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Council

(19 March 2002)

Subject: Follow-up to the deliberations of the Council of Health Ministers of 15 November on post-polio

syndrome

On 15 November last year the Council of EU Health Ministers considered, at the suggestion of the then
presidency, what decisions might be adopted to tackle post-polio syndrome and the situation of sufferers
in a positive manner.

Since that date, what measures or steps has the Council taken in this context? What has the response of
the Member States been? What proposals will the current presidency submit to meet the urgent needs of
thousands of Union citizens affected by this syndrome?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0511/02 and E-0768/02

(26 June 2002)

On 15 November 2001, the Belgian Presidency drew the attention of the Council to the fact that post-
polio syndrome is an important and sensitive public health issue and to the need for appropriate action to
provide an adequate response to this problem. Further details are included in an information note from the
Presidency to the Council which was the basis of the Presidency’s intervention at the Council. This Council
document is available to the public on the Council’s internet site.

The attention of the Honourable Members is drawn to the fact that the organisation and delivery of health
services and medical care is the Member States’ responsibility and that therefore the Council
is not
competent to comment on measures undertaken by individual Member States on this matter.